3 ms·
Scroble gave some insight into why this is the case. MS is a bunch of different businesses (Windows, Office, etc). all operating at arms length (more or less).
by wisty 16y ago
Scroble gave some insight into why this is the case.
MS is a bunch of different businesses (Windows, Office, etc). all operating at arms length (more or less). With that sort of structure, there's no room for revolutionary products, just incremental improvements on the existing business lines.
OK, there's great research being done on the monopoly products. Monopolies always do great research. But the company is not going to throw its weight behind new product lines.
IIRC, Apple is a lot more mobile, internally. It's nowhere near as polished as Microsoft (yeah, OSX looks better, but that's just a matter of aesthetic taste - something Apple has and MS doesn't), but it's much better at wild innovation.
- bigfudge 16y agoI'm not sure what polished means, in this context. Do you mean that there aren't entrenched vested interests within the firm, or that people are asked/enjoy being flexible and moving around the product line?
- wisty 16y agoI meant their products. Apple has security flaws, a lack of backward compatibility, slow drivers, and so on. People in the know seem to say that Microsoft is streets ahead on engineering. But Apple picks their battles better, so their products always look solid. I'm not in the know, but people say Apple is a lot more like a start-up. People will be yanked from one part of the company to another, to try and get new products off the ground. Resources get allocated by strategic goals (and executive whim), not left in productive (but possibly stale) areas.