I hate to rain on the Intel/Nokia love fest, but this just isn't gonna fly for the following reasons:
1. 802.16x is not as advertised. It is not 50+Mb at 70 miles, it is either/or. The further out you get, the more the bandwidth drops, and it drops fast. This means more towers to cover a geographical area with acceptable service, which destroys the business model.
2. 802.16 is a TDMA technology, which simply means time slices. Each connection (user) requires a time slice from the tower. As the density of the area covered by a tower grows, to give you acceptable performance (see #1 above) they need more towers, which destroys the business model.
In short, while the technology might be coaxed to give adequate performance to a decent number of people, the business model sucks, which will prevent it from really gaining a foothold. Nobody really wants to pay for mobil internet, as much as they seem to want it. There will be a few early adopters, but not enough to make the business even support itself.
OK, this is great. So how does one go about enforcing such a law? I have very mixed feelings about this one.
I love the idea that we are making something so irritating illegal in the strick legal sense of the word. Make no mistake, I hate Spyware.
At least I think I hate Spyware. I am not really sure, given the broad definition. Some Spyware is good, based solely on MY definition of 'good' and the mood I am in. So what if I have to give up something 'good' because the purveyors of that 'good' thing felt it might fit into the broad definition of Spyware and thusly discontinued it. I lose.
On the other hand, the creepy porn junk and the crud that wants my bank account so they can sell me into slavery in Korea definitely (again, in MY definition of...) fit the model of BAD Spyware and need to have its purveyors captured, subjected to Janet Jackson Videos and sent to prison for a long time. And thus begs the question:
How does this law get that done? Certainly these guys aren't going to stop their nonsense, they are making money doing it, so we will HAVE to enforce this law to get them to stop, and if they don't stop because there is no good way to enforce this law, then the BAD stuff continues and the GOOD stuff is thwarted.
I am just not sure about this one.
I suppose it gives teeth to companies like Microsoft and EBay to go after these guys and have them bundled away. That is good. But Who decides which ones Microsoft and EBay go after? And do I really want to create a system whereby Microsoft and EBay are the US Marshals and are enforcing laws the way they see fit, and going after those criminals that they decide to go after?
This is just not going to happen. The Executive team at Microsoft is so focused on taking on and taking out Linux that this would be laughed out of the room for the following reasons:
1. It would be seen as an admission that the Windows Server technology is not what it is cracked up to be, and be read by the market as such. The immediate impact to the server business would be significant, and it is the only segment at Microsoft that is growing.
2. It would be seen as an admission that Linux MIGHT have some redeeming qualities, something that the Executive team at Microsoft has been avoiding at all costs. Just like Hertz and Avis, #1 should NEVER acknowledge #2 in the market.
3. It would dramatically confuse the market at a time when Microsoft is trying very hard (read $100M+ marketing) to win the server space and defend the desktop.
You may not like Microsoft, but they don't tend to make really stupid mistakes, and this would be one. It just ain't gonna happen.
I would like to see one of them (Google, AOL) go after a more complete solution. Exchange and Outlook are the enterprise winner because they have incorporated email with calandering and support scheduling between exchange users. I want Google and AOL (although I have very little faith in AOL's abilities) to go after the ubiquitous email/desktop organization markets. Email alone is not enough.
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like we might be hitting the limits of free email. Exactly how many free email systems does the world need anyways? I have a Hotmail account which I don't use anymore. The 2Gb of storage is slowly filling up with crap. I log in occasionally to find out if there might be anything useful, there rarely is. I have a Google email account which I use for internet transactions. I forward that email to my Exchange account, which is then forwarded to my Blackberry. Exchange has dramatically improved their junk filtering, so very little gets to my Blackberry that I don't actually want there.
I suppose the ability to get a really cool email name creates demand for a new system. Is there really any other reason?
80% of Microsoft's revenue comes from the top 20% of their enterprise customer base, meaning that 80% of their customers (likely you and I) do not get the attention that the big customers get. This is why security is such a big issue for them. It isn't to make your home PC more secure, that is just a side-effect.
The reason for pointing this out is that it is the largest 20% of the customers in the enterprise space that drive Microsoft's technical direction. Ever wonder why the Mac is better for the home market and novice user? It was designed and is driven by the desires of the home market, not the enterprise market. As long as Microsoft's focus remains on the large enterprise space, the product will continue to be just 'average' on the desktop. This is the crack in the market that Apple is going after.
