PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft, Creativity, and Innovation


dsnort
Jul 23, 2006, 02:02 PM
I thought this might be a fun thread, ( thought i might get banned for it too!)
With MS getting set to enter portable digital media device market, I wondered, why does MS feel compelled to squash those that create and innovate? That leads to a second question, has MS ever came out with something that was completely new and innovative on their own? If you can think of some thing that MS has innovated, post it here. If you disagree with something someone else posted, provide evidence.
Good luck, and let the fur fly!

Shadow
Jul 23, 2006, 02:07 PM
I thought this might be a fun thread, ( thought i might get banned for it too!)
With MS getting set to enter portable digital media device market, I wondered, why does MS feel compelled to squash those that create and innovate? That leads to a second question, has MS ever came out with something that completely new and innovative on their own? If you can think of some thing that MS has innovated, post it here. If you disagree with something someone else posted, provide evidence.
Good luck, and let the fur fly!
Microsoft Bob comes to mind...

IJ Reilly
Jul 23, 2006, 02:38 PM
For many years I maintained a web site that included a "Microsoft Innovations" page. (No, it wasn't blank.) It became quite a compendium of ideas that Microsoft had borrowed or stolen from others over the years, and precious few that they'd come up with on their own.

Microsoft is not an innovative company, at least not in the way we generally think of high technology companies being innovative. In their heart of hearts, I doubt many at Microsoft even believe this to be one of the company's goals.

j26
Jul 23, 2006, 02:41 PM
For many years I maintained a web site that included a "Microsoft Innovations" page. (No, it wasn't blank.) It became quite a compendium of ideas that Microsoft had borrowed or stolen from others over the years, and precious few that they'd come up with on their own.

Microsoft is not an innovative company, at least not in the way we generally think of high technology companies being innovative. In their heart of hearts, I doubt many at Microsoft even believe this to be one of the company's goals.

Is that site still going - I'd like to have a look if it's still there.

dsnort
Jul 23, 2006, 03:31 PM
Well, nobody has come up with anything so far, except for MS Bob, of course! ( And how do we live without him!!!???)
I'll donate something. I don't really think it was an innovation, more of an extension of what they were already doing, but I think Windows 95 was a giant step forward in the GUI. Of course, I wasn't keeping up with Macs at the time and have no idea what they had to offer, but I remember the excitement around Win 95.

gauchogolfer
Jul 23, 2006, 03:32 PM
http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/7297/picture1oo7.png

Well done MS.

xPismo
Jul 23, 2006, 03:40 PM
Win95 was a more advanced copy of MacOS. I was rather impressed with how easy it was for me to use since I was a Mac only user at the time. It felt, just - i donno - somehow fammiliar. :rolleyes:

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/7297/picture1oo7.png

Well done MS.

Yeah, but they made it worse with the Mac icon replacement. Uugh. M$ office reminding you all the time that you were on a mac using the most bloated peice of officeware available.

This might not really fit the thread but have you seen the M$ redesigns the iPod packaging video?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k&search=microsoft%20the%20ipod

Kinda says a lot about how consumers view the M$ elephant. Like Bill says in Pirates of Silicon Valley, "It doesnt have to be good".

IJ Reilly
Jul 23, 2006, 03:55 PM
Is that site still going - I'd like to have a look if it's still there.

Long gone, sorry. But I still do have the information, which is 7-8 years old now unfortunately. Here's the section on products with the Microsoft name on them which were developed by others.

Close Combat
Popular game purchased from Atomic Games.

Flight Simulator
Purchased from the Bruce Artwick Organization.

FrontPage
Microsoft's HTML editor was purchased from Vermeer Technologies in 1996.

FoxPro
This database application came along with Microsoft's purchase of Fox Software in 1986.

Internet Explorer
Desperate to play catch-up in the fast-moving Internet world, Microsoft licensed code from Spyglass, Inc. (one of the two licensees of the original Mosaic code base) in 1995, and called it MSIE. Microsoft then proceeded to distribute MSIE for free, denying Spyglass substantial royalties for their key contribution to the product.

MS-DOS
The original Microsoft cash cow, this CP/M clone (then called Q-DOS) was purchased from the Seattle Computer Company in 1981. Microsoft then proceeded to thwart Seattle Computer's license rights to the product. The tiny company sued Microsoft and prevailed in court.

