Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Trumps Google, Yahoo! R&D Budgets
Rob writes to mention a Computer Business Review Online article on Microsoft's commitment to out-spend Google and Yahoo! on innovation in the coming year. From the article: "Microsoft Corp will spend over $1bn on R&D just in its MSN unit, for the fiscal year starting in July, chief executive Steve Ballmer told an audience of would-be advertising customers. The money, part of the surprise spending package that recently gave Microsoft's share price its biggest single-day drop in five years, comes as the company struggles to catch up to Yahoo! Inc and Google Inc in the search and online advertising market."
It's nice to know that MS will outspend Yahoo! and Google. However, isn't ROI a more important factor when it comes to things like this? I'm crystal-balling that MS will have the lowest ROI of the three over the next few years.
This guy's the limit!
As long as google's search engine is better, everyone will search there. On the other hand google's search engine is still far from flawless, so msn could do a nice job if they improved on that. When people will have an actual reason to use MSN search, advertizers will have a reason to get their ads there.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
if-we-throw-enough-money-at-a-problem-it-will-go-a way department.
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
It would be better if software companies would break out Research from Development. Software ages so quickly that almost all software companies are continuously development new products. Research, however, is a different story. I'm guessing this 'R & D' for MSN is all 'D'.
Outspending doesn't imply out-innovating. The most innovative solutions or ideas often result in (or are produced out of a need for) LESS spending.
Also, I've never considered it "innovation" when the primary business model is to copy other products' features and add a few pretty icons and obvious additions. I have yet to see a NEW idea come from Microsoft. I see a pattern of copying existing ideas, and integrating them closely with the OS so people ignore the original product since a good-enough version comes "free" with the OS.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
It is not the number of heads you hire that makes the difference, it's the creativity of each individual that counts. Common view by CEO's is that a certain problem requires so and so many people wich have a given set of buzz words on their CV.
If fact, what you need is to identify the creative (and unique) individuals and it does not matter how many people you have hired unless there is process in place in the company that identifies those individuals and gives them the lead.
Is this a case of Microsoft assuming they can throw vast amounts of money at any problem and solve it better than other people?
I mean, nine women can't have a baby in one month. Maybe, just maybe, the reason why Google is out innovating them is they either have smarter people, better development practices, or don't have a bunch of historical baggage of other products they need to slavishly support.
I guess from Microsoft's perspective, it's good to spend money on R&D. Hopefully they'll make better products, and at a minimum they'll probably get to write it off on their taxes.
In the long run though, I wonder if Google won't simply out-do them with fresh thinking, new ways of doing things, and a completely different business model than Microsoft. This may not simply be a matter of keep throwing vast amounts of money at the problem until it becomes easier.
This may require some more fundamental changes.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
They'll do even better when they start out-thinking their competitors.
They've been outspending Apache for years in the webserver market. What are their respective market shares again?
bang goes my karma... again...