"Why doesn't it bode well?"

For investors, i meant.

" The transistor, the laser, Unix, information theory, and a giant number of other things which form the underpinnings of modern technology came out of Bell Labs, which is the epitome of a place with a large research budget and no specific "next thing to monetize" that the spending was directed towards."

That was research for research's sake. It was, explicitly, not directed at ever making money, but instead, advancing the state of the art. I don't think any of the companies mentioned, or Apple, are doing it for that reason, and for them it does not bode well, because they are hoping to make money.

I could also point out that Bell Labs made any money at all through licensing those inventions. That is also not Apple's business model :)

> "That was research for research's sake. It was, explicitly, not directed at ever making money, but instead, advancing the state of the art."

Advancing the state of the art can lead to making more money, the research results can be monetised, whether they are or not all depends on the intent of those leading the particular institution.

This is a naive way to see things. Creating products and advancing technology are two different things and very often the one do not lead to the other. To create that business model based on technologies breakthroughs you need to have "the dare to fail" mindset and be willing to launch multiple fails before succeeding with one product, that's not Apple way of doing things there business model and reputation is based on creating "perfect" products well integrated which oppose to the technology edge and try and fail way of doing things

If the Apple pattern holds then they will be 3rd or 4th to the mainstream electric car market but it will be marketed as "above and beyond" all products that we have seen to that point.

It's not naive, you just can't predict the ROI.

What I was calling naive is the fact of seeing innovation and creating products as the same thing, it's not.

In that case, you misread what I said. I stated it was possible to monetise the research results. In other words, you can take what you find in the lab and find ways to sell this knowledge. It doesn't matter whether that's through licensing or physical products.

I fully understood what you said, but my point is that usually apple take a known idea or product and try to integrate it in a product with a new level of usability and some new original features but they never create new product based on a complete new technology in a new market. The innovation in Apple had been always incremental in opposition to the example you gave (Bell Lab) and I don't see them changing that.

Apple will probably try to get into car market but in an incremental way, probably by teaming up with some car constructor and doing some part of the car (AI, media...). it make much sense then waking up one morning and revealing a brand new car in a brand new market for them and try to sell it (with all the costs and the risks it comes with).

> "in opposition to the example you gave (Bell Lab)"

I never mentioned Bell Labs once.

As for Apple's record on innovation, I would argue that the Newton could be seen as an innovative product that was a pioneer in its field. Furthermore, most innovation is a refinement on what has come before, that is not a mark of failure for an R&D department.