backtop

Print 83 comment(s) - last by Smilin.. on Feb 9 at 9:09 AM
Company tries to set the record straight after former exec airs critical op-ed piece

Dick Brass, a former Microsoft VP was a millionaire before he ever set foot at Microsoft.  He joined Microsoft with a singular passion and focus -- developing and marketing successful tablets and e-Book readers.  Ultimately, he saw those efforts collapse due to lack of inter-divisional cooperation at Microsoft. 

In the wake of the iPad release, the former executive vented in an op-ed published in The New York Times.  While praising Microsoft's past and current success, he warned that Microsoft's lack of creativity and "clumsy" structure were leading it down a road to shrinkage and mediocrity.

Now Microsoft has fired back, sharing its own views on its degree of creative success.  In its MSDN blog, Microsoft Corporate Vice President of Corporate Communications, Frank X. Shaw, pens a response.  He comments:
Former Microsoft employee Dick Brass has an op-ed in the NYT arguing that our better days are behind us, (“clumsy, uncompetitive innovator; . . . ouch!) and using examples from his tenure to make the point that the company can no longer compete or innovate. Obviously, we disagree. :) But his piece does represent a good opportunity to touch briefly on how we think about innovation.

At the highest level, we think about innovation in relation to its ability to have a positive impact in the world. For Microsoft, it is not sufficient to simply have a good idea, or a great idea, or even a cool idea. We measure our work by its broad impact.
He refutes Mr. Brass's claims that Microsoft stifled the progress and release of ClearType, though declining to specifically debunk any of Mr. Brass's particular allegations about divisional managers.  He instead points out that ClearType ships on every Windows PC today.  He also refutes the Office allegations, pointing to OneNote -- however, this product
did not come out until 2003, around the time when Mr. Brass left the company.

He points to Project Natal for Xbox 360 as another example of Microsoft innovation.  Microsoft purchased the technology for Project Natal partially from 3D camera technology by Israeli developer Prime Sense.  While not released yet, many are looking forward to the interactive motion controller, set to release in Q4 2010.

Mr. Shaw also brags that the Xbox Live service current boasts 23 million active users -- the largest console gaming network user base.

A response from Microsoft seemed inevitable following the stinging nature of the remarks of the veteran insider, Brass.  What is somewhat surprising is how Microsoft chose to respond.  Rather than focus on perhaps its biggest innovations -- Windows 7 and its unprecedented public testing program, it instead focused on its Xbox 360 console, which still trails the Nintendo Wii.  And while Mr. Shaw discusses ClearType and Office for tablets extensively, he does not specifically refute Mr. Brass's claims (it's easy to note that OneNote is still grossly inferior to a full-featured touch-driven office suite).

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This pretty much sums it up
By aharris on 2/5/2010 10:28:38 AM , Rating: 5
'"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer'

For years Microsoft's innovation has been nothing more than a response to competitors' successes:

Project Natal is a response to the Wii.

The Zune (hah) was a response to the iPod.

Windows Mobile was a response to Palm's Pilot.

Many of the usability features in Windows have been a response to the usability of OS X (Aero Flip vs Expose; the new taskbar vs Dock; Gadgets vs Widgets; Finder vs Indexing; Sticky Notes vs um, Stickies)

In my opinion, the original argument presented by Mr. Brass has clout. The rebuttal, on the other hand, was nothing more than a red herring attempt at diverting the publics' opinion away from the real issue Microsoft has faced for years.

Any company can invent a product that builds on someone else's success and call it innovation all day long. "Sure we innovate, but only if you go first!"




RE: This pretty much sums it up
By webstorm1 on 2/5/2010 10:37:15 AM , Rating: 2
MS is trying to be like BASF.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By porkpie on 2/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: This pretty much sums it up
By aharris on 2/5/2010 11:13:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"MS has little need to "red herring divert" people from its innovation, or lack of it."

"Does MS also innovate some on its own? Sure does."

"MS may not be the most innovative company around..."


Well are they, or are they not?

The quote I lead with initially was completely relevant (and coincidentally taken from the bottom of DailyTech as I read the article). Anyone who understands innovation immediately recognized the iPhone for being an innovative product; it may not have been complete at that time (lacked 3g, etc) and there was no claim that it would be successful, but it was obviously innovative. Likewise, it is my belief that anyone who claimed it wasn't innovative didn't have the capacity to understand the market's definition of technological innovation.

You also try to misinterpret my argument for me. Don't do that. Am I arguing that Microsoft makes bad products? No. Am I arguing that Microsoft's Xbox 360 causes buyers to flock to the Zune, et al? No. Am I arguing that Microsoft's good products are not innovative? Absolutely.

Do I think there is anything wrong with following the lead of others? Absolutely not. Just don't follow the lead of others while plastering a smile of innovation on your face.

TLDR: Microsoft needs to foster some corporate self-awareness.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By B3an on 2/5/2010 4:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
I like MS. And i agree with you, i dont think your post was anti-MS at all, it is the truth.

