Re:Research at Google
by selmnoo on Monday November 11, 2013 @01:38AM
(#6710287)
> Neither does Nike, Samsung, Coke, BMW etc. Apple is a product company.
Apple is more in line with Microsoft (what with the operating systems and all) than your other examples. Apple should be duly faulted for their closed nature ways in this context.
Re:Research at Google
by ekianjo on Monday November 11, 2013 @01:42AM
(#6710301)
Apple is mainly a software company (outsourcing manufacturing to other partners, while they do the design internally). So I don't really see why they shouldn't share anything about their software/engineering work just like the other companies.
Re:Research at Google
by gwu78 on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:38PM
(#6714239)
Does Apple's view of Apple matter more than an objective view of Apple?
The Apple Store sure sells a lot of hardware - proprietary hardware, no less - for a "software" company.
How much software in the App Store is written by Apple?
A "software" company that writes software that only runs on its own proprietary, tamper-resistant hardware?
A "software" company that sues competitors not on software copyright infringement but on hardware design patent infringement?
Apple might view itself as a software company, but I am quite certain they are still a hardware company. If they were to only sell software and stop selling hardware, then I believe their business would fail.
Re:Research at Google
by zdw on Monday November 11, 2013 @02:13AM
(#6710396)
Apple provides developers for quite a few projects like LLVM, webkit, and the like. Their OS level projects end up here: http://www.macosforge.org
They just don't have generic "research" divisions like the other companies. This is one (of many) result of Steve Jobs return - anything that wasn't product focused got canned.
Re:Research at Google
by jmduke on Monday November 11, 2013 @01:27AM
(#6710265)
Even if it's not entirely altruistic, I'm glad Big Tech has recognized the tremendous value proposition of dedicating resources to pure unabated research. It's a cliche example, but the work of Xerox PARC will outlive the work of Xerox; and if the best way to conjure meaningful research is to throw money at the geniuses, then sign me and my pitching arm up.
(Note: I don't mean this as a criticism of Google, Microsoft, or Facebook -- as a company committing themselves and publishing research is unequivocally better than one which doesn't.)
Re:Research at Google
by axaxs on Monday November 11, 2013 @01:33AM
(#6710273)
Absolutely agree. As "evil" as ATT is now, and obviously not the same company, think about Bell Labs. I honestly don't know howmuch Bell gained from it, but its existence has had a huge impact in various fields. Its works will long outlive the company.
Re:Research at Google
by samworm on Monday November 11, 2013 @06:18AM
(#6711036)
Because when an area of a business is reported in a positive light the supporters of other business with similar activities all want to shout "me too". Such is life.
Note, there is no Research-Publications at Apple. They do their research secretly and silently.
The above are as well but they also deal a lot with raw engineering problems which lend well to being shared and communicated with others.
Apple is more in line with Microsoft (what with the operating systems and all) than your other examples. Apple should be duly faulted for their closed nature ways in this context.
Steve Jobs: "Apple views itself as a software company"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEeyaAUCyZs
The Apple Store sure sells a lot of hardware - proprietary hardware, no less - for a "software" company.
How much software in the App Store is written by Apple?
A "software" company that writes software that only runs on its own proprietary, tamper-resistant hardware?
A "software" company that sues competitors not on software copyright infringement but on hardware design patent infringement?
Apple might view itself as a software company, but I am quite certain they are still a hardware company. If they were to only sell software and stop selling hardware, then I believe their business would fail.
They just don't have generic "research" divisions like the other companies. This is one (of many) result of Steve Jobs return - anything that wasn't product focused got canned.
(Note: I don't mean this as a criticism of Google, Microsoft, or Facebook -- as a company committing themselves and publishing research is unequivocally better than one which doesn't.)
You have to stare at terminals like we do now. [=