Just to make the math right, Microsoft's R&D budget is just under 6 billion a year. The 35% figure is of that number, not cash in the bank or annual revenue.
When the DOJ had Microsoft in its darkest hours back in 2000 and 2001, the concept of splitting Microsoft into two companies was debated internally at the highest levels. While the executive ego eventually won out (we will only do it if it is our idea) the idea is still sound. If Microsoft split themselves into two separate companies, Applications and Operating Systems (and maybe a third, Servers) and use the opportunity to trim the ranks and get back to battle-ready form, they would end up with two hard-hitting monopolies instead of one. Each of these companies could be re-motivated with generous employee options and huge growth potential, as they would be unshackled from the HR-driven mess that Microsoft has become today. Office would not have to fight Windows for resources, each could drive themselves as a focused entity.
Microsoft wants to extend Windows, or a form of Windows, into everything. Phones, entertainment, toasters, it all wants to be Windows. That is how they see a way to expand the market beyond the desktop. And, all truth be told, it is probably the only way to expand the market. The problem, of course, is that Windows was not created with the idea of cramming it into little devices with little processors. A fine example is the first 'smart phone'. Microsoft is continually playing the 'processors will get faster' card and hoping that the hardware will catch up with the softwares demands. However, hardware is not catching up, or keeping up, with Microsoft software demands. Why do you think the new Xbox has THREE 3Ghz processors?
Your estimations are low. The current code base for Windows requires 70% of Microsofts engineering resources to maintain and debug patches and security holes. This is referred to as 'sustaining engineering' and is religated to the younger developers and testers as it is considered grunt work. The more seasoned developers get to work on the new feature list.
All good points. The obsession comes from Bill, he hates to lose and drives the research groups very hard. The domination push comes from Ballmer. I was at a management session several years ago where he talked about his overall goals for Microsoft (this was an internal management meeting). He waxed on about how many hours a day people used Microsoft software. Given Windows and Office, he figured it was about 6-7 hours a day that people used a Microsoft product. He went on to state that there were, therefore, 18 or so hours a day that people weren't using Microsoft software, and HE WANTED THOSE 18 HOURS!. His goal, and you gotta love the guy for it, was that people should be using Microsoft software 24 hours a day.
The obsession and drive from Ballmer and Gates are still there, my point is that the engine that pushes the Microsoft race car forward needs a serious valve job.
Microsoft's problems are as much internal as they are external. Certainly the company is under siege from many different directions, but that is the way free enterprise is supposed to work. Microsoft has been under siege for the last 15 years as the VC community and starry-eyed entrepreneurs took them on in every possible direction. This is the way it is, and this is the way it should be. Some will say it is more extreme now, but I suspect they have always said that. Microsoft likes being under siege, it gives them all a sense of purpose other than adding 16 more features to a word processor. It actually motivates them.
That said, the bigger problem, as I have stated in the past, is internal. In the past Microsoft has been able to respond to a siege by motivating the troops and getting the job done. IE was possibly the last great example of the Microsoft development engine at work. Now, it is almost impossible for Microsoft to rally the developer troops for that kind of siege-mentality response. The employee apathy is thick. The old-timers can still get it up, those that are still there and haven't joined Ignition Partners or retired, but you have to keep in mind that most of the developers and program managers there today weren't there 5 years ago, and only know Microsoft as a bloated software factory. The glory years, the rally cry of Ballmer and Gates, the late night and weekender coding marathons and the 'death march' mentality are all just stories of the past. The current typical Microsoft employee is more of the 'hey, I have a family and a life, this can wait' style. Certainly there are pockets of exceptions, but generally speaking, the engine is running a bit cold.
Without the means to execute, the siege will take its toll.
How much is Slashdot costing the Universe every second in lost 'productivity'? When I am typing this stuff, I am not moving the lever that moves the arm that picks up the bumper and bolts it onto the back of the car.
I am willing to bet it is WAY more that that stupid movie...
While I actually agree with a lot of what you said, I am not so sure the XBOX can save them. It takes a multi-billion dollar business to move the needle at Microsoft, and the new XBOX is still very heavily subsidized and can't contribute much to the bottom line. The original strategy was that they would make it all up on games, but that division has been cut way back as well.