Theres definately some MS fanboys on DT though so i'm not surprised, but i can atleast normally tolerate them, unlike apple fanboys.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By Pirks on 2/5/2010 8:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's definitely some MS fanboys on DT though so I'm not surprised, but I can at least normally tolerate them, unlike Apple fanboys
That's double standard. You're supposed to bash both fanboy sides like me, in order to stay objective, or at least to pretend to :P


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By Targon on 2/5/2010 11:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
There will always be fans of various companies, and there will always be those who blindly follow what a company does, even when it is misguided, or just a bad idea. The thing is, most of those who like Microsoft are more realistic than those who LOVE Apple.

Apple followers are more like followers of Islam. You have the normal followers, and then you have the Zelots who would become suicide bombers if their leaders told them to do it. Now, the general masses will not approve of such a thing, but that blind fanatical loyalty is something that is less tolerated than the normal fan approach you see following other companies.

Now, when it comes to complicated code, it can often take YEARS to get something to the point where it is ready to be released to the public. As a result, if you see a new competing product come out within six months after the product it is going to compete with, the work on it will generally have started much earlier. This is something that many do not seem to understand. How long does it really take from the time the decision to add a feature is made until the time is is ready?

When it comes to innovation, how much has changed in MacOS since 2002, when MacOS X first came out? Seriously, has MacOS changed much? How about Microsoft Windows since 2001, when Windows XP first came out? Hmmmm, it seems that Microsoft has made more progress than Apple has when it comes to their OS development, doesn't it? The iPad is an iPod Touch in a larger form factor, does that make it really innovative? The iDouche that you see in Apple TV commercials hasn't said much in a long time, could it be he doesn't have much to cheer about?


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By rudy on 2/5/2010 11:39:00 PM , Rating: 1
The real question is who does innovate? Certainly not apple the fact is almost every single product every person in this country uses was concept-ed by some other person or company 10 - 20 years before. Did apple invent the mp3 player or selling music online? No but they did have enough money and muscle to advertise the living crap out of it and push back on the record industry and the same with the ISPs. Unfortunately for the companies that really pioneered those fields they did not have that kind of money.

This goes for just about every company out there and is a lesson for anyone who really does innovate, get venture capital and hit it hard or someone bigger will just steal your junk. Apple would be nothing if they had not stole their OS idea from xerox.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By itzmec on 2/8/2010 8:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
exactly


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By raabscuttle on 2/5/2010 11:26:49 AM , Rating: 2
Many of the usability features in Windows have been a response to the usability of OS X

and... Windows itself was a response to the MAC OS.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By jonmcc33 on 2/5/2010 11:44:23 AM , Rating: 5
This was already settled well over 16 years ago...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._...

quote:
The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...


quote:
The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994, and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.


Time to move on, Apple kiddies.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By adiposity on 2/5/2010 11:55:13 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I don't think he was making a legal argument...


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By porkpie on 2/5/2010 12:10:51 PM , Rating: 5
He can't even make an emotional argument, since the original ideas themselves (such as a desktop, graphic UI, mouse-interface,etc.) were all taken by Apple from Xerox PARC.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By sprockkets on 2/5/2010 12:28:27 PM , Rating: 3
But apple bought Xerox stock to get their technology legally. Microsoft simply took it from working with Apple with office.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By porkpie on 2/5/2010 12:36:34 PM , Rating: 3
Um, actually Xerox sued Apple the same way Apple sued Microsoft. Xerox only lost because of a laches defense that they had waited too long to file suit.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By sprockkets on 2/6/2010 5:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
I feel sorry for the idiot who rated you up you agreed with you while having no facts to back it up.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By porkpie on 2/7/2010 2:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, what? Did you really not know that Xerox sued Apple over all the ideas it stole for the original Mac? Here's a few details on the suit:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of...

Now, I feel sorry for you, after calling other people "idiots", when you're the one with an enormous foot firmly in your mouth.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By akugami on 2/5/2010 12:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
That is true. What is neglected and often not mentioned, especially those who have an irrational hatred of all things Apple, is that Xerox received compensation for engineering help with the understanding Apple was creating a GUI. Some of the same people working for Apple on their original GUI efforts worked at Xerox's PARC.

http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/real-history...


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By Solandri on 2/5/2010 2:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
A little off-topic, but all this really makes one wonder how the heck did Xerox screw up so badly? They invented the GUI, the mouse, the WYSIWYG editor, the laser printer. Heck, they invented ethernet. By all rights they should own most of the modern computer industry. But somehow they royally dropped the ball and are minor players in the copier/printer industry.


By Oregonian2 on 2/5/2010 2:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
And for what it's worth, Tektronix also had a GUI/mouse/etc box in their Teklabs (research) division long before there were any GUI products on the market. I don't know about the Xerox versions, but the Tek ones (as a guess) would probably have been way too expensive "as is" for commercial use because they were built as part of a research division where how much the prototypes cost to make isn't relevant. It would take a basically completely new design cycle to redesign for cost effective manufacturability and appropriate user software -- and most importantly have a product-division that was willing to finance such a risky venture.

P.S. - That original Xerox ethernet was distributed using fairly large diameter hollow metal pipe with a wire going down the middle, and it could be tapped only at certain intervals. It wasn't terribly user/cost friendly either.

