3 ms·

"The point here is that good R&D is a necessary but not sufficient component of innovation, the second is a willingness to productize your work" This is my big

"The point here is that good R&D is a necessary but not sufficient component of innovation, the second is a willingness to productize your work" This is my biggest beef with MS. They consistently wait for other companies to innovate, then wait to see if the market will support it. Only when they see an advantage to developing their own version of a product will they enter a market. You can look at their MP3 player the Zune, you can also look at how long it took them to get into the smartphone and tablet markets. I'm wondering if there are any concrete examples of them releasing a product which has utilized their arm of R&D for a specific product and pointed to it as a reason why it's available to the public. Similar to how Google always touts their R&D teams for developing a myriad of their products.

kapnobatairza 14y ago
I am not quite sure if I buy this argument. Microsoft certainly attempts to "productize", they simply fail on execution: When the iPod was still "only" an MP3 player, Microsoft was pushing video capable PMPs through their PMC software. Microsoft was betting on the tablet long before Apple. Windows CE based Wizard style PDAs predate the Apple Newton, and Pocket PC was largely successful and shows Microsoft have been trying to get a Mobile OS into your pocket for nearly 20 years. It was largely Palm and Microsoft that built out this space. The PocketPC iPaq even had a GSM jacket that allowed it to be used as a phone, making it a smartphone that predates even the earliest Ericsson/Nokia smartphones. Not to mention Windows Mobile which predates iOS and Android by many years. Microsoft has been working on WebTV, Media Center and Xbox to get into your living room long before AppleTV or Google TV. Microsoft has certainly attempted to productize on the ideas that come out of Microsoft Research and is almost always on the cutting edge of technology, and in many cases years ahead. The problem is that they don't have the same unified vision many other companies do, so when they execute they do so poorly: With incomplete products in an incoherent package. Microsoft's problem isn't that they aren't making enough products, it is that they are sometimes too big and disorganized to make them good enough that people can see the underlying value.
- vardump 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9000_Communicator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9000_Communicator 1996. Web browser, email, calendar and can run apps. I also had an iPaq, but that was only a few years later. Great little devices apart from the browser and activestink.
  - kapnobatairza 14y ago
    Great device, I owned one of these as well. The communicators were my smartphone of choice until the touchscreen enabled Sony Ericsson P800 came out in 2002. Oddly enough, you can see a lot of the iPhone in the P800. http://www.mobileburn.com/media/sonyericsson/p800_7650.jpg http://www.mobileburn.com/media/sonyericsson/p800_7650.jpg
- Swannie 14y ago
  Agreed. And let's not forget that Tablet PCs, with stylus, WiFi, etc. running full Windows, much like the much touted Yoga, were championed by Microsoft in 2001 - 2002. (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP/Compaq_TC1000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP/Compaq_TC1000 ).
  - bitwize 14y ago
    Microsoft was touting tablet PCs running full Windows in 1992. Am I the only one who remembers "Microsoft Windows for Pen Computing"?
- mikestew 14y ago
  > Windows CE based Wizard style PDAs predate the Apple Newton Newton came out in '93 and WinCE came out in '96. But that nitpick doesn't take away from your general point. MSFT seems to be good at coming out with things that have potential, but then let's them languish. Their mobile products were a prime example. On the last WinMo phone I had (2006-ish), the OS had dialogs that were (I assume) user-drawn and going on ten years old. Those dialogs looked like it, too. Apple comes along with a platform they were willing to pour the company into, and MSFT has been playing catch-up since. You say they don't make their products "good enough", I'd argue that Microsoft doesn't stick with their products long enough to make them good enough. Their wireless home phone system (can't find a link) was an example. V1.0 was rough around the edges, but useable and forward-thinking for the late 90's. v2.0 was going to be great, except there never was a 2.0.

kapnobatairza 14y ago

I am not quite sure if I buy this argument. Microsoft certainly attempts to "productize", they simply fail on execution: When the iPod was still "only" an MP3 player, Microsoft was pushing video capable PMPs through their PMC software. Microsoft was betting on the tablet long before Apple. Windows CE based Wizard style PDAs predate the Apple Newton, and Pocket PC was largely successful and shows Microsoft have been trying to get a Mobile OS into your pocket for nearly 20 years. It was largely Palm and Microsoft that built out this space. The PocketPC iPaq even had a GSM jacket that allowed it to be used as a phone, making it a smartphone that predates even the earliest Ericsson/Nokia smartphones. Not to mention Windows Mobile which predates iOS and Android by many years. Microsoft has been working on WebTV, Media Center and Xbox to get into your living room long before AppleTV or Google TV. Microsoft has certainly attempted to productize on the ideas that come out of Microsoft Research and is almost always on the cutting edge of technology, and in many cases years ahead. The problem is that they don't have the same unified vision many other companies do, so when they execute they do so poorly: With incomplete products in an incoherent package. Microsoft's problem isn't that they aren't making enough products, it is that they are sometimes too big and disorganized to make them good enough that people can see the underlying value.

vardump 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9000_Communicator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9000_Communicator 1996. Web browser, email, calendar and can run apps. I also had an iPaq, but that was only a few years later. Great little devices apart from the browser and activestink.
- kapnobatairza 14y ago
  Great device, I owned one of these as well. The communicators were my smartphone of choice until the touchscreen enabled Sony Ericsson P800 came out in 2002. Oddly enough, you can see a lot of the iPhone in the P800. http://www.mobileburn.com/media/sonyericsson/p800_7650.jpg http://www.mobileburn.com/media/sonyericsson/p800_7650.jpg
Swannie 14y ago
Agreed. And let's not forget that Tablet PCs, with stylus, WiFi, etc. running full Windows, much like the much touted Yoga, were championed by Microsoft in 2001 - 2002. (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP/Compaq_TC1000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP/Compaq_TC1000 ).
- bitwize 14y ago
  Microsoft was touting tablet PCs running full Windows in 1992. Am I the only one who remembers "Microsoft Windows for Pen Computing"?
mikestew 14y ago
> Windows CE based Wizard style PDAs predate the Apple Newton Newton came out in '93 and WinCE came out in '96. But that nitpick doesn't take away from your general point. MSFT seems to be good at coming out with things that have potential, but then let's them languish. Their mobile products were a prime example. On the last WinMo phone I had (2006-ish), the OS had dialogs that were (I assume) user-drawn and going on ten years old. Those dialogs looked like it, too. Apple comes along with a platform they were willing to pour the company into, and MSFT has been playing catch-up since. You say they don't make their products "good enough", I'd argue that Microsoft doesn't stick with their products long enough to make them good enough. Their wireless home phone system (can't find a link) was an example. V1.0 was rough around the edges, but useable and forward-thinking for the late 90's. v2.0 was going to be great, except there never was a 2.0.