"Microsoft are now arrogant, dominate the market, kill third party products off using undocumented APIs + patents + incompatibilities caused by random patching changes. People despise Microsoft's attitude."
This is yesterdays news, and really isn't true any more to the extent it can make any difference. The consent decree rendered Microsoft neutered in a number of ways, and YES, they do take it very seriously internally.
For Microsoft to survive this generation of 'attack from all fronts', much more serious things have to change, and serious also means difficult.
Microsoft has not lost its ability to innovate because its people aren't smart any more. They have not lost their ability to innovate because they just don't have any more great ideas. They have not lost their ability to innovate because of poor management or leadership.
Microsoft has lost its ability to create innovative products for three reasons:
1) The company is now run by HR, which is forcing a politically correct agenda into the rank and file. The biggest head on this hydra is the review process, where you are reviewed by your direct manager. From this review comes rewards and longevity at the company. Because of the onerous process, people tend to drift into comfortable spots where they have a great relationship with their manager, and stay there. If you don't do this, you run the risk of being one of the lower echelon that is managed out of the company. There is no peer review, the system encourages favoritism. The process is completely destructive to innovation, you do what your manager wants, not what is right for the company. They are different things.
2)Microsoft cannot move innovation from the research groups into the product groups because the product groups are completely disfunctional and understaffed. Once the 35% y/y growth stopped, it became all about revenue, and headcount became a scarce commodity that had to be completely justified. Because of this, the resource pool is spent on the most critical areas, which tend to be test and sustaining engineering, and whatever Bill wants to fund this year. This leaves little for new features and innovation. In fact, the feature list for Office has over a thousand new features on it, they can fund maybe 30. The 30 are picked by Sinofski or Bill. The rest are dropped. Work from Research is ignored.
3)Employee morale is at an all time low. The place is just not fun to work at any more. The stock option program is gone, replaced by a stock award program that gives the employee one-tenth the leverage they had with options. The stock has been flat for 5 years. The will and desire of the average employee is gone. It's just a job.
Microsoft has to address these three problems in order to remain competitive. I, personally, do not believe they can fix these issues. It will take them a long time to die, and it will be painful to watch, but they will join the ranks of AT&T, DEC, SUN and the long list of other one-time greats.
Your time machine would represent a patent, an idea without substance. Innovation represents functional code.
Some examples I have seen from Microsoft research include: Software that can take a typed word and search audio recordings for that word spoken by anyone in the recording, and find it with 99% accuracy. Software that can take hundreds of photographs, find the ones that represent continuity, stitch them together and color balance them so you cannot tell where the seams are. Software that creates instant secure networks between laptops wherever they may be, without access points or network services, that allow full operating system connectivity. The list goes on. The stuff works, but will likely never see the light of day for reasons I have already expounded on.
You have pointed out the demon on Microsoft's shoulders, and you have asked the very question that they will not ask themselves.
Google represents the possibility of life on a computer without an operating system. They have the capability to reduce the hardware in front of you to nothing more than a keyboard, monitor and storage of your stuff. A thin-client world is the death of Microsoft. Microsoft is massing resources on this front as we speak to somehow thwart the Google attack. Some feel they are bringing knives to a gunfight, but I digress.
Apple represents an attack on the thick-client front by offering an alternative. Microsoft has rarely had to fight the 'viable alternative' battle, and Apple is poised to bring this battle on hard.
This two-front battle, combined with low moral and huge sustaining engineering requirements, puts Microsoft in a weak spot.
These are nothing more than religious fanatics trying to revise history to suit their needs. To do so, they must discredit science that disproves their religious position that we all 'just appeared' one day. It sickens me that they can't just believe what they believe without having to legislate it down other's throats.
I say the play 'Late Nite Cathecism' the other night, which is a one actor play starring a real nun. Mixed in with the comedy (excellent show by the way, and I am agnostic) were tidbits of truth. She got onto the subject of Cain and Abel, the original Bush twins of early history. Her question was 'who did they marry?'. WHat this lead to was a statement that the Catholic CHurch official position on Adam and Eve is that it is a parable, not literal, and represents the beginning of human life. If the Church can move off of a literal stance, why can't Kansas?
Let me try this again. You are confusing innovation with shipping something. Microsoft suffers from the inability to SHIP innovating product, this I agree with.