P.P.S. - I think Xerox still is a major player in the printer industry, just not so powerful in the consumer-printer category (Xerox purchased the Tektronix printer division). Mostly the business side of printers, esp with their cost effective color printers using their own "crayon technology" (my term for it).


By ClownPuncher on 2/5/2010 3:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think Xerox is a minor player in the copier/printer industry? Their DocuColor and DocuTechs are consdered industry standards to this day.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By sprockkets on 2/5/2010 4:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes companies come up with great ideas but have no idea on how to implement them. Apple was in the same boat; they had a dept. inside the company just brainstorming new ideas and developing stuff, but went nowhere (Pink, Taligent).

Xerox sold their computer called the Star for around $16000 in 1981. Apple took that and made the Macintosh for $2500.
http://toastytech.com/guis/star.html

Windows 1.0 in 1983 look horrible in comparison.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By Fritzr on 2/5/2010 5:13:13 PM , Rating: 3
A couple of other computers came out of the Xerox ideas that Microsoft is just now catching up with. Amiga corporation developed a multi-tasking windowed operating system. Commodore Business Machines bought them out near the end of development. The machine went to market in 1984 a few months after the Apple Lisa (renamed the Macintosh with the second model). Jack Tramiel left CBM and helped Atari develop the Atari ST series jokingly known at the time as the Jackintosh. Apple, Amiga and Microsoft all based their systems on the Xerox ideas. The Amiga went under due to poor decisions by corporate managers. Some of the features of the 1984 Amiga are still missing from the 2010 MS Windows. That was on a 256KB computer expandable to a full 1024KB :D Later models featured larger memory capacity.

The late 80s also saw the introduction of the GEOS windowed OS for C-64, IBM PC and a few other 8bit computers. The C-64 version needed a 256KB memory expansion, but it did run on what had been originally designed as an 8bit cartridge game console :D

There was also a cpu war going on during the 80s and early 90s between Motorola (Apple, Amiga) and Intel (IBM compatibles) that Intel finally won.

Added to the cpu war was the entrenched corporate market share of IBM and the lack of familiarity of the general public with multitasking and windowed interfaces. The Amiga and Macintosh both were regularly ridiculed for their GUI and ability to run multiple programs simultaneously. The one was a distraction and as for the other, most people have enough trouble doing one task at a time. Multitasking is useless :P With Windows 3.0 the official stance changed. Once Microsoft had multitasking and IBM was pushing their new OS/2, singletasking with command line was bad and everyone had to have a Microsoft or OS/2 multitasking GUI :LOL:

The team that developed Smalltalk built two complete demo systems and Xerox decided to cancel the project due to lack of market for a single user windowed, multitasking GUI using a mouse. Mainframes with computer terminal access was what the market wanted in 1970. 14 years later the 8bit personal computers had changed the public perception of personal computing. SmallTalk is alive and well as an OS and programming language.

The difference between the 1981 $16000 PC and the 1984 $2500 PC reflects the fast pace in developing commodity integrated circuits. The original IBM Business PC built in the mid 70s had a boxfull of custom built circuit boxes mounted on it's mainboard. The Lisa, Amiga and IBM PC/XT/AT used much cheaper off the shelf ICs. CBM also owned their own IC design and manufacture facility so the Amiga had custom ICs for graphics and audio, where the other machines had circuit boards containing discrete parts. These changes during the late 70s/early 80s lowered the price of hardware considerably.

You can find SmallTalk at: http://www.smalltalk.org/main/
An open source version of the language is implemented in Squeak: http://www.squeak.org/Smalltalk/
The SmallTalk Wiki is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By mckinney on 2/5/2010 7:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
One of the biggest reasons Apple lost is because they had already licensed many aspects of the Mac look and feel to MS as contained in the statement on the Wiki of:

quote:
Because the much of the court's ruling was based on the original licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft for Windows 1.0, it made the case more of a contractual matter than of copyright law, to the chagrin of Apple


MS forced the licensing issue by threatening to pull MS Word from the Mac. Without a commercial word processor, Apple thought they wouldn't stand a chance and therefore agreed to license certain aspects of the Mac look and feel. Thats why it was more a "contractual matter than of copyright law".

In short, Apple had the copyrights and signed them away.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By mckinney on 2/5/2010 7:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
And just to clarify, I am not saying Apple invented it(Xerox did). Apple developed it into a useful OS which included pull down menus, control panels...ect and shipped it with applications like MacPaint. A friend of mine had one in 1984, and he paid about $3500 with a 128kb 3.5" floppy and an Imagewriter dotmatrix printer. Way more than I paid for my first car.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By mckinney on 2/5/2010 7:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the last part from the NY Times

quote:
Apple's copyright infringement suit against HP and Microsoft ended in the two companies' favor. Apple announced that it will appeal the decision of a Federal District Court judge. The suit was filed in 1988 with Apple accusing Microsoft and HP of copying the look and feel of the user-friendly features of Apple's Lisa and Macintosh microcomputers. The icons and pull-down menus that are now common in many software packages and are used by Microsoft's Windows graphical user interface and HP's New Wave were introduced by Apple. In deciding the case, the judge limited it to the issue of whether Windows' and New Wave's appearance is virtually identical to Apple's Lisa. The decision allowed the stocks of the three companies to surge on May 31, 1993. author: Fisher, Lawrence m. Publisher: The New York Times Company


Old news......So when are we getting the Zune phone?


