Update: On Monday Apple number cruncher extraordinaire Horace Dediu at Asymco put together some charts showing how Apple’s R&D spending trends. While Apple spent $758 million on R&D during the first fiscal quarter of 2012, it’s a very tiny sliver of the company’s overall sales, which were $46.3 billion. What’s most interesting to me is how Apple’s R&D spending as a percentage of overall sales ranks among the industry heavyweights. While $758 million is a lot of money, it’s lags behind the $2.3 billion Microsoft spent on research and development during the same quarter, and Google’s $1.3 billion.

Here’s a chart showing how Apple ranks among its tech industry peers:

Credit: Asymco

Apple sits right below Hewlett-Packard and just above Dell — two companies that haven’t produced anything truly interesting in the consumer realm in years. And it is far below the often innovation-challenged behemoths Microsoft, Nokia, RIM and others.

The takeaway is this: Bloated bureaucracies spend a lot of money on innovation and occasionally make something new and interesting. Steve Jobs’ insistence on maintaining a startup mentality within Apple (even with 30,000+ corporate employees) and the company’s ability to only focus on a few things at a time mean Apple can spend less and get much more for its investment.

Thumbnail image courtesy of Flickr user kenteegardin

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Case for Increased M&A in 2011: Actions and Outlooks
• In Q3, E-books and White Spaces Ruled
• Report: The Future of Netbooks!

The recognition tech was presumably acquired through Apple’s 2010 purchase of Polar Rose, a company that specialized in face detection algorithms. 9t05Mac found iOS 5 APIs that use the tech, which means they should provide an easy way for developers to implement facial recognition for various purposes in their own apps, quickly and easily.

The unearthed APIs are described as “highly sophisticated,” and can determine where a user’s mouth, and left and right eyes are located, as well as process images taken by the iPhone for face detection. Aside from providing Apple an easy way to introduce Faces (which recognizes specific people in iPhoto) to both its own Photos app and any third-party apps that access that library, it should also open the door for much more advanced facial recognition applications.

You could create apps that track a user’s eye movement and dynamically change content accordingly, for instance. App developers might even be able to use data gathered from facial recognition APIs to identify so-called “hotspots,” providing insight about where a user is looking most within an app and arranging content accordingly. In time, an iPhone app might even be able to assess the emotional state of the user, based on whether they’re frowning or smiling, and address the user in a manner appropriate to their mood. It might also be able to tell how engaged users are with mobile ads and content, which might be useful for iAd customers, among others.

Apple could also use the tech to implement something many have been asking for on iOS device in a unique way: user account switching. Currently, iOS devices don’t have user accounts the way a Mac does. On the iPad especially, which is a shared device for many, it makes sense to offer multiple accounts that offer different levels of access to different sets of content. Facial recognition could intelligently and automatically switch iOS user profiles, setting restrictions if a child picks up a device, and changing the app load-out and home screen arrangement for different family members.

But before all that, which is admittedly something still likely quite a way off in terms of the development of iOS, we should see implementations that improve Apple’s existing video products. So features like FaceTime, for instance, could get the ability to judge which person deserves focus during a group video chat (which is also likely in the works). A similar system has been described as one of the possible motivations behind Google’s recent acquisition of facial recognition company PittPatt, for use with Google+ Hangouts.

Whatever else it leads to, facial recognition should provide developers with the opportunity to create some impressive new apps, so long as they keep in mind what Facebook learned the hard way: People don’t like it when you implement recognition without asking nicely first.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes
• The Future of Workplaces
• The Future of TV Can Bet on “Apps Everywhere”

Thinking others might be feeling the same way I quickly threw together this Google Quick Search Box plug-in (ZIP, 742kb) that will let you send searches to reference sources for HTML, CSS, JQuery, PHP, MySQL, Python, and WordPress. You can start the query by entering text directly into QSB or by selecting text within Espresso itself, or any other application for that matter.

It seems like a simple feature hardly worth mentioning but I’ve found that having the option to quickly check up on the details of a particular function, element, declaration, etc. is an essential part of the way I work. In Coda you can add your own reference books directly into the application associating each one with a particular code type, e.g. php, css, javascript.

While in the code editor you can then select some text and choose “Look Up in Reference Books” from the contextual menu which will execute a search at the associated reference source using the text as the query. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks to this approach is that you can’t quickly send queries to more than one source for a given code type. Nevertheless, over time I’ve really become dependent on being able to run these quick lookups.

