[dsfyu404ed]

Why do research when you can spend the same amount of money just buying small companies that have researched and innovated?

I'm honestly asking. It doesn't seem like there's any substantial pros to doing the research in-house for a big company like 3m. A top down directive to make use of $new_acquisition's tech every now and then seems easier than fostering a culture of innovation at all times.

[_nedR]

I am no expert, but one reason could be that there are certain avenues of research could only be viable for a company with large resources and funding not to mention patience (An example is pharma companies that spends billions and a decade developing a new drug).

[pgwhalen]

It’s funny that you say that about pharmas - I’m not terribly informed but I’ve sure read a lot recently about big pharma following that model quite a lot actually.

[petra]

Some types of research do fit startups.

But what about the more expensive, longer term research ? Isn't there value in that ?

[cosmie]

A lot of that expensive, longer term research happens at public institutions via public funds. Which then gets commercialized by the university or by a spinoff company from the researchers.

Giving the benefit of expensive, longer term research but in a convenient form where the actual R&D was publicly funded, rather than internal.