4 ms·

I just can't agree with this conclusion. Microsoft has taken some great steps since Nadella took over. Doing more projects aimed at regular developers and taki

by ebbv 10y ago

I just can't agree with this conclusion. Microsoft has taken some great steps since Nadella took over. Doing more projects aimed at regular developers and taking baby steps towards open source, but that is not enough to be a leader. In fact, I think in 2016, we are in a much worse place when it comes to tech leadership than we were in the late 90s and early 00s. The tech world has been poisoned by money and everything is focused on maximizing profit. Almost nothing is being created because it's innovative or really life changing. The new products that are coming out like Google Home or Microsoft Office 365 which claim to be innovative, really aren't. They are repackaging an existing product in a new context. That's called marketing. That's not tech leadership. In the 90s we had the launch of Linux, the web and home internet access. In the 2000s all we've really had is smart phones. Everything else has just been building on what was done in the 90s because the people in charge are all marketers and profit seekers. Do something truly innovative with all your billions Microsoft, and then I will buy that you are a tech leader. No amount of press releases or fluff articles will convince me.

floopidydoopidy 10y ago
They're using their billions to buy advertisements like this 'article'.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "Do something truly innovative with all your billions Microsoft" What exactly are you looking for? Are devices like HoloLens and Kinect and Surface Studio not innovative enough for you? What would you class as 'truly innovative'?
- ebbv 10y ago
  No, they aren't. Kinect was using motion tracking and stereo vision technology that already existed. They just refined it and it was clearly a dead end. Also it was just a "me too" response to the success of the Wii. Surface studio is just a big touch screen. Nothing new. HoloLens is the most innovative but again this kind of AR has been around for a while, it's a refinement and I think it will just be a dead end like Kinect ultimately. Truly innovative means something that actually changes things. I think the list I gave in my comment makes that pretty obvious; the web, home broadband, Linux and smartphones. Those changed the world. The Surface Studio will not.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "the web" Okay, but that's sort of technological shift is rare. Nothing else in my lifetime has come close. >"home broadband" Just a refinement of the web. >"Linux" Linux is based on designs from the 70s, it was old before it was first released. >"smartphones" I hope you realise smartphones did not start with the iPhone. The smartphone has gone through a long period of iterative design improvements. If you're looking for a product that emerges out of a vacuum, you won't find it, all products build upon their predecessors, even the web (which made use of existing telecommunications infrastructure and existing work in the field of computing). What you will find are new forms that build upon the past. For example, quantum computing is a relatively new field, but has roots in the existing fields of computer science, physics and electrical engineering. Would quantum computing count as 'truly innovative' to you? If so... https://stationq.microsoft.com/ https://stationq.microsoft.com/
    - ebbv 10y ago
      > >"home broadband" > Just a refinement of the web. What? Not remotely. It enables the web but the underlying technologies are totally different. Home broadband also enabled a lot of other things. Your statement makes me think you don't actually understand technology at all. > Linux is based on designs from the 70s, it was old before it was first released. Again you're failing to understand what was revolutionary here. GNU had been around for quite a while. It's Linux that was revolutionary. It's a kernel that worked well and that people could contribute to and package up with GNU to enable operating systems of very high quality. > I hope you realise smartphones did not start with the iPhone. The smartphone has gone through a long period of iterative design improvements. Aye carumba. What were called smartphones before the iPhone were awful. WinCE was a disaster, and Blackberries were a niche tool for a niche market. iOS and Android devices made computing usable on a mobile platform by everyone for the first time. Of course everything builds on the past, all of these things are based on integrated chips and transistors and on and on. But some technologies are actually revolutionary (like the ones just listed) and others are not (Kinect.) This is obvious by the impact or the lack of impact that they have. You are not fun to talk to because you are missing very obvious things, and I think you're doing it deliberately, so I'm done with you.

by ebbv 10y ago

floopidydoopidy 10y ago

They're using their billions to buy advertisements like this 'article'.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

> "Do something truly innovative with all your billions Microsoft" What exactly are you looking for? Are devices like HoloLens and Kinect and Surface Studio not innovative enough for you? What would you class as 'truly innovative'?

ebbv 10y ago
No, they aren't. Kinect was using motion tracking and stereo vision technology that already existed. They just refined it and it was clearly a dead end. Also it was just a "me too" response to the success of the Wii. Surface studio is just a big touch screen. Nothing new. HoloLens is the most innovative but again this kind of AR has been around for a while, it's a refinement and I think it will just be a dead end like Kinect ultimately. Truly innovative means something that actually changes things. I think the list I gave in my comment makes that pretty obvious; the web, home broadband, Linux and smartphones. Those changed the world. The Surface Studio will not.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "the web" Okay, but that's sort of technological shift is rare. Nothing else in my lifetime has come close. >"home broadband" Just a refinement of the web. >"Linux" Linux is based on designs from the 70s, it was old before it was first released. >"smartphones" I hope you realise smartphones did not start with the iPhone. The smartphone has gone through a long period of iterative design improvements. If you're looking for a product that emerges out of a vacuum, you won't find it, all products build upon their predecessors, even the web (which made use of existing telecommunications infrastructure and existing work in the field of computing). What you will find are new forms that build upon the past. For example, quantum computing is a relatively new field, but has roots in the existing fields of computer science, physics and electrical engineering. Would quantum computing count as 'truly innovative' to you? If so... https://stationq.microsoft.com/ https://stationq.microsoft.com/
  - ebbv 10y ago
    > >"home broadband" > Just a refinement of the web. What? Not remotely. It enables the web but the underlying technologies are totally different. Home broadband also enabled a lot of other things. Your statement makes me think you don't actually understand technology at all. > Linux is based on designs from the 70s, it was old before it was first released. Again you're failing to understand what was revolutionary here. GNU had been around for quite a while. It's Linux that was revolutionary. It's a kernel that worked well and that people could contribute to and package up with GNU to enable operating systems of very high quality. > I hope you realise smartphones did not start with the iPhone. The smartphone has gone through a long period of iterative design improvements. Aye carumba. What were called smartphones before the iPhone were awful. WinCE was a disaster, and Blackberries were a niche tool for a niche market. iOS and Android devices made computing usable on a mobile platform by everyone for the first time. Of course everything builds on the past, all of these things are based on integrated chips and transistors and on and on. But some technologies are actually revolutionary (like the ones just listed) and others are not (Kinect.) This is obvious by the impact or the lack of impact that they have. You are not fun to talk to because you are missing very obvious things, and I think you're doing it deliberately, so I'm done with you.