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By jonmcc33 on 2/5/2010 11:30:03 AM , Rating: 5
iTunes was a response to Napster (aka online music distribution).

iBook/MacBook was a response to the laptop.

iPad was a response to netbook.

iPhone was a response to BlackBerry.

There isn't anything that Apple has innovated.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By smackababy on 2/5/2010 11:44:08 AM , Rating: 1
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

Apple invented the .mp3, mobile computing, smart phones, and the mouse.

They even invented recording studios with GarageBand.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By jvillaro on 2/5/10, Rating: -1
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/5/2010 4:27:05 PM , Rating: 1
Clearly YOU have no idea what YOU are talking about


By elgueroloco on 2/5/2010 4:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
I do hope you were being ironic. If so, LOL.

If not... well, I really don't know what to say. Maybe pull your head out of Steve Job's ass and expose it to the truth?

The first mouse was invented at Stanford in 1963, and had 3 buttons, making Apple's 1 button mouse a huge step backward even in 1982. http://www.macworld.com/article/137400/2008/12/mou...

MP3 was invented by Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) and adopted as a standard in 1991. Apple had absolutely nothing to do with it, though they did hire the main researcher behind its development to help create AAC later (kinda like what they seem to have done with iBooks app). http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2...

The first portable/mobile computer was the IBM 5100, introduced in 1975. http://oldcomputers.net/ibm5100.html

IBM released a touchscreen smartphone called Simon in 1993, 14 years before Apple. The app store was a nice innovation though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#History

The comment about GarageBand really makes me think you were just joking, so I'm not going to bother refuting it. LOL

I still had to post all this other info though to shut up all the retarded (cr)Apple fanbois who actually believe that nonsense.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By sprockkets on 2/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: This pretty much sums it up
By jonmcc33 on 2/5/2010 12:42:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
One is legal music store and the other is a p2p pirating. No relation.


Apple took a concept from Napster of searchable online music distribution from Napster. The only difference is that Apple got the RIAA's approval and requires you to give them your credit card information.

quote:
Apple's PowerBook co developed with Sony represented the first modern notebook design where the hinge was in the back. Try again.


Actually, the first to feature a flip top design was the Dulmont Magnum released in 1982. The first Apple PowerBook wasn't released until 1991. Fail. Please try again.

quote:
The ipad doesn't share the netbook's form factor whatsoever. If anything it is a ripoff of an earlier tablet, but seeing as how it isn't stylus driven you can't say that either.


Tablet form factor? No, then they would be copying the Amazon Kindle in that case. But 10 inch screen with keypad and internet capability was indeed on the netbook first.

quote:
The iphone was Apple's response to every other smartphone on the market as to how a smartphone should act. Since everyone is scrambling to copy it they were right.


Copy it? Hard to copy something that has been a copy of something else. Perhaps Apple improved upon the GUI of the smartphone that the Blackberry had. It didn't innovate the smartphone though.

quote:
Got any REAL examples to back that up?


Do I need any? I can't think of anything Apple has done that has been an innovation. Sorry!


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By PrezWeezy on 2/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: This pretty much sums it up
By Oregonian2 on 2/5/2010 3:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, then the iPad is a response to the Archos tablets instead (which have been out for a while I think).


By ClownPuncher on 2/5/2010 3:42:48 PM , Rating: 1
Which was in response to the tablets in Star Trek TNG.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By PrezWeezy on 2/5/2010 8:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well I had never seen the Archos (thank you for that, they look awesome) but I would say they are slightly more competitive with the iPhone, simply from a screen realestate standpoint.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By AmbroseAthan on 2/5/2010 11:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
RE: This pretty much sums it up
By Yaron on 2/6/2010 4:48:49 AM , Rating: 2
Meh... doesn't look too good.


By themaster08 on 2/7/2010 5:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
Function > Form.

Apple-ites buy things because they look pwitty, however have none/very little productive use.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By Johnmcl7 on 2/7/2010 9:33:53 AM , Rating: 2
The Ipad is about as uncreative as you can get, Archos already have Arm powered Android tablets with far more functionality and creativity than just being a scaled up Iphone. Microsoft's Courier (which probably see the light of day) is genuinely a creative attempt at a tablet.

John


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By cmdrdredd on 2/7/2010 10:56:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also applaud Apple for using quality hardware instead of going cheap. It makes their equipment more expensive and they charge a premium, but it's good, quality, long lasting hardware. I wish more companies would practice that.


I've personally experienced more problems with Apple's hardware than any PC. I've also had 3 iPods fail and never have had another Mp3 device fail. God forbid you didn't buy the apple care plan too, you're pretty much going to have to buy a new device because repair cost is ridiculous.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By Solandri on 2/5/2010 3:00:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Apple took a concept from Napster of searchable online music distribution from Napster. The only difference is that Apple got the RIAA's approval and requires you to give them your credit card information.

