Research and development, or R&D, is a big deal with the Gates Gang. After all, in 2003, they spent over (all figures US) $4.6 billion on it. For a company that had revenues of $32.1 billion in the corresponding period, this is an impressive figure and to put in perspective, they spent $6.5 billion on sales and marketing during the same period. Clearly, R&D is important to the company. Read the article at Canoe.ca.
Microsoft Research – The Company in 10 Years
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Gates stresses the R&D every time he gives a speech. Yes R&D is extremely important. Which is why Microsoft is the true innovator. As Gates would say “We innovate with really cool stuff”. Buzzwords I keep hearing are “innovate” and “cool”. Yes indeed, very cool.
This might be a big sum, but considering that Microsoft is software-only company (and they practically do not offer consulting services) it is much less impressive. “Normal” companies spend bulk of their finances in manufacturing (labour, materials etc. costs) and in this case this is not the most important thing (unless you count packaging CD-ROM’s) :-). So I think all gets down to accounting – what part of development process is categorized as R&D 🙂 Of course there is Microsoft Research, with some really good guys (not only 🙂 – like Susane Dumais and her text mining group) but their output (in papers & real tools) is surprisingly small, for the potential they have…
And this is how it’ll turn out!! 🙂
http://www.usd.edu/~bwjames/humor/ms/mshome.html
Yes, Microsoft spends billions doing R&D. I dont think anyone could even argue otherwise.
My problem with it is that they do R&D that other people and companies already did.
“So I think all gets down to accounting – what part of development process is categorized as R&D 🙂 ”
As much as possible. After all, money spent on R&D can be written off via tax credits…
Bill Sample, director of tax at Microsoft is also the chairman of the R&D Credit Coalition. I don’t think there is anything underhand going on, but it is interesting….
R&D is obviously not as important as marketing to MS.
Gates stresses the R&D every time he gives a speech. Yes R&D is extremely important. Which is why Microsoft is the true innovator.
How do Microsoft innovate? What have they produced that is innovative?
I’m not trolling, I’m genuinely interested in where this $4.6 billion budget goes because very little innovative stuff comes out of Redmond. It’s mainly stuff tried and tested by other companies that Microsoft integrate into their own software. (Which really isn’t a bad tactic.)
You can check out http://research.microsoft.com/ to see what Microsoft is spending some of its money on.
Like most people, I find the amount of money MS spends on research staggering for all that comes out of MS. They may not be getting good value for their money (although, I’m sure they try to pad the R&D number as much as possible).
John
option 2
Microsoft is the biggest linux distrubution.
With a lot of new lock in features
@Marcelo. Thats a hefty claim especially since technological superiority doesn’t equate to over all sucess, you can see that in the processors industry.
Microsoft is a buisness and a very good buisness at that in the sense they can get away with things. Sure governments can fine them but thats just a slap on the wrist. I don’t think they’ll be sitting idle doing nothing, they are obvisouly looking at new markets to enter all the time, hence they will be big. Second thing is MS is “good enough” so to speak since people really only use 10% of the features of any os or software like office for example. To those who just surf web, email, im, play games, word process thats what MS provides for them. The only way they can be stopped is if they shot themselves and that is something they won’t really do. Besides piracy won’t help either since it just gives people more of a reason to use their os.
On a side note I’d like to note that I am no real supporter of MS, I think macs are better machines for the average person who doesnt need that much power, emacs are really nice and I do believe there are technologically superior machines and OS’s out there but I look at the facts and the first and foremost one is MS is a buisness and a very cunning one at times.
http://research.microsoft.com/news/monthlyfeature/santafetrail.aspx
Hehe, just kidding, but I found it quite odd that they had this link on the R&D front page. There a many uber-brains at Microsoft doing cool research, the thing is these things take years and years to come to fruition if ever because it’s just not in the marketing plan or not feasible with current hardware.
To be blunt, MS Research has not translated very well into revenues for the firm. Compare to IBM, which uses its research labs to grow money trees.
In any case the R&D lab cannot outrun the fate of the firm – to be a dinosaur sitting on a huge legacy userbase and a mountain of cash. In this scenario their time would be better spent on hedge fund optimization algorithms to try to get back some return on the cash hoarde. Don’t laugh – this is essentially what GE has done by becoming one of the world’s largest financial services firms. GE’s engine business it but a footnote to its credit business. Microsoft willlikely go the same way – an uber VC/stock manipulator that will seek out returns from other people’s innovations….ooops, they’ve been doing that all along!
Hey guys,
I was just kidding about MS destiny… Sony will remain as #1 in gaming consoles…
But the growth rate of MS profits is decreasing year after year:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/technology/microsoft/
The proprietary OS market is staured and it is becoming difficult to convince people to upgrade your computers/programs to newer bloated and expensive versions.
Like most people, I find the amount of money MS spends on research staggering for all that comes out of MS.