I figured the best way to close this gap in Espresso was by building a QSB plug-in. To install the plug-in just add the codex.hgs file into your ~/Library/Application Support/Google/Quick Search Box/PlugIns directory. Once installed you will need to restart QSB in order to access the new actions.

Once you have everything working, just add any text into QSB (don’t forget to prepend with a space) press “tab” to pivot to an action and select a codex to search. Typing “codex” will bring up all available sources or you can just type the name of a specific source, e.g. WordPress, JQuery, and so on. Once you have selected the codex to be searched, press return to send the query. Alternatively, you can also start by sending text to QSB from within Espresso, or whatever other editor you’re using, by selecting the appropriate bit of code and choosing “Send to Quick Search Box” from the services menu.

With the theory that a picture is worth a thousand words I recorded this quick video demonstrating the plug-in in action.

Now that I have quick access to all my reference books I think I’ll be switching over to Espresso full-time. I’d be interested in hearing if anyone else has recently made the switch to Espresso and if so what they’ve been missing the most.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Copenhagen Boosts Tech Companies’ Green Plans
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era

Now that recent rumors of a $99 iPhone seem to have been settled — Wal-Mart will sell the 8GB model for $197 — we can get back to the broader discussion of just what an eventual $99 iPhone could mean to Apple.

I believe the answer to the question depends on just what a $99 iPhone is. Prior to the latest rumors, it was usually discussed as some sort of “iPhone nano.” Maybe a flip phone, and generally acknowledged to be much more limited than the current iPhone. I’m sure these rumors will creep up again soon. 

An iPhone nano

I think an iPhone nano is a bad idea:

• Would it have touch? Surely there is some point at which the smaller screen this device demands would render the iPhone interface useless. 
• Even if it has touch, it’d be limited. The buttons may be similar for taking and answering calls, but most of the iPhone interface just wouldn’t work well.
• Will a smaller phone like this have the thermal envelope necessary for a processor required to run Mobile OS X adequately? If not, then it either has no touch, or something very different than the current iPhone, and this difference is my biggest problem with it. 
• There’s not a lot of profit in these things. The analysts are all about market share, blithely ignoring the market share lessons Apple has taught them the last 20+ years. Apple doesn’t need huge market share figures to have an extremely successful, profitable, and growing business. Apple refused to build the low-ball $700 laptop everyone wanted, and now people expect them to do the same with phones? 

A phone of this type might have better than average build quality, and maybe some touch or unique features, but it would really be little more than Apple’s Razr. 

The biggest problem with an iPhone nano is that, while the iPhone is a platform, the iPhone nano is not. That is primarily why Apple shouldn’t go there. All the marketing and buzz about the App Store, the full internet, etc., fade into the background when Apple has to start footnoting everything to exclude the baby of the family. 

I think the confusion in different iPhone hardware models would hinder the app market. Many apps would not run on the nano. In my opinion, Apple should be very careful about fragmenting the “iPhone” name in terms of varying models with different app and feature capabilities. They should keep the platform in tact. 

Finally, I do believe Apple could do something “cool” with a smaller phone while keeping what’s great about the current iPhone. There is plenty of room for innovation there and I suspect Apple will provide it. But such a device would not be the low-cost phone analysts are screaming for right now.

Which brings us to the “other” $99 iPhone discussed in the latest rumors…

An existing iPhone 3G

The Wal-Mart rumors circle around not a new iPhone, but rather another model of the existing iPhone 3G. The original rumor was of a 4GB iPhone at the lower price, but my point isn’t about how much storage it has, but rather that a low-cost phone based on the existing design would be a good thing no matter how Apple pulls it off.

I’ve seen some comments that pan the idea; but I disagree with the arguments I’ve seen against it: 

• It cheapens the iPhone brand. How? Did the price reduction on the 8GB model over a year ago “cheapen” the brand? Does the 8GB model now “cheapen” the 16GB? Not at all, it opened it up to a wider audience, just as a $99 price will do.
• No one wants a “cheap” phone; remember the iPhone launch? Yes I do. When you’re spending $500 for a device it’s not a stretch to spend $100 more for additional memory. It was 20 percent more money for 100 percent more storage. The landscape has changed since then. The iPhone is already much more affordable (at least, it’s perceived that way), and to get in at $99 is a good thing. 
• Selling at [insert retailer here] ruins the Apple buying experience. As far as I’m concerned, unless you’re online or at an Apple Store there is no Apple buying experience (until you get it home). All the major chains that have ever sold Apple products couldn’t care less about them. They push the house brand more than anything else. I’m not sure how any retailer you choose could be any worse. This isn’t praise for other retailers so much as my opinion of your average electronics outlet may be lower than most. 

Meanwhile, I make these arguments for the device:

• With the $99 price point Apple reaches a different audience.
• Instead of abandoning the iPhone platform, it enhances it. This is big.
• These things still require $70+/month data plans. This new audience is one with money to spend, and likely to buy apps, accessories, etc., which is more than anyone should expect of an iPhone nano’s audience. 

Conclusion

Apple, I’m sure, has their own reasons for not going the $99 route at this time. They may not want another SKU in the iPhone lineup yet (possibly because of new devices they’re working on). It may be as simple as just waiting a bit longer and dropping the 8GB model’s price. Heck, for all I know AT&T is begging Apple not to put millions more users on their 3G network until they (AT&T) get their network fecal matter collected. 

Still, potential roadblocks aside, it seems to me if Apple wants to play the low-cost iPhone game, something that keeps the existing platform’s primary characteristics (no matter how they do it) is much more desirable than any “iPhone nano” they could produce. Leave the Razr market to Motorola, for all the good it’s doing them.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

Keen not to be left behind by Apple’s increasing repertoire of multi-touch interface control gestures, Microsoft recently previewed a new technology called “SideSight.” SideSight is not just Redmond’s version of Apple’s tech, though. In fact, Microsoft’s new offering is not touch tech at all. More like proximity tech.

Gearlog provides an overview of SideSight, based on a paper presented by Microsoft U.K. at the User Interface Software and Technology conference. The paper describes the new input tech in the context of touchscreen interaction, which it claims is unsuitable for small devices which, naturally, have smaller screens. It’s a good point. Even on the iPhone, my meaty digits occasionally obscure some important piece of information.

How does SideSight, ahem, sidestep the problem? By allowing users to interact not only with the device directly, but also with the surrounding space. Using outward facing optical sensors lining the device, movements made by a user on a surface beneath or in the air around it are detected and translated into control actions. Gearlog provided these examples of how this might work in practice:

Pages could be panned and scrolled by moving a hand up and down, and Microsoft also proved that text could be entered and edited on the main screen through a stylus while the other hand scrolled the page — a movement that would be akin to the motions a user’s hands would make if he or she were writing on a sheet of paper.

So should Apple be wary of Microsoft’s latest foray into hand-waving? A lot will depend on third-party support, and integration with Redmond’s own future products. While cell phones are clearly a target market for the tech, the report also cites PMPs and watches as candidates. While I can see the appeal of SideSight in things like eBook readers, I have a hard time picturing a lot of consumer interest in watches with gesture control. What do you need to do with your watch that would require you to flail your hands around like a magician about to pull a rabbit out of a hat? And does Apple even care about those markets? Probably not, since Steve Jobs doesn’t even seem interested in the netbook market, which is much closer to their core business.

That still leaves the possibility of home computing, especially when tech like Surface moves downstream into consumer markets, and with software support on the OS side with Windows 7 and upcoming versions of Windows Mobile. Which means a lot of orchestrating needs to happen between now and then, and as it stands, it’s still not clear how intuitive SideSight is or has the potential to be. Multi-touch works because people don’t have to think about learning it. Mastering a complex series of gestures performed in mid-air is a different story.

In the end, as with most of Microsoft’s innovations, the payoff won’t come until long after the announcement. Even then, it will probably be disappointing. Therein lies the major difference between the two companies’ innovation policies. Apple keeps things hush-hush and then wows you with little warning (though we try to spoil the surprise) while Microsoft tips its hand and under delivers. In its infancy, SideSight is a fairly interesting interface technology, and worth talking about, but just think of all the babies Apple isn’t showing off.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks
• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft
• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview

Enter ‘Live Disc’, Rogue Amoeba’s cool new innovation that [sort of] eliminates the possibility of delivering discs with out-of-date code. They give you the full story on their blog, but here’s the gist of it:

Live Disc presents a window much like a customized Finder window, with application icons that you can drag for copying or double-click for launching. The magic is, if a newer copy exists on our web server, it will copy or launch that version instead, seamlessly.

This a very cool idea – one I’d love to hear your take on if you pick one up at The Big Show in a couple weeks. The really neat part is that this solution was one that was conceived just to show off their real products! It’s not far-fetched that they could package this into an application of it’s own, and all as a byproduct of their main focus. Great work guys! It’s stuff like this that makes me excited to play on a Mac everyday.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft
• A 2011 Green IT Forecast