Making a program distribute is easy. Shawn Fanning's brilliant idea with Napster was getting people who had the files to transfer them to people who wanted them, without the files having to be hosted on a central server.

iTunes hosts the files centrally, and arguably, coming up with a distribution model which the incredibly luddite media industry would agree to is much more of an accomplishment than a searchable online music catalog (which is kinda obvious).

quote:
Tablet form factor? No, then they would be copying the Amazon Kindle in that case. But 10 inch screen with keypad and internet capability was indeed on the netbook first.

The Apple Newton pre-dates the Kindle. I agree with what you're getting at here - that all products build upon what everyone else has done previously. But what they're doing is not just mere copying. Each new product generally adds a few new innovations. What's being argued is that Apple's innovations tend to be bigger (which I agree with in some cases, disagree with in others - e.g. theirs was the last major OS to switch from cooperative to pre-emptive multitasking).

I disagree totally that a netbook and tablet are somehow comparable. A netbook requires it be placed on a table or lap while you use it with two hands. A tablet is designed to be used while you're walking around - held with one hand while you use it with the other. AFAIK, the Kindle lacks pen (or finger) input, which is the other mainstay of a tablet - using the pen (or finger) in lieu of a mouse.

quote:
Copy it? Hard to copy something that has been a copy of something else. Perhaps Apple improved upon the GUI of the smartphone that the Blackberry had. It didn't innovate the smartphone though.

I generally consider Apple products overpriced and overhyped (I don't even own an iPod). But one thing they do very, very well, much better than all the other big players in the industry, is come up with great user interfaces. Belittle the importance of the GUI as much as you like, but the UI is what single-handedly catapulted Apple to own 75% of the MP3 player market with a product having inferior features.

People love the interface on the iPhone. I don't think it's that big a deal, but most of my friends are ga-ga over it. And it's true that nearly all the smartphone manufacturers are working as hard as they can to duplicate and improve on it. So I give Apple kudos for that. (OTOH, I don't consider the iPhone to be a smartphone. It is too crippled and feature/app-locked to be a true mobile platform.)


By Oregonian2 on 2/5/2010 3:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, Apple copies other products in terms of product innovation. What apple brings are excellent/better implementations at premium prices (with possible exception of the iPad, which I found disappointing for Apple). Not "innovative" so much as "great design work", especially their "industrial design" work and superb marketing. :-)

I gag a little calling their marketing "superb" (their hype is excessive to my tastes as a potential customer), but if I started a new company I'd LOVE to have their marketing department jump ship to my company and do their magic on my products. :-) Their marketing department has been very innovative over the years!


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By sprockkets on 2/5/2010 4:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple took a concept from Napster of searchable online music distribution from Napster. The only difference is that Apple got the RIAA's approval and requires you to give them your credit card information.


Really? You are going to give them the credit to online music distribution? Go ahead. My memory of Napster is they got sued into oblivion and revived again as another failure called "Never Plays For Sure".

quote:
Actually, the first to feature a flip top design was the Dulmont Magnum released in 1982. The first Apple PowerBook wasn't released until 1991. Fail. Please try again.


Buddy, notice where the hinge is. It isn't where it is on every notebook today. Reading comprehension FAIL.

quote:
But 10 inch screen with keypad and internet capability was indeed on the netbook first.


Really, the netbook? Not familiar with ultra-portables of 2000s?

quote:
Copy it? Hard to copy something that has been a copy of something else. Perhaps Apple improved upon the GUI of the smartphone that the Blackberry had. It didn't innovate the smartphone though.


Deny it all you want, but no one had a capacitive multi-touch screen, no app store, no real browser in their smart phone. Microsoft had 9 years from the release of IE4 to improve the browser in WinMob. It only took them 11 years to update it. They probably would have never updated it if it weren't for somebody giving them a kick in the ass.

quote:
Do I need any? I can't think of anything Apple has done that has been an innovation. Sorry!


"Sorry, I irrationally hate it when Apple sells a phone with features 90% of the world wants instead of features that only technical nerds cares about!"

Oh no, let's bring up flash. Why don't you go to arstechnica where people said (they reviewed the browser in the N900)"...they turned off plug-in support for this release because the Flash player performance was so terrible."


By sprockkets on 2/5/2010 4:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, not the hinge, the keyboard. MY BAD.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By Pirks on 2/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: This pretty much sums it up
By pjs on 2/5/2010 12:28:45 PM , Rating: 1
Just more spin control on Micro$oft'$ part. Buying innovative companies does not make Micro$oft innovative.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By jonmcc33 on 2/5/2010 1:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody ever said that it did. Purchasing other companies has been made to make their products better. Examples are their acquisitions of security, firewall and anti-malware companies in order to release free software like Windows Defender and Security Essentials integrated into the OS. That way it lowers the TCO of the operating system, which is better for the end user in the long run.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By bety on 2/5/2010 11:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. The reply was ridiculous....and simply avoided the topic by pointing to numbers/success.

Microsoft can't refute the claim of Capt. Obvious, because, for older people who have watched the history of MS unfold, their entire product line testifies to this claim.