Microsoft does not suffer from not being able to CREATE innvoation, as I have seen, and continue to see.
The ability to CREATE innvovation is separate from being able to SHIP innovation, especially with Microsoft and the hell that exists within the product groups.
You confuse competitive activity with 'screwing'. How typical. To me, screwing a company is a vindictive action, as in 'let's go screw that startup because it would be fun, and we can!. Competitive is 'We are going to have to change lanes here, the market forces have changed'.
Microsoft is a two-trick pony right now, and it scares the hell out of them. They simply don't know where the next billion-dollar business will come from, so they place a lot of bets in a lot of places. Licensing their research technology is simply another way to place bets.
Fortunately, the way they are going about it seems, thus far, to be startup friendly.
There should be a rule that you need to have at least a 'little' bit of knowledge of the subject before you post.
You confuse the ability to inovate with the ability to ship inovative product. I have seen what Microsoft Research can produce, and I can tell you there is a gold mine in there for companies with financial backing and guts.
I have also seen what the product groups grope with on a daily basis, and have lived the fact that there is a huge chasm between Research and Product. Product has lists of thousands of features to add, and resources to add 20. The rest of the resources are performing sustaining engineering. They have no time or patience for stuff from 'those research guys (and gals)' that wasn't written to the product group lofty standards, especially when the research product doesn't come with a ton of new heads to support it.
The researchers would rather use a Mac than move into the product groups from their comfortable life in the research buildings.
As I mentioned above, there is a HUGE difference betwen giving away patents and licensing working functional research code. A patent is typically worthless except to the original idea, and eve then most don't amount to a hill of beans. Working code, as I have seen come out of Microsoft Research, can be worth millions with the right backing.
Slashdot Mirror
1. 802.16x is not as advertised. It is not 50+Mb at 70 miles, it is either/or. The further out you get, the more the bandwidth drops, and it drops fast. This means more towers to cover a geographical area with acceptable service, which destroys the business model.
2. 802.16 is a TDMA technology, which simply means time slices. Each connection (user) requires a time slice from the tower. As the density of the area covered by a tower grows, to give you acceptable performance (see #1 above) they need more towers, which destroys the business model.
In short, while the technology might be coaxed to give adequate performance to a decent number of people, the business model sucks, which will prevent it from really gaining a foothold. Nobody really wants to pay for mobil internet, as much as they seem to want it. There will be a few early adopters, but not enough to make the business even support itself.
I love the idea that we are making something so irritating illegal in the strick legal sense of the word. Make no mistake, I hate Spyware.
At least I think I hate Spyware. I am not really sure, given the broad definition. Some Spyware is good, based solely on MY definition of 'good' and the mood I am in. So what if I have to give up something 'good' because the purveyors of that 'good' thing felt it might fit into the broad definition of Spyware and thusly discontinued it. I lose.
On the other hand, the creepy porn junk and the crud that wants my bank account so they can sell me into slavery in Korea definitely (again, in MY definition of...) fit the model of BAD Spyware and need to have its purveyors captured, subjected to Janet Jackson Videos and sent to prison for a long time. And thus begs the question:
How does this law get that done? Certainly these guys aren't going to stop their nonsense, they are making money doing it, so we will HAVE to enforce this law to get them to stop, and if they don't stop because there is no good way to enforce this law, then the BAD stuff continues and the GOOD stuff is thwarted.
I am just not sure about this one.
I suppose it gives teeth to companies like Microsoft and EBay to go after these guys and have them bundled away. That is good. But Who decides which ones Microsoft and EBay go after? And do I really want to create a system whereby Microsoft and EBay are the US Marshals and are enforcing laws the way they see fit, and going after those criminals that they decide to go after?
I'm just not sure about this one.
1. It would be seen as an admission that the Windows Server technology is not what it is cracked up to be, and be read by the market as such. The immediate impact to the server business would be significant, and it is the only segment at Microsoft that is growing.
2. It would be seen as an admission that Linux MIGHT have some redeeming qualities, something that the Executive team at Microsoft has been avoiding at all costs. Just like Hertz and Avis, #1 should NEVER acknowledge #2 in the market.
3. It would dramatically confuse the market at a time when Microsoft is trying very hard (read $100M+ marketing) to win the server space and defend the desktop.
