Charles Arthur: Microsoft’s definition of ‘innovation’ different from everyone else’s

“There are signs, if you look closely enough, that the Windows licensing engine is starting to make Microsoft a bit, well, sclerotic. Recently the magazine BusinessWeek asked how well the company is going to handle moving into its corporate middle age. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer were in no doubt that innovation would carry it forward. Not necessarily innovation that they’d come up with inside Microsoft, but also the sort where you make an idea workable. (It’s an interesting definition, which shows that Microsoft definitely works off a different dictionary from everyone else,)” Charles Arthur writes for The Independent.

Aruthur looks at the less-than-stellar successes of ‘Smart Displays’ or ‘Mira’ which died late last year, Tablet PCs that are proving to be an ultra-niche product, and “the Media Centre PC (or Center, depending which country you’re buying it in). This is intended to embody the ‘digital hub’ concept that Microsoft has ‘innovated’ from Apple’s Steve Jobs, who first enunciated it in January 2001.” Trouble is, writes Arthur, all of these so-called “innovations were hobbled almost from the start because they had terrible implications for the number of Windows licences Microsoft could sell.”

Full article here.

44 Comments

  1. Imagine, if you can, that Microsoft was the only game in town. No Apple, Linux or anything else.

    We’d all still be running DOS 3 on machines with 640 k of memory.

    And the word you’re struggling for is Pathetic.

  2. Managing the bottom line is no sin. Doing so at the expense of form and function, however, indicates that Microsoft is either unwilling, incapable, or both to increase revenues any other way. A sure sign that monopolization causes development of tunnel vision.

  3. I find it remarkable that M$ is constantly deforming the English language as they do (they are beginning to sound like some meeting I have attended with beauracrats.)

    Black is white. Truth is “what I say!” (Not that anyone would dare to speak up to deny.) They utter phrases like “Freedom to Innovate” when they mean exactly the opposite. Innovation is anathema to them, not that Bill G. or Steve B. recognize it unless it is something they have to embrace, enfold and subsume.

    How many fingers am I holding up, Mr Smith? Four or five?

    How necessary is a browser to an operating system?

  4. Catamitic – ie “innovations were hobbled almost from the start because they had terrible implications for the number of Windows licences Microsoft could sell.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.