There’s a very odd exchange between a former Microsoft VP and the official Microsoft blog. What’s odd is that Microsoft essentially tells the former VP that he’s right: when Microsoft says that “what matters is innovation at scale, not just innovation at speed,” what that says to me is “We take innovations that others have come up with, once we know that the market is established, and make that market bigger.”
In fact this is how I’ve heard Microsoft’s business model described. And there’s nothing wrong with Microsoft’s approach, actually. Little companies innovate; big companies scale up innovation. So that’s fine.
It’s just weird, though, that Microsoft even bothered to respond, if essentially their entire point was to affirm the truth of the op-ed. I’m 100% with Jon Gruber on this:
> Why in the world did they respond to this? And even worse, without refuting any of his claims, most especially his core premise that Microsoft is divided into dozens of bureaucratic fiefdoms that fight against each other to protect their turf?
__P.S.__: Microsoft *really* didn’t need to include a fucking smiley face in the middle of their blog post.
The reality is that while this may seem damning to some, if you change the specific nouns, it could apply to any large company. And you’d just as likely get a completely opposite view that’s just as valid from someone else in the same company. Brass is probably completely accurate in his description of his experience, but at the same time, MS is so big that his experience is simply one facet of a many-sided object.
For example, he may sneer at the Xbox, but MS came in and handed Sony and Nintendo their asses in a market where they were kings. The Wii has created a new market space in gaming, but for their space, they are the market leader and innovator. Xbox Live changed the game. Time will tell if they can maintain.
Oh, wait. I forgot that I’m on the internet… um… APPLE4LYFE! DOWN WITH M$!!!1