You may not like Microsoft, but they don't tend to make really stupid mistakes, and this would be one. It just ain't gonna happen.
I would like to see one of them (Google, AOL) go after a more complete solution. Exchange and Outlook are the enterprise winner because they have incorporated email with calandering and support scheduling between exchange users. I want Google and AOL (although I have very little faith in AOL's abilities) to go after the ubiquitous email/desktop organization markets. Email alone is not enough.
I suppose the ability to get a really cool email name creates demand for a new system. Is there really any other reason?
80% of Microsoft's revenue comes from the top 20% of their enterprise customer base, meaning that 80% of their customers (likely you and I) do not get the attention that the big customers get. This is why security is such a big issue for them. It isn't to make your home PC more secure, that is just a side-effect.
The reason for pointing this out is that it is the largest 20% of the customers in the enterprise space that drive Microsoft's technical direction. Ever wonder why the Mac is better for the home market and novice user? It was designed and is driven by the desires of the home market, not the enterprise market. As long as Microsoft's focus remains on the large enterprise space, the product will continue to be just 'average' on the desktop. This is the crack in the market that Apple is going after.
Just to make the math right, Microsoft's R&D budget is just under 6 billion a year. The 35% figure is of that number, not cash in the bank or annual revenue.
It could still happen.
Microsoft wants to extend Windows, or a form of Windows, into everything. Phones, entertainment, toasters, it all wants to be Windows. That is how they see a way to expand the market beyond the desktop. And, all truth be told, it is probably the only way to expand the market. The problem, of course, is that Windows was not created with the idea of cramming it into little devices with little processors. A fine example is the first 'smart phone'. Microsoft is continually playing the 'processors will get faster' card and hoping that the hardware will catch up with the softwares demands. However, hardware is not catching up, or keeping up, with Microsoft software demands. Why do you think the new Xbox has THREE 3Ghz processors?
Your estimations are low. The current code base for Windows requires 70% of Microsofts engineering resources to maintain and debug patches and security holes. This is referred to as 'sustaining engineering' and is religated to the younger developers and testers as it is considered grunt work. The more seasoned developers get to work on the new feature list.
The obsession and drive from Ballmer and Gates are still there, my point is that the engine that pushes the Microsoft race car forward needs a serious valve job.
That said, the bigger problem, as I have stated in the past, is internal. In the past Microsoft has been able to respond to a siege by motivating the troops and getting the job done. IE was possibly the last great example of the Microsoft development engine at work. Now, it is almost impossible for Microsoft to rally the developer troops for that kind of siege-mentality response. The employee apathy is thick. The old-timers can still get it up, those that are still there and haven't joined Ignition Partners or retired, but you have to keep in mind that most of the developers and program managers there today weren't there 5 years ago, and only know Microsoft as a bloated software factory. The glory years, the rally cry of Ballmer and Gates, the late night and weekender coding marathons and the 'death march' mentality are all just stories of the past. The current typical Microsoft employee is more of the 'hey, I have a family and a life, this can wait' style. Certainly there are pockets of exceptions, but generally speaking, the engine is running a bit cold.
Without the means to execute, the siege will take its toll.
How much is Slashdot costing the Universe every second in lost 'productivity'? When I am typing this stuff, I am not moving the lever that moves the arm that picks up the bumper and bolts it onto the back of the car.
I am willing to bet it is WAY more that that stupid movie...
While I actually agree with a lot of what you said, I am not so sure the XBOX can save them. It takes a multi-billion dollar business to move the needle at Microsoft, and the new XBOX is still very heavily subsidized and can't contribute much to the bottom line. The original strategy was that they would make it all up on games, but that division has been cut way back as well.
This is yesterdays news, and really isn't true any more to the extent it can make any difference. The consent decree rendered Microsoft neutered in a number of ways, and YES, they do take it very seriously internally.
Microsoft has not lost its ability to innovate because its people aren't smart any more. They have not lost their ability to innovate because they just don't have any more great ideas. They have not lost their ability to innovate because of poor management or leadership.
Microsoft has lost its ability to create innovative products for three reasons:
1) The company is now run by HR, which is forcing a politically correct agenda into the rank and file. The biggest head on this hydra is the review process, where you are reviewed by your direct manager. From this review comes rewards and longevity at the company. Because of the onerous process, people tend to drift into comfortable spots where they have a great relationship with their manager, and stay there. If you don't do this, you run the risk of being one of the lower echelon that is managed out of the company. There is no peer review, the system encourages favoritism. The process is completely destructive to innovation, you do what your manager wants, not what is right for the company. They are different things.
