[cromwellian]

All of the startups you're talking about are sitting on the shoulders of much longer term R&D that was funded by corporate labs or government/academic R&D.

When was the last time a small startup produced a huge breakthrough in physics or manufacturing that did not build off of research funded by the public or big consortiums, corporate labs, or universities?

I don't care if Bell Labs didn't cash out, just like I don't care if NASA, DARPA, or Sandia Labs makes a profit. Quantum Theorists need work too, and Y-Combinator isn't going to fund them.

[blah32497]

"I don't care if Bell Labs didn't cash out"

Yeah, well that's nice that you don't care - but Apple's shareholders do. The point is that this kind of R&D doesn't pay-off. Companies have tried it in the past and it didn't work.

If you want R&D then I completely sympathize, but you'll have to go get your government to fund it - don't expect Apple do it as a charitable donation to society.

PS: Examples like Leap Motion come to mind.

[cromwellian]

That's an unsupportable blanket claim. Such research approaches have paid off in the past. Take IBM:

Invented: * DES * Hard Disks * DRAM * RISC * Relational Database * Laser Eye Surgery * Barcodes * PC

Apple shareholders apparently care, because the company is currently being valued as if there are no more disruptive breakthroughs that will produce significant growth in its bottom line.

Also, to say Bell Labs didn't cash out is to be charitable. Ma Bell dominated for decades before the government broke them up. Did they fail because of failure to cash out on inventions, or because Bell Labs was split off from the parent company that was funding them.

Also, if you suggest the government fund it, then maybe the government tax Apple's cash, I wonder how their shareholders will like that?