I have also wondered about that myself. Whatever you think about Microsoft, there is imo no denying that there have been no significant real innovations from Microsoft. There are a lot of talented people in Redmond, but i think the Microsoft company culture and management is limiting their creative potential. It seems that Microsoft is too focused on what the competition is doing instead of making innovative solutions themselves. Bill Gates’ “think weeks” are mainly about who or what might threaten his company in the future. Every resource in the company is then directed to combat any of those perceived threats. To create innovations — i am not talking about improvements of current technologies — in a society you have to give some people the freedom to experiment and to try things that may appear useless in the short term. I don’t think that Microsoft employees get much opportunity to do that.
i think its really odd since most of the stuff they do is copied or stolen from other commercial software. (Then SOME/MOST open source software copies microsoft–but thats changing as its getting popular). So, what new inventions has microsoft provided us? I do agree that R&D is important but the amount microsoft is spending on it actually isn’t that much compared to its size
Can we even really say that the Ipod is that innovative? or Mini-ipod? or Blackberry? In order for you guys to move forward, you really need to understand what Microsoft has brought to the computing world – development tools that spawned whole industries, and created trillions of dollars of income. Methodologies for graphics programming, their API’s. Every techie friend of mine has an ftp and web server installed on their system. It’s true that I have these servers set up in Linux these days but I have no doubt that a lot of what instigated this movement was at least partly because of the work that Microsoft was involved with, and how they marketed their NT server products. Even Linux, I think, is a product and “philosophy” that was developed as a response to Microsoft.
The proprietary OS market is staured and it is becoming difficult to convince people to upgrade your computers/programs to newer bloated and expensive versions.
Maybe in 3rd world countries like Brazil, but most people in the first world have no difficulties upgrading their computers and/or operating systems every few years.
But also in the first world companies and individuals who are in a budget may consider opting for alternatives to microsoft products, which are expensive and good-looking but not much of an innovation, like open-source products.Because open source is not only less-expensive, but as robust, if not more, and reliable than ms products. And, I don’t think linux was some reaction to microsoft’s efforts, but some famous student tinkering and hacking away at his computer console in his spare time. BTW, MS’s “tools” for creating and developing software aren’t that much of an innovation either, they’re just nicely organized in a neat way. ain’t nothing better than actual command-line interfaces . MS is good at doing GUI’s, but nothing more. The oss initiative has come a long way, and basically on its own, separately from MS’s efforts.
you really need to understand what Microsoft has brought to the computing world – development tools that spawned whole industries, and created trillions of dollars of income. Methodologies for graphics programming, their API’s. Every techie friend of mine has an ftp and web server installed on their system.
Very interesting. Microsoft invented FTP and the web server. I wasn’t aware of that. They ‘innovated’ the Windows APIs also.
http://www.hitmill.com/internet/web_history.asp
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ShortHistory
I don’t know if people really understand the meaning of “innovate”. It does rhyme with ‘dominate’, but isn’t the same.
How do Microsoft innovate? What have they produced that is innovative?
I’m not trolling, I’m genuinely interested in where this $4.6 billion budget goes because very little innovative stuff comes out of Redmond. It’s mainly stuff tried and tested by other companies that Microsoft integrate into their own software. (Which really isn’t a bad tactic.)
For this question to be meaningful, you must first define what you consider “innovative”. Examples would be helpful.
Very interesting. Microsoft invented FTP and the web server.
That’s not what he said.
Can we even really say that the Ipod is that innovative? or Mini-ipod? or Blackberry?
No, the iPod isn’t innovative. It’s pretty neat though. But I’ve never heard anyone call it innovative. I would be pretty stupid to do so since portable music players and even MP3-players has been around for ages.
you really need to understand what Microsoft has brought to the computing world – development tools that spawned whole industries, and created trillions of dollars of income.
Any OS maker would have done that. It’s not like they have created something truely unique that no one else could have done. What they did was to market their products well so that the expanding market would use them. It’s not something I should be thankful for.
Methodologies for graphics programming, their API’s.
What about their API’s? Seriously, I have never heard one single developer saying that MS prodived a good API, not until .NET and that’s a long time.
It’s true that I have these servers set up in Linux these days but I have no doubt that a lot of what instigated this movement was at least partly because of the work that Microsoft was involved with, and how they marketed their NT server products.
You know what. I’m just wasting time here. You should really go and read some computer history before you make any more comments. You will be surprised of how many cool systems there has been in the past, both on the desktop and the server side.
Seriously, you should open your eyes. Then you won’t think of MS in that way again, I ensure you that.
Oh, that’s right. There is none.
You are right. There’s very little innovation on the linux-side as well, there’s evolution in both camps though.
The difference is that MS are using innovation as their no 1 marketing word, in fact they use it when they try to defend themselves in court as well. That’s the difference. I’ve never heard any linux dev saying that he’s done something really innovative though.
I still think quite strange all that “MS doesn’t innovate” bashing and then I look at my DEs (KDE and Gnome) and guess what, they look a heck of a lot like Windows 95
>I still think quite strange all that “MS doesn’t innovate” bashing and then I look at my DEs (KDE and Gnome) and guess what, they look a heck of a lot like Windows 95
Which looks a hell of a lot like many other OS’es before it. Mac OS, AmigaOS, GEOS just to name a few home PC GUI systems.
