Can Microsoft Innovate?
WSJ is running a debate between two of my favorite people, Dave Winer and Robert Scoble. We gave Dave “firewood as a function of distance and price” before he even asked for it, but I actually don’t disagree with much of what he or Scoble say.
On the other hand, I agree with Dave’s assertion that the entire premise is a bit skewed. He mentions that, “by the time there is a class on it, it’s not innovation”. By the same token, by the time the press is writing about it, it’s not innovation. The WSJ article mentions Google ad platforms and search as the “new” against which Microsoft’s “old” on one hand and “playing catch up” on the other is contrasted. Same with iPod and Zune. These are simply big company implementations of things that have been around for a long time — Google sure as heck didn’t invent ad targeting or search.
It makes good press to say, “which BigCo did it first”, but that’s not reality. If you want innovation at a big company, look for improvements to existing products. If you want to see innovation in overall features, and things that can potentially change the game, look to the customers/developers as Dave says. In my opinion, the best strategy for a BigCo is to enable a climate where tons of external innovation can happen, and can be harvested/rewarded by the BigCo in a way that benefits everyone.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:54 am
A debate about innovation is naturally going to become a debate about the definition of innovation.
At this point, who cares about innovation? Microsoft has a legal monopoly on operating systems and office tools. Realistically, the competition in their most important niche is nowhere in sight. Protecting every little innovation in the OS and Office niche through patents ensures that Microsoft will be raking in cash as long as we have a PC on every desk. And, the last time I checked, IBM is doing quite well as well.
Google’s market position is not as secure, and Microsoft will never let them rest. I can switch my Internet search in less than a second by typing in a different URL (I confess that switching ad servers is harder). I could never switch my operating system, because I have too much invested in existing data and applications. But I digress.
Stock price is not a measure of innovation. Personally, I think the high price of Google stock is a magnificent scheme perpetrated by investment bankers on Wall Street to increase commisions. But I digress.
Patents are a good measure of innovation. By this measure, IBM beats Microsoft, and Google doesn’t even show up.
See the List:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov06/4699
I find it very interesting that bankrupt Delphi outputs so many patents. When I would argue against software patents, pro-patent professors would often point out that cars are very complicated systems, like software, and the patent system works great in the auto industry. I’ve actually worked on some Delphi’s patents. Patenting incremental innovations didn’t save them from bankruptcy, but it could have if they had started sooner. But I digress…
December 3rd, 2006 at 8:32 am
“innovation” is as much a myth as “privacy”. The old saws “nothing new under the sun” and “the Greeks had a word for it” sum it up. Patents and other “intellectual property” absurdities have a nice archaic feel based on “back in 19 aught whatever Edison invented the electric light” and Marconi used a Tesla machine in his “invention” of wireless.
It’s clear that “MSBasic” was an artifice to use public domain stuff in a proprietary context and that all OSs have common grandparents, who don’t share in the largesse that comes from a legal system held in place by armed bailiffs.
The commons is maligned by those who are precluded therefrom as they try to charge admission to the park.
Money was a marveolous tune for a while, but enough is likely too much - same with borders, etc. We’re still very clearly all in this together and who was first with the widget simply is a detective game as Dave Winer might have learned from Dan Brickley.
Love.