3 ms·

"Microsoft has a habit of not using its research for anything commercial" Really? Looking at Wikipedia [1], I see at least 10 projects that have evolved into s

"Microsoft has a habit of not using its research for anything commercial" Really? Looking at Wikipedia [1], I see at least 10 projects that have evolved into successful commercial endeavors. The most notable of which are in programming languages and graphics. I also know of at least a few hush, hush projects which are currently evolving into commercial products or features. Once again, I feel compelled to defend my slightly misguided employer. We try hard, we produce some great software and some crap software. The web only wants to remember the crap, but that's probably because you probably aren't a target customer for any of the great stuff. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Research#Research_projects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Research#Research_pro...

pclark 18y ago
> The web only wants to remember the crap, but that's probably because you probably aren't a target customer for any of the great stuff yeah, its our fault.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
rm999 18y ago
I do remember the good stuff MSR has done, but does it justify the cost? Microsoft has probably spent about half its current market capitalization on MSR (very rough estimate based on its budget for the last few years: 7-8 billion, and the fact that it has existed for 18 years. I think it's safe to assume that they have spent >75 billion on research since MSR's conception.) Even if half of this is justified (a generous estimate), Microsoft has lost a quarter of its value to useless research! This is not the norm at most companies. Normally, I think research is a great thing (I did research in grad school), but not the way MSR does. They take some of the brightest minds in the industry and have them work on "products" that never see the light of day, and then patent their papers. Microsoft engineers do most of the revenue generating work. C# could have been created outside of MSR.
- snprbob86 18y ago
  "I do remember the good stuff MSR has done, but does it justify the cost?" Good question -- I don't know. "Microsoft has probably spent about half its current market capitalization on MSR" Whoa! Way off! My understanding is that normal software product develop counts as R&D for tax purposes.
  - rm999 18y ago
    "My understanding is that normal software product develop counts as R&D for tax purposes." Ah, that would explain a lot... I guess that's the D in R&D ;)

pclark 18y ago

> The web only wants to remember the crap, but that's probably because you probably aren't a target customer for any of the great stuff yeah, its our fault.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

rm999 18y ago

I do remember the good stuff MSR has done, but does it justify the cost? Microsoft has probably spent about half its current market capitalization on MSR (very rough estimate based on its budget for the last few years: 7-8 billion, and the fact that it has existed for 18 years. I think it's safe to assume that they have spent >75 billion on research since MSR's conception.) Even if half of this is justified (a generous estimate), Microsoft has lost a quarter of its value to useless research! This is not the norm at most companies. Normally, I think research is a great thing (I did research in grad school), but not the way MSR does. They take some of the brightest minds in the industry and have them work on "products" that never see the light of day, and then patent their papers. Microsoft engineers do most of the revenue generating work. C# could have been created outside of MSR.

snprbob86 18y ago
"I do remember the good stuff MSR has done, but does it justify the cost?" Good question -- I don't know. "Microsoft has probably spent about half its current market capitalization on MSR" Whoa! Way off! My understanding is that normal software product develop counts as R&D for tax purposes.
- rm999 18y ago
  "My understanding is that normal software product develop counts as R&D for tax purposes." Ah, that would explain a lot... I guess that's the D in R&D ;)