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.