It goes back much much further than the Wii or the ipod...it goes back to the first days of Word and Excel and Windows itself...


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By Belard on 2/6/2010 12:29:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yep... since the beginning of Microsoft since they bought a "DOS" for about $27,000 - slapped their name on it and re-sold it to IBM... Microsoft has always been a follower and buyer of other peoples tech.

DOS = Not inhouse
GUI = Xerox > Macintosh > Amiga
Multi-tasking = Amiga
Plug N Play = Amiga and Macintosh
Internet Explorer = bought it out
Front Page = bought it
Various parts of MS-Office = bought
Game console = based off their OS, slapped parts together... but thats not a biggy.
Transparency in a GUI = been around for years on Amiga and Linux.

That said... Microsoft does make some good stuff. Their old Sidewinders have not been out-done by anyone... still.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By poohbear on 2/6/2010 1:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
dude, its not like apple invented the mp3 player, that was'nt revolutionary, their take on it just had mass appeal. i can't stand when people use Apple as an example of an innovator cause it just aint true. All their successful products had mass appeal, were user friendly, and were trendy, but to say they made a revolutionary innovation for the smartphone or the mp3 player is absurd.


RE: This pretty much sums it up
By xNIBx on 2/6/2010 8:13:03 AM , Rating: 2
Iphone is a response to windows mobile/symbian.

Ipod is a response to creative jukebox.

Wii is a response to logitech motion sensing wingman gamepad.

Aero flip is a useless gimmick that noone uses. Gadgets existed way before macos, yahoo widgets for example and they are also pretty gimmicky(except maybe for rss). Indexing was implemented by tons of software before Finder. Sticky notes are also gimmicky and useless.

If anything microsoft is a lot more innovative right now than it have ever been. They can afford to. They have all these teams trying to find new cool things, like surface, like zune hd, like xbox, like api/tools for the xbox/pc and hopefully windows mobile 7(though i dont have much hope for that, maemo ftw).

But it's obvious that they cant take the risks that smaller companies can take. They cant afford to alienate their customers. They are too big for that.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2010 3:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Zune (hah) was a response to the iPod.


I got a Zune 80 for Christmas and love it. Why the "hah" ?


Missing the point
By Fracture on 2/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Missing the point
By Peristalsis on 2/5/2010 9:51:35 AM , Rating: 2
Are you sure? That's a bit of a generalization.

Last I recalled; AMD bought ATI (the graphics processor for the 360) and Microsoft didn't buy EPIC (Gears of War)...?

Frankly, it's not uncommon practice for a company to buy a technology to integrate into an ecosystem (whether application or hardware). Anyone remember Nvidia and PhysX? Not saying it's always the most brilliant move, but it happens.


RE: Missing the point
By aapocketz on 2/5/2010 10:01:04 AM , Rating: 1
Seriously, what is with that counter argument.

Hey we are innovative! Check out our large user base! And look at this stuff we purchased, and haven't released yet!

They need to be citing situations when they shocked the market with innovative software products instead of just slowly gobbling up market share and then coasting on inertia.


RE: Missing the point
By jonmcc33 on 2/5/2010 10:50:45 AM , Rating: 4
Mr Brass is merely upset because his dreamchild was the e-book and he was put in charge of doing just that for Microsoft. He failed, as he admitted himself, and decided to point it out and blame Microsoft.

The problem is that Amazon came out with the Kindle in 2007. Where were his comments then? He voices his opinion only after Apple releases the iPad. So that's sort of odd timing on his part, as if he's purposely trying to make Microsoft look bad for Apple.

In reality the iPad wasn't made as a competitor to the e-book reader. It was direct competition to the netbook, which Microsoft has already taken care of by extending Windows XP Home licensing and making Windows 7 netbook friendly. Apple failed miserably to make a competitive product with the netbook and has the arrogance to charge more for the price of an iPad compared to a netbook.

It's absurd. It's as if Mr Brass is trying to take away the negative attention from Apple. I think he's getting something out of this. There was no other reason for him to speak up after 6 years of silence unless he's trying to help Apple somehow. Rather shady person if you ask me.


By mlZr on 2/5/2010 12:56:10 PM , Rating: 5
I can go to any computer store in the country and buy a new video card. I can go buy a tv tuner card, printer, router, media extender, video capture device, etc., etc., etc. It all works on my win7 (or xp) machine. Everything works. It's not like going to an auto parts store or a cellphone hut or home depot- there is ONE platform. If you need a "thing" for your computer it works with windows. There really isn't another industry where there is one global standard. Say what you will about them, but not only is this a huge accomplishment - it's a huge innovation.




Bad journalism
By porkpie on 2/5/2010 10:01:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
" Ultimately, he saw those efforts collapse due to lack of inter-divisional cooperation at Microsoft. "

This is the man's opinion, not a fact. You need to qualify it as such.

Personally, I think it had little if anything to do with MS itself. A zillion companies tried to develop tablets in the 1990s. They ALL failed. The technology just wasn't there yet.




