5 ms·
I did mention that I was speculating, so yes, I'm not at all familiar with Microsoft Research. However, I've yet to work at a place where I wasn't surrounded b
by jordanpg 12y ago
I did mention that I was speculating, so yes, I'm not at all familiar with Microsoft Research.
However, I've yet to work at a place where I wasn't surrounded by p* managers who weren't falling over themselves to get involved with some new idea that would lead to revenue somehow. On the business side of the house, I don't think anyone gets up in the morning if it can't be linked to revenue.
So, yeah, I'm comfortable saying that Microsoft Research is swarming with people looking for new revenue streams. Swarming.
- chc 12y agoWell, I don't really doubt the idea that justifies the department's existence is that Microsoft Research will produce new developments that can be used in money-making products, but the research itself is not necessarily linked to revenue in any real way. For example, the Haskell programming language and the experimental Singularity OS are things that really have no chance of ever themselves making Microsoft money, but Microsoft Research drove their development nonetheless. The most obvious underlying motivation is not finding revenue streams, but pushing the state of the art in ways that Microsoft can learn from and use to improve other projects.
- mead5432 12y agoThat is wrong, how? Revenue streams (and corresponding cash flows) are the lifeblood of any business. It's a nice notion to build an organization solely to do cool things but, if you don't make money somehow you'll go out of business and will never be able to do cool things.