The important point to note is that microsoft “Claims” to innovate. You poke them and they squeal “Your trying to stop us innovating”. So people call them on it.
Even Linux, I think, is a product and “philosophy” that was developed as a response to Microsoft.
Uhh no. Not at all. GNU was started well before MS had control of the market. It was started by RMS in response to propietary software in general and Linux was started in response to the want for UNIX on x86.
Uhh no. Not at all. GNU was started well before MS had control of the market.
Actually, I do know this about GNU. I’m getting off topic, but basically, my suspicion that the popularity of GNU/Linux exists not because it’s technologically superior to Windows, BeOS, Mac OS, or OS/2. It’s popular because it embraced the only business/development/technology model that a Monopoly can’t kill off. MS’s dominance fuels GNU/Linux. That’s what I was trying to get at, but that’s really a bad tangent, and I apologize for that.
As for everyone else. I guess that you’ll have to go through life thinking that MS did nothing but harm to the computing world. Personally I think the I-pod *is* an innovative solution, but that’s just because of my post-modern, loose definition of the word, and my belief that innovation exists in the details.
The difference is that MS are using innovation as their no 1 marketing word, in fact they use it when they try to defend themselves in court as well. That’s the difference. I’ve never heard any linux dev saying that he’s done something really innovative though.
Same as Linux users say Linux + Security and as we all know that’s not their strongest point right now… some say Linux is Free and that is just plain wrong too…
Gee it’s just marketing and all misuse it. The worst guy in the world at misusing words is probably RMS so why you guys complaining?
“But look, these guys are much worse!” has to be the lamest excuse ever. One wrong doesn’t make another one right
I also don’t get why lies are suddenly OK when it comes to marketing. I mean lying is considered really bad in our society and most children are tought not to do so, still when it comes to marketing people doesn’t seem to care, they don’t seem to care that the company people pay billions each year are nothing but a bunch of world class liers. Those kind of mixed messages aren’t healthy for a new generation. “It’s ok to lie if you can make a buck or few out of it”
geez
I mean lying is considered really bad in our society and most children are tought not to do so […]
What society do you live in ? Certainly not any that I’ve ever heard of.
I think what you mean to say is lying that causes harm is considered really bad, but most other forms (“white lies”) are considered fine.
To me, innovation = invention.
I am a user of Windows, but …
Was the Windows 3.1 GUI innovative? No, invented by Xerox PARC, and first popularized by Apple.
Was the Windows “microkernel” OS (NT/2000/XP) innovative? No, other OS’s came up with this idea.
Were MS Word/Excel/Powerpoint innovative? No. (not definite about Powerpoint, but unlikely)
Was Internet Explorer innovative? No. See Mosaic.
Is .NET innovative? Possibly, but based on the Web services concept and standard with much other credit to go around.
The above summarizes the main MS products, and none are innovative. What I see is Microsoft taking an idea invented elsewhere and then doing a good job in commercializing it. Also, I see very little innovative coming out of Microsoft Research, certainly not enough innovation to warrant the huge $$ they’re throwing at research. But that is Microsoft’s right as a monopoly. There was lots of research at Bell Labs that added nothing to the company’s bottom line, and that was OK as long as AT&T remained a monopoly. Same for IBM. Now it’s Microsoft’s turn to pour money at research and get little in return. I thought they were going to learn from these past mistakes and it seems that they’re still staying somewhat lean, compared to other bloated labs of the past. Too bad they’re getting so little out of it.
That does not mean that I dis Microsoft in its accomplishments. I credit Gates with bringing cheap usable software (GUI, OS and app’s) to the masses, but the fundamental ideas behind these products were not invented by MS. At least MS was cheap compared to Apple back then. Today, it’s not as cheap as Linux, and actually appears expensive, thanks to monopoly pricing. I also credit MS with creating usable development environments, or at least certainly more usable than their competitors early on. Again, this is not innovative.
Who is innovative?
X/Xfree Windows was innovative (seen today as GNOME/KDE), introducing a distributed client/server cross-platform windowing environment. Mac Windows inspired both X and MS Windows. X came out on UNIX workstations about the time that Windows 3.1 came out. Today, X can be configured to look like Windows (that is what GNOME does), but it is so flexible that it can be configured to look like a totally different windowing system too. Hence, I can see the mistake another poster made thinking GNOME copycatted Windows.
Google is innovative, in that they built a better mousetrap.
Segway is innovative.
Sincerely,
prospector
I mean lying is considered really bad in our society and most children are tought not to do so […]
What society do you live in ? Certainly not any that I’ve ever heard of.
I think what you mean to say is lying that causes harm is considered really bad, but most other forms (“white lies”) are considered fine.
Ever hear of the Bible. It explicitly states that lying (of any kind) is bad. There are a lot of societies built around christianity, including several large governments with christian official religions (Britain for example).
Just because you as a member of the society do not consider lying to be bad, that does not mean the society agrees with you. Most english speaking societies have [lying == bad] built into their underpinnings.