Yes? That doesn't mean they can't spend billions on R&D. If Apple didn't sell iPods like hotcakes, they wouldn't be able to R&D the iPhone. That doesn't mean nobody at Apple had long-term vision, quite the opposite.
How can business leaders and shareholders spend money on long term R&D and still be accused of focusing on the short term and next quarter? If they were focusing on making the next few quarters look good, they would reduce expenses, which include R&D, and make profits higher for the next few quarters.
>If Apple didn't sell iPods like hotcakes, they wouldn't be able to R&D the iPhone. That doesn't mean nobody at Apple had long-term vision, quite the opposite.
I can’t parse these statements. Are you or are you not claiming businesses like Apple and Micron shareholders are focused on the short term?
>If I can sell my things at a higher volume for longer vs higher price and less volume now, I'll go with the first, but not shareholders focused on quarterly numbers.
What if a business is maxed out on production capacity? What if a business can sell things for a higher price now, and sell things at a lower price later?
Because these two groups are not the same? My argument is, if a company overperforms to the point that some of the profits can be allocated to longer-term development without upsetting shareholders because the QbyQ profits are great, (like Apple did with the iPod), but if you can either only increase quarterly profits and not do long-term R&D or keep profits the same but do the R&D then no R&D it is.
In other words, Apple had to start with the iPod because that didn't require massive long-term R&D and then once that became such a success that Apple could not only satisfy shareholders on a short term basis, but also set money aside for long-term R&D was the iPhone possible.