10 Microsoft Acquisitions and What They Mean Now

FrankPoole writes "CRN takes a look at the past five years of Microsoft's acquisition history, which totals $13 billion and more than 7,000 new employees, and highlights 10 deals and how they've affected the software giant. While some larger acquisitions stand out for better or worse, such as Danger and aQuantive, there are some smaller, blink-and-you'll-miss-it deals that have proved pivotal for Microsoft's push into new areas such as virtualization. And Microsoft's recent acquisition track record may lend credence to the heavy criticism levied against the company by former employees like Dick Brass."

Comments

Smart buys

[N3tRunner]

Most of the companies on that list were intelligent purchasing decisions by Microsoft, even if all of them didn't pan out in the end. Most of them even have examples included of where their input has specifically improved Microsoft's products. I think that Dick Brass's article in the Times was fairly harsh, but if what he says is true and Microsoft no longer has the capability for innovation, then buying innovators with their still-impressive supply of cash and then successfully integrating their work into their products is a good substitute for coming up with those ideas themselves. It's certainly not ideal, but it can work as long as they still have the funds to do so.

Re:Smart buys

[alen]

and how is this different from Apple and Google which are current tech rag favorites? both are on a buying spree. Almost every new Google service in the last few years has been based on a company they bought. just like Apple's multi-touch was as a result of a tiny startup they bought a few years ago

Re:Smart buys

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that Dick Brass's article in the Times was fairly harsh, but if what he says is true and Microsoft no longer has the capability for innovation, then buying innovators with their still-impressive supply of cash and then successfully integrating their work into their products is a good substitute for coming up with those ideas themselves. It's certainly not ideal, but it can work as long as they still have the funds to do so.

I think you missed a key point of Dick Brass's article. Even with innovative technologies at Microsoft (whether homegrown or acquired), there are too many internal power struggles going on for those innovations to ever really shine through or live up to their full potential. It's really a symptom of the corporate culture that's been allowed to fester for far too long there.

Re:Smart buys

[Angst Badger]

Vista failed to deliver innovation in operating systems, Windows 7 is just Microsoft playing catchup with Apple [...]

People say this a lot, but is there really that much innovation to be done in the operating system space, at least for end users? (The server space is, of course, quite different.) Personally, I'd be a lot happier if Microsoft stopped "innovating" with Windows, unless the innovation in question is to get the hell out of my face and operate smoothly so I can focus on my applications, which are why I have a computer in the first place. It's 2010, for crying out loud. The personal computer OS is a mature product category, and would be better served -- especially in Microsoft's case -- by fixing its plethora of bugs and security holes and misfeatures and just supporting new hardware as it comes along. While they're at it, maybe they could focus on optimizing its memory and CPU usage so that there's more left over for -- again -- the applications its supposed to support.

Being as we are, as a group, actually interested in the inner workings of operating systems, it's sometimes hard to remember that operating systems are mainly visible to users to the extent that they don't work as well as they should. A good operating system is unnoticeable for users and highly tractable for developers. Microsoft is failing miserably (and, for misguided marketing purposes, deliberately) at both.

Re:Smart buys

[Bert64]

They didn't say playing catchup in marketshare, they mean catchup in features, stability performance and appearance etc..

People don't buy windows because they've assessed multiple competing options (including osx and linux) and found windows to be technically superior or better value for money, they buy it because they don't realise anything else exists, because they're afraid to learn something new or because theyre forced to by having their data held to ransom by proprietary applications and their formats.

Re:Smart buys

[Ngarrang]

People don't buy windows because they've assessed multiple competing options ...

Depending on the user, the thought of the OS was probably secondary to the intended task: Run a web browser. Think about the typical user. And by typical, I mean grandma, mom, brother, dad, friend down the way that aren't tech geeks like the readers here. They just use a computer to get things done, like driving a car to get to work. They just use it, it is just a tool. This kind of user could care the hell less about the OS wars. They mock people like you and me for even caring about something "so trivial, because they all look the same anyways." (that is a direct quote, and it bugged me) And for many, many people, using a computer means running a web browser to get to FaceBook, MySpace, AOL, Gmail, etc, etc. The OS underneath doesn't matter for many of these people. Oh, sure, some of them want to type up documents, maybe write up a quick spreadsheet to help calculate some costs, but even then, the apps look the same on all platforms.

The difference comes in the money used to purchase the product. If dad only wants to spend $400 on "something that will let me read e-mail", it is probably going to be a PC with a copies of Windows already included. So, no, there is no comparison shopping be done. There is no point for them.

Think about the last time you bought a broom. Did you feature compare several models? Hate it or not, but the computer is on the level of a broom to most users. This fact bothers me...a lot. But I have had to come to terms with it.

"Become"?

[John Hasler]

> Microsoft has become a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator.

Microsoft has always been a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator (though I suppose dumpster-diving does require a certain amount of agility).