RE: Bad journalism
By Oregonian2 on 2/5/2010 3:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
However, as someone who has previously worked in a mega-sized company, assertions such as those he made and quoted above really aren't hard to believe. Perhaps that's what made his comments raise so much ruckus.


An Impossible Task
By tech329 on 2/5/2010 11:49:05 AM , Rating: 4
Microsoft finds itself in the unenviable position of having to support a global family of products with a huge influence on the entire planet. Theirs is no small task by any measure. The responsibility is huge with no real room for error. I can't think of a single other commercial enterprise which is so important to how things get done. A Microsoft is truly necessary. Without a common platform we'd have an awful time of it making everything work. I'm glad that for this one thing, it hasn't been left up to governments to figure out. MS isn't perfect. But it could easily be a whole lot worse.




It's been said "
By badbirdlb on 2/5/2010 12:36:47 PM , Rating: 3
"Everything of importance has been said before by somebody who did not discover it."
--Alfred North Whitehead




TRUE, OH SO TRUE
By jonperez on 2/5/2010 10:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
Having been a fairly recent convert to the virtues of the .NET environment, I have every bit of interest to see MS succeed in the market place. What I see are wasted opportunities and limited vision everywhere.

MS *STILL DOESN'T GET THE WEB* !! Simply visit the MS community forums and observe the klunky interface and you will immediately realize this.

When it comes to the tablet/slate form factor, Microsoft cannot be blamed for lack of trying and in fact, Windows starting from XP and going forward to 7 does indeed have pretty good tablet support. Handwriting and speech support in Windows 7 are at least 1 if not 2 generations ahead of anything OS X has, except MICROSOFT DOESN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO MARKET THIS FACT!

As for the mobile market, MS has this awesome mature and performant .NET based technology called Silverlight that promises to unify development across a) desktop, b) browser and c) mobile devices, so why are they taking forever to bring it to c)? If they evangelize this well and structure the app delivery experience competently, I fail to see why it won't be able to trump Apple with their Orwellian closedness.

The .NET dev environment is at least TWO generations ahead of Cocoa/xCode and has an extremely robust ecosystem, so bring it to mobile devices already. Integrate it with .NET Compact Edition already. And bring the touch UI of Surface over to the mainstream devices already.

The mobile market could have been MS' to lose, now it is MS which must claw back the market share. The engineering prowess and infrastructure is there, but the vision and marketing effort isn't.

When it comes to the browser, while market share may still (barely) be MS' to lose, but when it comes to developer mindshare for web technologies, MS has ALREADY LOST IT. Chrome and Firefox have left IE behind in dust.

Dump the ancient browser architecture already and deploy a CLR based browser:

http://webmechs.com/webpress/2009/12/microsoft-sho...

I am sure politics within Microsoft are preventing this from happening and the old IE guard are too blind to see the writing on the wall. The CLR group should just push ahead and introduce their own new browser.




By crystal clear on 2/6/2010 3:55:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For Microsoft, it is not sufficient to simply have a good idea, or a great idea, or even a cool idea. We measure our work by its broad impact.


Microsoft should measure their work by its impact on its balance sheet,its market share & revenues,its brand image,consumer reponse etc.

The point remains Microsoft needs some massive restructoring & reorganizing by somebody NOT from the existing talent available within Microsoft.

Example- Intel was & is restructoring/reorganizing reflecting changes in economy,demand in the marketplace,techology,pricing etc.

The need to bring in NEW/FRESH talent at the top the organization from the CEO downwards,shake it off the dead wood, at the same time rewarding talent within the organization based on their performance.

Time for a change.....light the fire of change.




Competitive
By drycrust3 on 2/6/2010 12:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
While many focus on the innovative nature of Microsoft, they miss the point that it isn't innovation that makes Microsoft famous (and rich), but being competitive. In fact, to even call them competitive is probably wrong, they are very competitive. To call them uncompetitive tells us more about the speaker than Microsoft.
Yes, Microsoft probably do copy what others have done, but that isn't enough to be competitive. To be competitive you have to offer either a better product, a cheaper equivalent, or both; and that is EXACTLY what Microsoft do. Often those early innovative products had defects (like I had one browser where once you saved a URL to My Favorites, you couldn't delete it. How stupid is that? How long would Netscape expect it to take before IE was my favourite browser?).
My experience of Microsoft products over the years, like the browser above, is they do what they are designed to do. When I first came across Word I found it was generally much better looking and much easier to use than it's competitors of the time.
And in case you are wondering which version of Windows I now use, I use Ubuntu, and no, I don't use wine, so I don't run any Microsoft products at all.
The lesson, however, is when you release a product, it must work, it do what users want, and it must be affordable.




Microsoft - Brilliant People
By SecDriver on 2/6/2010 10:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
I loved OS/2 - and hand an axe to grind with Microsoft. Then I got hired there, and discovered what a great place it was to work. Brilliant, driven, passionate people - a greate place to work (with however, some frustrating middle management). After almost 3 years I left for more $ elsewhere... but anyone who thinks Microsoft cannot innovate is nuts.




Wait, no!
By TexMurphy on 2/5/2010 2:26:35 PM , Rating: 1
"Obviously, we disagree. :) But his piece does represent a good opportunity to touch briefly on how we think about innovation."