2)Microsoft cannot move innovation from the research groups into the product groups because the product groups are completely disfunctional and understaffed. Once the 35% y/y growth stopped, it became all about revenue, and headcount became a scarce commodity that had to be completely justified. Because of this, the resource pool is spent on the most critical areas, which tend to be test and sustaining engineering, and whatever Bill wants to fund this year. This leaves little for new features and innovation. In fact, the feature list for Office has over a thousand new features on it, they can fund maybe 30. The 30 are picked by Sinofski or Bill. The rest are dropped. Work from Research is ignored.
3)Employee morale is at an all time low. The place is just not fun to work at any more. The stock option program is gone, replaced by a stock award program that gives the employee one-tenth the leverage they had with options. The stock has been flat for 5 years. The will and desire of the average employee is gone. It's just a job.
Microsoft has to address these three problems in order to remain competitive. I, personally, do not believe they can fix these issues. It will take them a long time to die, and it will be painful to watch, but they will join the ranks of AT&T, DEC, SUN and the long list of other one-time greats.
Some examples I have seen from Microsoft research include: Software that can take a typed word and search audio recordings for that word spoken by anyone in the recording, and find it with 99% accuracy. Software that can take hundreds of photographs, find the ones that represent continuity, stitch them together and color balance them so you cannot tell where the seams are. Software that creates instant secure networks between laptops wherever they may be, without access points or network services, that allow full operating system connectivity. The list goes on. The stuff works, but will likely never see the light of day for reasons I have already expounded on.
Google represents the possibility of life on a computer without an operating system. They have the capability to reduce the hardware in front of you to nothing more than a keyboard, monitor and storage of your stuff. A thin-client world is the death of Microsoft. Microsoft is massing resources on this front as we speak to somehow thwart the Google attack. Some feel they are bringing knives to a gunfight, but I digress.
Apple represents an attack on the thick-client front by offering an alternative. Microsoft has rarely had to fight the 'viable alternative' battle, and Apple is poised to bring this battle on hard.
This two-front battle, combined with low moral and huge sustaining engineering requirements, puts Microsoft in a weak spot.
Stay tuned...
I say the play 'Late Nite Cathecism' the other night, which is a one actor play starring a real nun. Mixed in with the comedy (excellent show by the way, and I am agnostic) were tidbits of truth. She got onto the subject of Cain and Abel, the original Bush twins of early history. Her question was 'who did they marry?'. WHat this lead to was a statement that the Catholic CHurch official position on Adam and Eve is that it is a parable, not literal, and represents the beginning of human life. If the Church can move off of a literal stance, why can't Kansas?
Microsoft does not suffer from not being able to CREATE innvoation, as I have seen, and continue to see.
The ability to CREATE innvovation is separate from being able to SHIP innovation, especially with Microsoft and the hell that exists within the product groups.
You confuse competitive activity with 'screwing'. How typical. To me, screwing a company is a vindictive action, as in 'let's go screw that startup because it would be fun, and we can!. Competitive is 'We are going to have to change lanes here, the market forces have changed'.
Fortunately, the way they are going about it seems, thus far, to be startup friendly.
You confuse the ability to inovate with the ability to ship inovative product. I have seen what Microsoft Research can produce, and I can tell you there is a gold mine in there for companies with financial backing and guts.
I have also seen what the product groups grope with on a daily basis, and have lived the fact that there is a huge chasm between Research and Product. Product has lists of thousands of features to add, and resources to add 20. The rest of the resources are performing sustaining engineering. They have no time or patience for stuff from 'those research guys (and gals)' that wasn't written to the product group lofty standards, especially when the research product doesn't come with a ton of new heads to support it.
The researchers would rather use a Mac than move into the product groups from their comfortable life in the research buildings.
So nothing ever gets used.
Not sure what your point is.
As I mentioned above, there is a HUGE difference betwen giving away patents and licensing working functional research code. A patent is typically worthless except to the original idea, and eve then most don't amount to a hill of beans. Working code, as I have seen come out of Microsoft Research, can be worth millions with the right backing.