Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Exec Opens Up About Research Lab Closure, Layoffs

Posted by samzenpus on from the story-behind-the-story dept.

alphadogg writes It's been a bit over a month since Microsoft shuttered its Microsoft Research lab in Silicon Valley as part of the company's broader restructuring that will include 18,000 layoffs. This week, Harry Shum, Microsoft EVP of Technology & Research, posted what he termed an "open letter to the academic research community" on the company's research blog. In the post, Shum is suitably contrite about the painful job cut decisions that were made in closing the lab, which opened in 2001. He also stresses that Microsoft will continue to invest in and value "fundamental research".

15 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. Bull by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He also stresses that Microsoft will continue to invest in and value "fundamental research".

    That's a load of bull. Just about every company that's had significant research institutions and has closed them down has suffered long-term from that choice. Xerox, Bell, IBM, and several others in telecom/computing alone have done this and suffered the consequences.

    Fundamental research is what drives long-term profit. Sure, it costs money. But it also produces patentable products that can revolutionize the market and allow the company to profit from patent licensing even when they aren't interested in the market that the patent would apply to. Get rid of the research and the company's products go stale over time, no new ideas, rehashing of existing ones to the point that someone with new innovation comes along and steals away all of the customers. Short-term it might make more profit, but long term it's like selling one's investments for cash.

    This is a terrible mistake for Microsoft.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Bull by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Informative

      Short-term it might make more profit, but long term it's like selling one's investments for cash.
      This is a terrible mistake for Microsoft.

      Yes, but not for the people running it.

      By the time the brain drain has it's long term effects, the executives will have jumped away, in come cases into retirement, with their golden parachutes. It's only the long-term investors and loyal employees who will have to deal with how it ruins the company.

    2. Re:Bull by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Microsoft got a $billion from Samsung last year in Android patents. Others are also paying royalties to Microsoft.

      In other words, Microsoft is making more profit off Android than they are off their own phones.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Bull by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It is very premature to excoriate Microsoft for discontinuing research. Yes they closed the Bay Area site, but Microsoft Research is headquartered in Redmond, along with Microsoft Corporate HQ. If anything, Microsoft has been knocked for pouring money into MS Research with little to show for it (although their patent portfolio may be the most profitable thing they have going in the mobile arena).

      If Microsoft is flagging, I actually don't think it's lack of research, in their case. They are way out in front of every movement in industry (hence the patent fees), what they lack is the design and marketing to capitalize on it themselves.

    4. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Did you miss the part where the layoffs amount to approximately 50 people out of an existing pool of > 1000 researchers?

      In other words, Microsoft laid off about 5% of its research staff, and the other 95% remains intact.

    5. Re:Bull by k31 · · Score: 2

      Not really.

      Somebody has to do fundamental research, but then they have to have big coffers to defend those patents in court -- big companies can win the war whilst losing every battle, like Sony did versus the makers of Bleem. Sony lost in court but Bleem went out of business in the meantime, and the employees scattered, some working for Sony anyhow.

      Similarly, if you want to advance anything nowadays, you have to be working for a company that is already successful, and if you can do your job and find time for research, then why have a separate research department which is not doing anything towards development?

      There is enough leftover wisdom from the Space Age to give tons and tons of innovations, but in fact, there is profit to be made by doing two things:
      1) the same thing, but with less burden (financial, cognitive, or social) on the customer -- e.g. Netflix vs Cable, WIMPs vs. CLIs, any so-called social media which does not require you to actually take a shower, get dressed, leave the house, or even own a house)
      2) things which were done before but with less specs, e.g. "HD remakes" of older games.

      Microsoft, in particular, is now in a state of maintaining its monopoly at all costs, which is a well understood problem, and a matter of maintaining mind-share and blocking competition rather than growing market share or being competitive. It does not need research at all.

      It can just buy (or license) it, and bully those who do not comply with underhanded legal tactics (patent trolling, sue-to-death, et cetera).

    6. Re:Bull by steelfood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sorry, I do have to bring something up. One of Microsoft's most lucrative patents is for FAT32. One of the reasons they're making so much money off FAT32 patents is because some genius standardizing SD flash cards put in a requirement that all SD cards use FAT32 ("genius" may or may not be sarcastic). Thus anyone who wants to include a SD card reader, including microSD cards, must license the patents from Microsoft.

      However, the tides may be changing after Alice vs. CLS. Those FAT32 patents may not be valid anymore. In which case, Microsoft is about to lose a fairly large revenue stream.

      I don't disagree that they are still fairly research-heavy, and that it's a good thing. The problem I see is that their business side (marketing, sales, etc.) has a history killing all the cool stuff that's coming out of their engineering side (including research). This closure may be symptomatic of a continuance of that culture under the new CEO, or it may not. Without intricate knowledge of the internal politics at play (because it's Microsoft and there's always politics at play there), it's hard to say for certain either way.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  2. As a person in corporate research & developmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I would like to thank the broad computing research community which has taken the time to share its thoughts and concerns about the recent closure of our research lab in Silicon Valley.
    Translation: thanks, you guys are typical academic opinionated armchair quarterbacks...

    I share with all of you a strong belief in the value of fundamental research and its importance for the long-term viability of our company, our industry and our society, and want to reassure you of Microsoft’s commitment to fundamental research.
    Translation: The reason MS R&D was created was to do cheap R&D by passing on the hard work to Academia. And you guys bought it--an academic researcher being able to deliver directly to production....that's like being the next stanford's facebook or google.

    Unfortunately, no organization – governmental, industrial or academic – is immune to change and the technology business in particular is defined by rapid evolution.
    Translation: MS R&D partnering with academia promised so much in really unrealistic ideas, when it's all about execution. Hence we ran out of good will from our customers--you guys over promised. Look at Google X, they're heading in the same direction.

    Technology businesses need to constantly adapt in order to survive.
    Translation: Fundamental (aka academic) R&D gave us pipe dreams, stuff that only worked in controlled environments, un-manufacture-able. Businesses must adapt by churning out great products, not cool demos/ideas.

    In July, our new CEO, Satya Nadella, discussed how Microsoft would transform to be the productivity and platform company for a mobile-first, cloud-first world, and evolve its culture to be more nimble. This transformation included reducing our workforce by 18,000 jobs. Each organization within Microsoft, including Microsoft Research, is accountable for driving changes in culture and organization, and each has to participate in the job reductions.
    Translation: Fundamental/academic R&D sucked in the end. Obviously the community doesn't agree. Thanks guys.

  3. Re:The wave of the near future by Teresita · · Score: 2

    They simply allow other companies to take the expense and the risk, then buy them out.

    Or in the case of Doublespace/Drivespace, they let Stac Electronics do all the heavy lifting, then just walk all over their patents.

  4. Re:well of-course they are firing by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

    I saw this happen to Main Frames, then to Mini's; now for Micro's. I've seen so many dynasties come and go, I wager Apple will be next; it just doesn't know it. Quantum Computing, I can hardly wait. Is this a wonderful time in history or what?

  5. I think a lot of the SVC people laid off... by tlambert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think a lot of the SVC people laid off were people working on Microsoft Products for Apple. Mountain View, at the facility South of the I-101/I-85 interchange, near Moffett Field, were there to do work on Mac OS X products. I you look at the Microsoft job postings, you'll see that almost everyone in APEX is a continuing engineer, and that there are a small number of Objective-C and iOS openings that all appear to be concentrated on front-ending Office 365 on Mac OS X and iPhone, iPod, and iPad, rather than native applications.

    I expect this is the non-announcement that Office 2014 for Apple products is going to be nothing more than a front-end wrapper for their subscription products. This somewhat makes sense, given that Apple has been pressuring them on productivity apps on their platforms, and that "good enough" is the enemy of "expensive". If you couple this with Mac OS X *never* having been a tier 1 platform for Office products (where's VB 5, VB.Net, Acces, etc. for Mac OS X?), it was never intended that Apple desktop systems be able to compete with Windows desktop systems in terms of being able to do the same vertical market development using ports from Windows vertical market development. It was an avoidance of cannibalizing the Windows market in that area.

    Obviously, I could be wrong, but when working at Apple, I visited the Office developers there several times to deal with OS and kernel related issues; the only place they seem to be willing to hire Objective-C people seems to be Redmond or Bellevue, and it appears to be for things like Skype development, not office; the APEX jobs appear to be remaining in Mountain View at present, and greatly scaled back.

  6. Re:well of-course they are firing by ogdenk · · Score: 2

    It's only socialist if you're very poor or in the top 1%. The rest of us are clearly the enemy.

  7. Research for what? by miffo.swe · · Score: 2

    Microsoft is run by marketing alone. Research has no place there as it will never be able to influence any decisions.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  8. Microsoft Research isn't closed - just one lab by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

    There are still 11 labs world-wide, and 5 of them are in the USA. http://research.microsoft.com/...

    I suspect Silicon Valley is just a VERY high-cost location, and I know I wouldn't work there without 3x what I make now working in the midwest.

    You can work remotely, you know...

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  9. Re:well of-course they are firing by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    Hey I'm all for the free market economy. I know Microsoft unfortunately won't ever just gio bust and die but if they did:

    * Lots of other smaller companies and innovative startups that Microsoft are actively keeping down will now get a shot at a more level marketplace.

    * A massive patent portfolio would open up thus removing a very large damping effect currently in place around the entire sofware industry.

    * Software tech especially OS's will probably suddenly make a noticeable leap forward (for the above reasons)

    * Windows finally going away will be a strong opportunity/motivator for more awareness and acceptance of Linux on the desktop.

    * The net quality of work and therefore respect that Software Engineers get will noticeably increase because the crappiest code hackers most often seem to be the ones that don't know anything other than Microsoft Tools/APis. They will all finally have to get a clue or find another career.