A smiley? Really? Wow, how in touch with the young and hip kids you are.




By sabrewulf on 2/5/2010 2:27:16 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously.




Formal Spelling of Name
By tigz1218 on 2/5/2010 4:36:07 PM , Rating: 1
So would it be written as Brass, Dick?




Bad Jason Mick...
By jonmcc33 on 2/5/10, Rating: 0
Microsoft is right.
By reader1 on 2/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Microsoft is right.
By Lord 666 on 2/5/2010 10:11:57 AM , Rating: 1
For once, I agree with you as Xbox 360 has been very successful with several firsts in the industry along with being a decent platform.

While Windows 7 is great, its just fixing what didn't work in Vista.


RE: Microsoft is right.
By aharris on 2/5/2010 10:33:29 AM , Rating: 2
Also the first gaming console to go over on a one billion dollar repair budget.


RE: Microsoft is right.
By Smilin on 2/9/2010 9:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
Yet it still made a huge profit and people love it so much they buy them anyway.

Sh1t happens but at least MS did right by people. They fixed out of warranty boxes and extended warranties on others. All the new and refurb ones now are fine too.


RE: Microsoft is right.
By jonmcc33 on 2/5/2010 10:52:43 AM , Rating: 1
They don't make PCs last time I checked? Gotta use your brain on that one...


RE: Microsoft is right.
By porkpie on 2/5/2010 10:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
They produce what is arguably the most important component of a PC however -- the OS.


RE: Microsoft is right.
By Oregonian2 on 2/5/2010 3:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
... and the mouse! :-)


RE: Microsoft is right.
By StevoLincolnite on 2/5/2010 11:03:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Project Natal is innovative. Microsoft is innovating in the game console industry, where they have competition. They are not, however, innovating in the PC industry, where they have a monopoly.


I don't know why you are being voted down, probably the smartest thing ever to come out of your mouth.

Yes Microsoft has done allot of "Firsts" in the console industry like:

1) First console with 720P or greater resolution.
2) Hard Disk Drive for data storage.
3) Standardized online gaming platform, that's fast, reliable and rich in content. (Sony, Nintendo, Sega all failed at this, and in my opinion still don't match Xbox live!).
4) Natal? ~ Not sure until I actually try it, might be great, might not be.

Still, the Xbox has it's issues... Which to me are all hardware related, like how noisy it is, the price of accessories, the failure rates... etc'. (What happened to the days when you could use a console for 10-15 years and not fear of it breaking down? - Almost as bad as Sony's exploding battery's debacle. :P)

On the software side, probably due to there years of experience is top notch.

*****

In the PC industry I do believe they are innovating, compared to Windows XP, Windows Vista offered a plethora of new technologies, a massive amount! Despite it's short comings it was a massive leap.

I probably have never seen an OS evolutionary jump like that since Windows 3.1 >>> Windows 95. (XP was a pretty version of Win2k mostly). ~ And they refined that with the highly popular Windows 7.

But in the end, they are to *me* just another company that will take my money as happily as any other and laugh all the way to the bank, I'm not aware of any for-profit company that is any different.


RE: Microsoft is right.
By hiscross on 2/5/2010 11:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
My son has owned 2 xBox V1 & 2. V2 had the circle of death and Microsoft fixed it. He also uses X Box Live. The box is noisy, really loud and I use a hearing aide. The games look nice on our HD TV. I see games as hobby and Not productivity tool. That said, besides the cool graphics, games are just that games. I am yet to see their value besides making a developer money (and I all for making money). I see Microsoft as company that tries to be all for everyone, and not good at anything. Linux /UNIX/mainframe is all about enterprise production. Single focus and successful. Apple is all about consumer products. Limited, yes, but successful. Besides a OS/2 OS and Word Processor / Spreadsheet /Mail Client Microsoft has little influence in any other area. I know BING is here and Arure is available as catch up products to Google / Amazon only and nothing more. They never made bent in SOA, MP3, or MobilePhones. Please tell me why I wrong.


RE: Microsoft is right.
By badbirdlb on 2/5/2010 12:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think your missing the point Xbox is not just a gaming console it is a stepping stone in the future of the "home PC" why have a PC when you could have a "everything box" play games, stream movies, surf the web, video chat with family and frinds, download and store and edit video and music files, pay your bills all from the comfort of your easy chair infront of your 1080 screen. Most of wich you can do now with the xbox, but seeing how its merily a kids toy....a hobby........one might even argue MS is miles out in front of apple on this..and maybe just maybe apple will have some catching up to do....


RE: Microsoft is right.
By DOOA on 2/6/2010 12:39:00 AM , Rating: 2
I currently do all that on my Mac and on my PC.Have for a few years. Neither side has "catching up to do" in this area. Mac edits better, a bit more stable. PC has the games.

Unfortunately my Xbox died so I cannot use it.


RE: Microsoft is right.
By Smilin on 2/5/2010 4:28:54 PM , Rating: 1

You were just bashing MS and the game industry in some other article.

You're just a troll dude. Shut up.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki