6 ms·

As someone who's worked at MSFT himself, the author certainly knows what he's talking about. However, there's a couple of factors one must reflect on: 1. It's

As someone who's worked at MSFT himself, the author certainly knows what he's talking about. However, there's a couple of factors one must reflect on: 1. It's a HUGE company (80k employees?). When you get to that size, it's hard to ensure all great ideas get to market. For a very long time in its history, the company was guided by a dominating spirit (computers on every desk) and a similar leader (Bill Gates). With both outmoded now, it's easy for business-groups to take local decisions, rather than follow the war-plan. 2. BUT, they've made HUGE investments in the future. Consider Microsoft Research. MSFT isn't going to be IBM anytime soon (huge company, but better known for sales folks than tech enterprise). Though they'll possibly not be as sexy as Apple, they'll definitely have the tech/IP if/when they want to utilize it.

mrduncan 17y ago
I think you hit on their biggest problem now. They have (mostly) succeeded in their original goal to get a computer on every desk. What's next though? It seems to me that they need a new grand plan for the company as a whole.
- drats 17y ago
  Exactly right, and now a company like Google which makes almost all of its money off advertising can have a driving mantra like "to organize all the world's information" and utilize that network. Furthermore, Google can pump money into open source and new devices to bring people online - things that make the web more important to people's lives - and it will benefit their core business. Most of the world's population isn't even online, Google could even make a case to buy out ARM and licence it for free to other companies (inter-licencing with other processor companies might be difficult) just to expand the market to nearer to its full potential (6 billion and rising). Whereas Microsoft faces having to sell software products to different markets, like games and movies do, which basically means price-fixing and changing the product (be that through crippled "lite" versions of Windows for the developing world, or the price-fixing that is involved in region-encoded DVDs and regional sales of games).
- endtime 17y ago
  Their current mission statement is a bunch of crap, something like "Enabling businesses to reach their full potential". But the other mission statement-y phrase that gets thrown around a lot is having an integrated experience between "three screens and the cloud". The three screens being TV (Xbox), computer, and cell phone. That gives a little direction, but as much as I'd like to see them be competitive in mobile, I'm not optimistic.
  - mckilljoy 17y ago
    Based on their latest presentation at CES, they have even lost that tiny sense of direction. Now the strategy has become "Many screens and a cloud" to encompass netbooks, tablets, etc. that weren't easily anticipated a year or two ago. Maybe I'm cynical, but I feel like a long-term mission statement shouldn't be changing every 12 months.
  - brg 17y ago
    They really should go back to "Information at your fingertips."
- ashishbharthi 17y ago
  I fully agree with you. For past few years they are all over the place. From digital homes, car entertainment they are pursuing everything. And now retail stores. They are forgetting the fect that they still have not delivered an OS that will replace XP in corporations.
  - raintrees 17y ago
    I am not so sure about that. Win 7 is so far, as good as or better than XP. I am now blessing it for my business clients. New machines, granted. But that, unfortunately, is de rigueur in this industry.
AndrewO 17y ago
I agree with both points. In addition, from the sound of the article, it seems like the biggest problem with having 80k employees is the jealousy and feudalism at the management level when it comes to actually implementing the great ideas across multiple teams—the ClearType and Tablet PC incidents being examples of this.
- sethg 17y ago
  Is the problem “jealousy and feudalism” in general, or is the problem efforts by the leaders of the Windows and Office units to preserve their turf in particular?
jacobolus 17y ago
I don’t think your example in (2) is particularly effective. At least through 2000 or so, IBM spent more on R&D than just about anyone, Microsoft included. Others now spend comparable amounts, but IBM still got the most patents of any company last year: and they have for 17 years straight. Big R&D budgets, with lots of interesting advanced research, DARPA grants, etc. etc. can certainly be helpful, but they don’t save a company that lacks a broader product strategy.
- kulkarnic 17y ago
  I'm somewhat familiar with the research models afforded by both companies, and have a slightly different view. Research at IBM is mostly product-group driven. Microsoft affords more flexibility- allowing more academic research, for example. This puts them farther into the future, IMO, than solving immediate product research needs. What I meant by investment above is more than monetary- it takes a lot to get a good research team going. I agree that nothing can save a company with shut eyes. A strong research group is a way to keep them open.
  - lispm 17y ago
    for me it looks like Microsoft is doing a lot of research into the equivalent of 'Fusion' (always fifty years away) - which is not of much benefit for their current customers...
  - jacobolus 17y ago
    That may be true of IBM today, but I’m not so sure it’s true of IBM 15 or 20 years ago, which is, I think, what you were trying to make your point about, above. For decades, IBM made more than half of all the CPUs in the world, and really had by a considerable margin the most R&D of any tech company, including all kinds of extremely forward-looking “basic research” type stuff. More recently, they’ve switched to a much more services/consulting “solve particular companies’ problems one at a time” type approach, and correspondingly sold off their PC business, among other consumer-oriented parts of the company, and ditched a lot of the most pure academic research. But that’s only been after they stopped being the dominant computer maker. Anyway, I think you could possibly be right; I just think you need a better example than IBM. :-)
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
joshu 17y ago
I got an offer from MSR a while back. I remember asking, "so... how do you guys ship?" and they actually thought this was funny, laughing and laughing. "That's so cute!" Because for them, it was an impossibility.
- wayne 17y ago
  Why would you expect a research lab to ship a product? Seems like you were interviewing with the wrong group.
  - wmf 17y ago
    A research lab shouldn't directly ship products, but there should be a path from research to productization. MSR seems to mostly lack this path.
    - likpok 17y ago
      It depends on the group. When I interviewed there recently, one of my interviewers was there in exactly this capacity (taking research into products).
- mwerty 17y ago
  It's also a non-goal. I used to work there. It was hard to see stuff ship since researchers seemed incentivized on some value of 'prominence' (research community and MS-internal). Even in the cases where they productize it - the Program Manager on the product team is not going to get a bonus by taking on some new project in MSR in addition to the commitments filed last year. So researchers get on just fine without slaying dragons to ship. More cool papers to publish anyway.
ern 17y ago
A true story: a CS professor promotes Java widely and even writes undergraduate textbooks on Java. Goes off on sabatical with Microsoft Research, and becomes a .NET evangelist. Stops writing Java books and starts writing .NET books. Is there a quid quo pro? Probably not. But it does illustrate another purpose for Microsoft having a research organisation: winning over academics, and, by proxy, their students.

mrduncan 17y ago

I think you hit on their biggest problem now. They have (mostly) succeeded in their original goal to get a computer on every desk. What's next though? It seems to me that they need a new grand plan for the company as a whole.

drats 17y ago
Exactly right, and now a company like Google which makes almost all of its money off advertising can have a driving mantra like "to organize all the world's information" and utilize that network. Furthermore, Google can pump money into open source and new devices to bring people online - things that make the web more important to people's lives - and it will benefit their core business. Most of the world's population isn't even online, Google could even make a case to buy out ARM and licence it for free to other companies (inter-licencing with other processor companies might be difficult) just to expand the market to nearer to its full potential (6 billion and rising). Whereas Microsoft faces having to sell software products to different markets, like games and movies do, which basically means price-fixing and changing the product (be that through crippled "lite" versions of Windows for the developing world, or the price-fixing that is involved in region-encoded DVDs and regional sales of games).
endtime 17y ago
Their current mission statement is a bunch of crap, something like "Enabling businesses to reach their full potential". But the other mission statement-y phrase that gets thrown around a lot is having an integrated experience between "three screens and the cloud". The three screens being TV (Xbox), computer, and cell phone. That gives a little direction, but as much as I'd like to see them be competitive in mobile, I'm not optimistic.
- mckilljoy 17y ago
  Based on their latest presentation at CES, they have even lost that tiny sense of direction. Now the strategy has become "Many screens and a cloud" to encompass netbooks, tablets, etc. that weren't easily anticipated a year or two ago. Maybe I'm cynical, but I feel like a long-term mission statement shouldn't be changing every 12 months.
- brg 17y ago
  They really should go back to "Information at your fingertips."
ashishbharthi 17y ago
I fully agree with you. For past few years they are all over the place. From digital homes, car entertainment they are pursuing everything. And now retail stores. They are forgetting the fect that they still have not delivered an OS that will replace XP in corporations.
- raintrees 17y ago
  I am not so sure about that. Win 7 is so far, as good as or better than XP. I am now blessing it for my business clients. New machines, granted. But that, unfortunately, is de rigueur in this industry.

AndrewO 17y ago

I agree with both points. In addition, from the sound of the article, it seems like the biggest problem with having 80k employees is the jealousy and feudalism at the management level when it comes to actually implementing the great ideas across multiple teams—the ClearType and Tablet PC incidents being examples of this.

sethg 17y ago
Is the problem “jealousy and feudalism” in general, or is the problem efforts by the leaders of the Windows and Office units to preserve their turf in particular?

jacobolus 17y ago

I don’t think your example in (2) is particularly effective. At least through 2000 or so, IBM spent more on R&D than just about anyone, Microsoft included. Others now spend comparable amounts, but IBM still got the most patents of any company last year: and they have for 17 years straight. Big R&D budgets, with lots of interesting advanced research, DARPA grants, etc. etc. can certainly be helpful, but they don’t save a company that lacks a broader product strategy.

kulkarnic 17y ago
I'm somewhat familiar with the research models afforded by both companies, and have a slightly different view. Research at IBM is mostly product-group driven. Microsoft affords more flexibility- allowing more academic research, for example. This puts them farther into the future, IMO, than solving immediate product research needs. What I meant by investment above is more than monetary- it takes a lot to get a good research team going. I agree that nothing can save a company with shut eyes. A strong research group is a way to keep them open.
- lispm 17y ago
  for me it looks like Microsoft is doing a lot of research into the equivalent of 'Fusion' (always fifty years away) - which is not of much benefit for their current customers...
- jacobolus 17y ago
  That may be true of IBM today, but I’m not so sure it’s true of IBM 15 or 20 years ago, which is, I think, what you were trying to make your point about, above. For decades, IBM made more than half of all the CPUs in the world, and really had by a considerable margin the most R&D of any tech company, including all kinds of extremely forward-looking “basic research” type stuff. More recently, they’ve switched to a much more services/consulting “solve particular companies’ problems one at a time” type approach, and correspondingly sold off their PC business, among other consumer-oriented parts of the company, and ditched a lot of the most pure academic research. But that’s only been after they stopped being the dominant computer maker. Anyway, I think you could possibly be right; I just think you need a better example than IBM. :-)

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

joshu 17y ago

I got an offer from MSR a while back. I remember asking, "so... how do you guys ship?" and they actually thought this was funny, laughing and laughing. "That's so cute!" Because for them, it was an impossibility.

wayne 17y ago
Why would you expect a research lab to ship a product? Seems like you were interviewing with the wrong group.
- wmf 17y ago
  A research lab shouldn't directly ship products, but there should be a path from research to productization. MSR seems to mostly lack this path.
  - likpok 17y ago
    It depends on the group. When I interviewed there recently, one of my interviewers was there in exactly this capacity (taking research into products).
mwerty 17y ago
It's also a non-goal. I used to work there. It was hard to see stuff ship since researchers seemed incentivized on some value of 'prominence' (research community and MS-internal). Even in the cases where they productize it - the Program Manager on the product team is not going to get a bonus by taking on some new project in MSR in addition to the commitments filed last year. So researchers get on just fine without slaying dragons to ship. More cool papers to publish anyway.

ern 17y ago

A true story: a CS professor promotes Java widely and even writes undergraduate textbooks on Java. Goes off on sabatical with Microsoft Research, and becomes a .NET evangelist. Stops writing Java books and starts writing .NET books. Is there a quid quo pro? Probably not. But it does illustrate another purpose for Microsoft having a research organisation: winning over academics, and, by proxy, their students.