Slashdot Mirror


Ballmer on Innovation

prostoalex writes "Robert Scoble interviewed Steve Ballmer on the topics of blogging, innovation at Microsoft, Microsoft's work with developers and other things. Video is available in WMV format." From the interview: "Did IBM out innovate us? I don't think so. I don't think they've done much interesting at all. What about Oracle? I don't think they've done much innovative at all. What about the open source guys? Ah, the business model is interesting but we haven't seen much in the way of technical innovation. People cite Google. Google has done some interesting stuff."

34 of 745 comments (clear)

  1. The monkey man screeches by CaptainZapp · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Did IBM out innovate us? I don't think so. I don't think they've done much interesting at all. What about Oracle? I don't think they've done much innovative at all. What about the open source guys? Ah, the business model is interesting but we haven't seen much in the way of technical innovation."

    That may be all well and even true. But why does Mr. Ballmer remind me so much of glass houses, stones, pots, kettles and the color black?

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

    1. Re:The monkey man screeches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >What about the open source guys? Ah, the
      > business model is interesting but we haven't
      > seen much in the way of technical innovation."

      You have to understand this about Microsoft:
      1) They are __not__ a technology company trying
      to sell their products. They are a __marketing__
      driven company whose products __happen__ to be
      technological products.

      2) Microsoft doesn't lead. Because they are a
      marketing company, they __watch__ marketing __trends__ to see which way the wind blows.
      When they think they know which way the market is going, then they will
      either:
      a) Buy the start up if they can.
      b) Make their own (inferior) version if they can't buy the competition.

      You have to wrap your head around those 2 points
      until you grok the implications.

      What are some of the implications?
      1) They don't understand the motivation behind
      open source and more specifically, free (GPL) software. As a marketing firm trying to sell product where's the money to be made here?

      Answer: None. If there is no money to be made
      from selling product, then why would you
      waste time on it? (You have __got__ to see this
      in market droid mode. This question doesn't make sense to ask from a technology point
      of view, but Microsoft doesn't live in technology mode, they just visit and harvest from the technology world.)

      2. You can't buy out open source software. You
      can buy out a start up company or an individual
      (like the creator of Gentoo), but that doesn't
      stop the competition from using and improving
      the software nevertheless.

      You can't rip off the software either, in particular, you can't rip off GPL software
      and be a leech about it.

      So, from a __marketing__ point of view,
      there is no "interesting" or "innovative"
      software in the open source world, since
      like MC Hammer sang it, they "can't touch this!".

      I would have said in the past that Ballmer
      is just an outright liar, but if you read
      the above and grok it, you can see that
      to use another a cliche, Baller "just doesn't get it."

      --Johnny

    2. Re:The monkey man screeches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Did IBM out innovate us? I don't think so."

      It's kind of ludicrous for Microsoft to claim that IBM hasn't been an innovator. Just about everything in modern computing was developed and commercialized by IBM, including but not limited to:

      1. Virtual memory
      2. Virtual machines
      3. Relational Databases, SQL (ya, I know, but it is an IBM thing)
      4. Protected memory
      5. Multiuser Operating Systems
      6. Multitasking Operating systems
      7. Markup (SGML, the parent of HTML and XML)
      8. Source code management
      9. Spinning disk storage
      10. Network terminals, graphics terminals
      11. RISC architectures

      and so many other basic ideas that most people (including myself & Steve B.) have no concept.

      Microsoft brought a half-baked MacOS clone to Intel. That's all. I wouldn't call that innovation.

    3. Re:The monkey man screeches by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Did IBM out innovate us? I don't think so. I don't think they've done much interesting at all
      Things like high temperature superconductivity are boring - visual basic and clippy, those are innovations that are really ... wait, does this guy really believe what he is saying? Microsoft didn't even do any R&D a few years back, and what have they done since they did start R&D that actually is innovative and not just porting stuff done elsewhere to a different platform? I'm sure there must be something (and no folks, optical mice don't count because you could buy optical mice from other vendors before Microsoft had heard of them and put in an order).
    4. Re:The monkey man screeches by lemaymd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am a Linux developer and love the OS, but you have to admit that a lot of the stuff on Linux is a copy of something in OS X or Windows. It seems like Linux is always playing catch-up and MS and Apple are the ones producing innovation, along with less frequent contributions from UNIX companies like SGI. Who picked up on anti-aliased desktop fonts first, who was the first to really push web services into the mainstream, etc. I think MS plays a very important role in technology advancement.

    5. Re:The monkey man screeches by Skim123 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Who exactly is 'they'? Microsoft is a company with, what, 30,000 employees? Not a single one of them 'gives a hoot?'

      I can't speak for their marketers or upper-management, but I've met with and interfaced with a couple hundred employees from Microsoft over the past decade and I'd say 90% of them have been more passionate, smarter, and more 'innovative' than the average employee I've met at any other computer software-related business.*

      Furthermore, it's amazing how passionate many are about their particular product line. Shit, just read some of their blogs and you'll see how much many care about the products they work on, the user experience, and so on. So saying 'the literally don't care' is about as far from reality as I can imagine. So either you are psychotic or ignorant or the people at Microsoft you've interfaced with personally happen to be vastly different from those that I've met/socialized with/worked with. (And I'm sure you have had the interactions and experience to make such claims as you did in your post, no? Or are you just saying this based on the fact that your Win98 box blue screens once a day? Yeah....)

      * - the majority of people I've met/worked with at Microsoft have been either in the Office team or ASP.NET team, so my observations may be skewed if just cool people work there.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    6. Re:The monkey man screeches by aej17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh for crying out loud. You HAVE to know exactly what he meant. "They" are the people who make the final decisions. "They" are the people "you can't speak for". I am sure that there are people who work at MS who are passionate about their work and are actually nice people. That is not the point. It is obvious from any number of examples over the past two decades that MS, AS A CORPORATION, does not particularly care about either quality of their products or innovation in those products. What the parent post said was dead on.

    7. Re:The monkey man screeches by sirdude · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think all articles everywhere that mention Steve Ballmer should include a link to this.

    8. Re:The monkey man screeches by antic · · Score: 5, Insightful


      If you seriously think that Microsoft doesn't "understand" Open Source, you're an idiot. They understand it but they cannot ever show any support for it because doing so would concede ground and that territory is profit, shareprice and morale (all things that matter to a company). If there was a way to make equivalent money out of GPLed software, you can bet they'd do it. There isn't (they make more doing what they already do), so they don't. It's that simple.

      Suggesting that they don't understand free software is a bizarre POV.

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    9. Re:The monkey man screeches by QuestorTapes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Suggesting that they don't understand free software is a bizarre POV.

      Actually, I'd say it's pretty much typical. I've been doing a lot of reading lately on conversation and confrontation. Most people seem to argue from implicit assumptions that:

      1- my point of view is correct, therefore yours is wrong.
      2- since my point of view is obviously correct, anyone who doesn't agree with me probably lacks information.
      3- once the information has been provided too them, if they still don't agree with me, they have a problem with comprehension; they just "don't get it."

      I've been guilty of that one a lot, myself.

    10. Re:The monkey man screeches by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Where do you get your information? I don't think IBM invented *ANY* of those things. They may have been the first company to bring products with those features to market, but that's the same thing Microsoft does.

  2. free Puff Piece for Microsoft? Here? by yagu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This interview doesn't shed much light on an already dark and rainy corporation. How could this be anything but intellectual masturbation on Microsoft's part when you have a Microsoft employee slow pitching to the biggest windbag at Microsoft? Especially when the two appear to be patting themselves on the back about the fact that Microsoft really does innovate. Aside from the fact Ballmer is amazingly general in his list of innovations, the interviewer asks questions about other companies and if those companies out-innovated Microsoft. Of course, the response is they didn't.

    But the interviewer might have asked some more thoughtful questions in that line like:

    • Did MicroPro out-innovate us? (first word processor WordPro)
    • Did Bricklin and Frankston out-innovate us? (fist spreadsheet... VisiCalc)
    • Did Netscape out-innovate us? (guess!)
    • Did Google...
    • Did DARPA? (internet, TCP/IP, etc.)

    Not sure why, but even on slashdot Microsoft manages to get some Puff Pieces.

    (open the Troll and Flamebait mod floodgates)

  3. take advantage and exploit that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    from the interview:
    Q: I'm on the evangelism team here, why do we have an evangelism team?

    A: Well, really helping developers understand what we got available for them to use, not just frankly in Windows, but in Office and our Server products, what they can take advantage of, exploit that. ...

    Yes, and with poor software design, a lot of exploits can be written.

  4. innovation. by torpor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    you know, i really don't think he knows what that word means:

    innovate: 1. To begin or introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time. 2. To begin or introduce something new.

    what has microsoft introduced lately that is so new? i honestly don't know: i haven't used microsoft products seriously in 10 years. they're not even on my radar any more.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:innovation. by dustmite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spoken like someone who doesn't actually know the history of OpenGL or anything about it at all, and only got into 3D programming once D3D was established. I suggest you learn some history, if only to balance your views.

      Direct3D is innovative. It revs regularly, and it keeps up with technology. It provides a unified API to deal directly with multiple types of underlying hardware and architecture. It incorporates new hardware functionality directly into that API. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well.

      As a Direct3D programmer, I have to say there are two major problems with your argument: firstly, Microsoft didn't create Direct3D, they BOUGHT IT. OK, sure, they've changed it a lot, but mainly to just bring it in line (read "follow" or "catch up") with new hardware innovations by the graphics card vendors like NVIDIA (i.e. shaders, which MS did not invent), and to clean up some of the really braindead aspects of the original design of the API. Secondly, Direct3D never did anything new or original, it only cloned and in fact caught up to either (a) what could already be done in OpenGL or (b) what the hardware vendors invented. MS may sit on advisory boards that steer the development of these technologies now, but they aren't driving the process, that's for sure.

      As an example to my point, find a PC game developer who uses Open/GL. Got one? Good. Now, if that developer is iD, go ahead and drop that and find another. Got another? Good. If that's Blizzard (for WoW), go ahead and drop that and find another. Got one? No?

      Well, if your definition of "innovative" is "the product that most people use", then we're using very different definitions of "innovative". Most developers use Direct3D due to (extremely obvious) market forces, not because it was more "innovative". In fact (and I know many) most developers that already had experience with OpenGL were dragged kicking and screaming to Direct3D, because it really was an incredibly sh*t API compared to D3D, especially in the beginning.

      Oh, please name one thing that can be done in Direct3D that cannot be done in OpenGL. Can't? That's because there isn't anything - with OpenGL's extension mechanism, you can do anything in GL that you can in D3D.

  5. Microsoft Is Innovative by Evil+W1zard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or at least they will be soon when they are the first company to buy a Spyware company and then incorporate that Spyware directly into the OS. Plus the Spyware will be proprietary so you will need to pay them 10k to view some code to make an API for your spyware to talk to its spyware and ....

    --
    News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
  6. Re:same old same old.... everybody is leader but.. by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Interesting

    just think about it, how each and every company always claims absolute leadership and innovation, market-leadership and to be the utmost and best of there is out there...

    The reason they do that is best explained by the man who formalized that concept. Nazi Germany's minister of propaganda, Josef Goebbels once said: "if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth".

    Corporations (and, gee, governments too) these days use exactly that same technique, whether it's in PR statements, interviews, punditry or advertising. They found it's easier to buy time with VC money and try to let the lies sink in in the general public to get people to buy their products, than putting out actually good products. There are exceptions of course, but that's the rule these days. And don't forget the added benefit of workers buying the lies too and working harder as a result...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  7. Does IBM innovate more than Microsoft? by nurhussein · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did IBM out innovate us? I don't think so.

    IBM invented SQL. IBM invented the hard drive. IBM invented the scanning tunnelling microscope. IBM employees have won the Nobel Prize.

    IBM may be evil, but it has always been cool evil.

    Microsoft on the other hand introduced...uhm...the animated paperclip? The monkey dance? The BSOD?

    Really, Ballmer. You just down like IBM because they gave support to Linux. Which makes them even cooler.

  8. No room for anyone but us by Just+Jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I read the Ballmer quotes, the first thing I thought was, he is saying that there is no room in the industry for anyone but Microsoft.

    All these other companies make products that other people use to be innovative. There relly isn't a lot of innovative room in relational databases for Oracle. They make databases, and very good databases and very popular databases, and they make a lot of money doing just that. THEIR CUSTOMERS are the ones who put those databases to good use.

    IBM make a lot of stuff. Most of it is pretty good stuff, and they make a lot of money selling that stuff. It is IBM's CUSTOMERS who make good use of it.

    "The open source guys..." Well, they make a lot of stuff too. IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO USE OPEN SOURCE software who put it to good use and who are innovative. Open source allows people a little more room to be innovative. They can aquire it at a lower cost. They can alter it to better meet their specific requirements...

    Steve Ballmer believes that computers are a platform for software companies to restrict and dictate what happens there. In that model, customers do not decide what computers do, but software vendors. That's why Microsoft feels the need to compete in every single little corner of the software industry. For Microsoft to (almost literally) control the world, they have to be the sole supplier of software to everyone.

    "The open source guys" have a different view.

  9. Re:Asking *MS* about innovation? by Ingolfke · · Score: 4, Funny

    EMACS doesn't copy Microsoft, it copies vi. Drop it and switch to a decent editor now.

  10. It's a bit like... by M3rk1n_Muffl3y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...asking the Osama Bin Laden about the virtues of Catholicism. Okay, maybe not quite, but I don't think MS are a company who do innovation. Rightly or wrongly their approach has been consistently based on developing other peoples innovations into mass-market products. Such as QDOS, VisiCalc, Navigator, GUI OS (from Apple or Xerox, take your pick). So I sincerely doubt the value of Ballmer's comments on this topic.

    --
    This is not the sig you are looking for...
  11. Re:Asking *MS* about innovation? by Ingolfke · · Score: 5, Funny

    and linux does? all linux /oss guys do is copy MS....

    You're full of crap. Linux absolutely does not copy Microsoft. They copy BSD.

  12. What about Apple? by otisg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Funny, he didn't mention Apple?

    --
    Simpy
  13. Re:Bullshit by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about Visual Studio?... I can whip up a usable, very functional Windows app in seconds. Try doing that on any other platform.

    And I can whip up a usable, very functional app in seconds that compiles to 3 platforms using REALbasic. If I want a Cocoa OS X app, I can use Xcode and Interface Builder, both of which are free.
    Other platforms have similiar, and some would argue better, IDE solutions.

    (tig)
    --
    Ignorance and prejudice and fear
    Walk hand in hand
  14. Scoble complains, Slashdot obeys? by syphoon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well this is annoying. Scoble complained just earlier on his blog that Slashdot hadn't linked to his Ballmer interview.

    The post in question: Interesting that Slashdot hasn't linked to the Ballmer thing yesterday. Maybe they belong to the Andrew Orlowski "we-must-not-link-to-or-acknowledge-Scoble" school of reporting. Heh.

    What's fun is that Ballmer, in the interview yesterday, took a swipe at open source and IBM and Oracle. Surely that'd be worth getting the Slashdotters all riled up.


    He got a lot of comments pointing out the interview was content-free, a spin job, and otherwise of generally no interest to the discerning crowd here. How pleased I was to see Scoble's shot go amiss.

    And then I refresh the front-page here :-(. Come on editors, even the interviewer semi-admits this as being a troll-piece in a /. context.

  15. Microsoft Innovates like Enron did - with BS. by standards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One innovation that Google came up with is that it learned that it doesn't need a figurehead spokesmodel like Ballmer.

    Ballmer does Microsoft a disservice by ranting about innovation but not actually delivering innovation. No wonder why theses Microsoft guys are so uncharismatic - people have a distaste for bullshit-slinging horn tooters.

    IBM - the inventor of so many basic industry ideas - is declared a non-innovator.

    Apple, who brought so many great ideas from the lab to desktop computing, ideas that Microsoft admittedly embraced after Apple delivered them successfully to market - doesn't get a mention.

    And Google, who mostly innovated the idea of not screwing over internet users with ads and pop-ups and cross-marketing crap, is an exciting innovator.

    IBM is the innovator of basic technology. Google is the innovator of doing the Internet right. Apple is the PC marketplace innovator.

    Microsoft? Um, well they invented something... I just don't know what that is. Truetype? SQL? The mouse? The file system? Does ANYone know?

  16. And next week.... by mormop · · Score: 5, Funny

    Joseph Goebbels on Compassion, George Bush on grammar and Count Dracula on the health benefits of a Vegan Diet.

    --
    Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
  17. MS is on the downslope. by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's what occured to me just watching.

    Shrinkwrap Software only business is over. 50 Billion$ on the bank or not. That's the simple truth. Be it that MS will roll on with XBox 360, 720 or whatever. But their core milkcow is withering.

    The CEO of MS having a sweet-little-nothings chinwag with one of his minions and hideously bullshitting 90% of the time won't change that.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  18. Re:free Puff Piece for Microsoft? Here? by Monte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Lotus software was particularly horrid

    !!!

    You should pray to develop such "horrid" software. There were two primary things that put the IBM PC on desks all over corporate America: 1) The TLA logo and 2) Lotus 1-2-3. Lotus invented the first "Killer App".

    Microsoft introduced their first spreadsheet product before Lotus 1-2-3 hit the market (1982 for the former, 1983 the latter). It was such a huge scary success compared to that horrid Lotus crap that nobody can remember it's name ("Multiplan", BTW).

    Excel (for Windows, it was originally introduced on some silly fruit computer of some sort) came out in 1987, leaving Lotus to pretty much own the spreadsheet market in the interim.

    and swiftly abandoned by nearly everyone that wasn't glued to their memorized 1-2-3 key combos.

    You mean like F1 = Help? Yeah, what a goof that was!

    This message brought to you by Old Farts Inc, keeping history on track for hundreds if not thousands of years

  19. OSS Not Inovative? by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Hummmm. OSS
    • Wiki
    • Blogging
    • For that matter, the web itself (http and html were OSS).
    • Most of the low-level internet protocol (the original core was funded by DARPA, but the rest of the core is actually OSS).

    OSS is so un-inovative, that Apple based their OS on it, borrows heavily (but they acknowledge it and contribute back). MS steals all the ideas and then declares it for their own.
    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  20. Re:Asking *MS* about innovation? by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Incremental compilation
    Incremental linking
    Pre-compiled headers


    Nope. Lightspeed C on the Macintosh had these first.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  21. Re:Show me one example by LibertineR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another bitter Netscape refugee shows his face.... By the time that Explorer 4.0 hit the market, it was considered by every single reviewer to be superior to Navigator, and that gap only widened, never narrowed. Everyone is entitled to hate Microsoft, but that does not mean that they did not only kick the shit out of Netscape by bundling, you would be a liar to suggest that Navigator was the superior product by the time Netscape began losing market share. You can sling that 'fanboy' crap as far as you want, but back in those days, you could not find a single tech review calling Navigator 4,5 or 6 superior to its competing Microsoft version. Deal with it.

  22. These "innovations" are up to 40 years old. by argent · · Score: 4, Informative

    # Incremental compilation
    # Incremental linking


    Forth, um, 1972? Lisp, 1965?

    # Pre-compiled headers

    Manx C on the Amiga in 1986.

    # A very strong visual debugger, with useful features like DataTips.
    # Integrated source browser
    # Integrated class browser


    Smalltalk, 1978

    Remote debugging over tcp/ip

    EVERYONE, as soon as TCP/IP existed.

    Intellisense (auto-completion)

    GNU Readline?

  23. Re:Who drives them? by localman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft is a company with, what, 30,000 employees? Not a single one of them 'gives a hoot?'
    That's right. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing problems such as IE being "integrated" with the OS.


    Having worked at MS in 98/99, I can say that "giving a hoot" doesn't amount to much. I was part of several projects where the majority of the team wanted to do something great, but red tape and politics got in the way.

    At one point, after months of upper management arguing about how to do it, I rewrote the FastCounter interface over a weekend. I presented it, the team loved it. Yet it sat on the shelf. Too many people wanted to prove they were in control. Eventually I left. But a lot of good people stayed on.

    Anyways, corporations are a group, not an individual. There are many great individuals at Microsoft. But as a group, as a corporation, their greatness can get lost.

    Cheers.