Object Linking Environment (OLE)
Microsoft settled a suit with Wang Labs over patent infringement code portions of OLE, which is also the heart of Microsoft's ActiveX.

PowerPoint
This presentation software package was renamed and rebranded after Microsoft's purchase of Forethought, Inc., in 1987.

SQL Server 6.0
This important database product is based on code purchased from Sybase in 1988.

Visual Basic
Ruby, the foundation for Microsoft's highly important Visual Basic product, was purchased from Cooper Software in 1991.

Visual C++
Microsoft purchased the Lattice C code compiler, which became Visual C++, Microsoft's software development environment.

Visual SourceSafe
Purchased from OneTree Software. Shortly after OneTree's SourceSafe was released, Microsoft preannounced a similar application called Microsoft Delta, which failed to sell. Microsoft then purchased OneTree and renamed SourceSafe as Microsoft Visual SourceSafe.

Windows
Technologies used in Windows multitasking came to Microsoft with their purchase of Dynamical Systems in 1986. Portions of the interface were licensed from Apple Computer, also in 1986.

Xenix
Microsoft's version of Unix was actually written under contract by the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO).

dsnort
Jul 23, 2006, 04:17 PM
This might not really fit the thread but have you seen the M$ redesigns the iPod packaging video?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k&search=microsoft%20the%20ipod

Kinda says a lot about how consumers view the M$ elephant. Like Bill says in Pirates of Silicon Valley, "It doesnt have to be good".

OMG :eek: Thats hilarious :D

HGW
Jul 23, 2006, 05:48 PM
not an invention of m$ but they have been the main people pushing forward online games with xbox live and direct x

and they didnt copy apple either

dsnort
Jul 23, 2006, 06:42 PM
not an invention of m$ but they have been the main people pushing forward online games with xbox live and direct x

Hmmm. That could be. My sole exposure to gaming consoles is buying games for my 8 year olds PS2. ( And yes, he'll probably get an xBox for Xmas)


and they didnt copy apple either

To be clear, I never meant to insinuate that MS steals all their ideas from Apple. (Evidently, they are an equal opportunity "borrower" )

RacerX
Jul 23, 2006, 07:09 PM
While not completely innovative, Microsoft did show how a GUI could change the way people worked with spreadsheets when they made Excel for the first Macintosh.

Of course the Excel deal had strings attached... like getting Apple to agree to them using Apple code and ideas for making a GUI shell (called Windows) for the DOS version of Excel that came out later. While Apple mistakenly thought the agreement was Excel specific, it was actually referring to Windows and allowed Microsoft to continue to use what Apple agreed to in all subsequent versions... which was why Apple lost the copyright case against Microsoft over the release of Windows 3.0 (Apple didn't seem to have very good legal counsel back around 1983 judging from that agreement).

Still... Excel was the first app that showed that the Mac wasn't just an expensive toy. It proved to be nearly as helpful to the Macintosh as VisiCalc was to the Apple II*.




* While Excel was very helpful to the Macintosh, it was the perfect storm of PageMaker, Postscript and the LaserWriter that secured the Macintosh's place in the world back in those early years.

Xander562
Jul 23, 2006, 07:15 PM
The thing we have to remember is that Microsoft doesnt make computers, just software, and a lot of the innovations that Apple comes up with are hardware-wise based. I'm not making any claims that if Microsoft DID make hardware that it would be new and innovative, but they are missing out on that entire category.

Dane D.
Jul 24, 2006, 11:02 AM
Nope, can't think of one innovation from MS. Although they have contributed to the raise of IT departments. I know companies have had IT departments but the number of people has had to increase dramatically in the last 25 years thanks to them.

I can add to IJ Reilly and his list of purchased software. Back in the mid-90's, I played a Golf game called Links Pro, great game but then MS purchased the company and released, Links LS 2000. Still a decent game but was sad to see another good company disappear. Speaking of games, didn't MS buy the makers of Halo? I seem to remember that this game was going to the Mac first, but then disappeared and went to xBox. Don't remember the name of the company.

dornoforpyros
Jul 24, 2006, 11:40 AM
Of course they invented stuff. Blue Screen of Death anybody? :p

XNine
Jul 24, 2006, 05:14 PM
Speaking of games, didn't MS buy the makers of Halo? I seem to remember that this game was going to the Mac first, but then disappeared and went to xBox. Don't remember the name of the company.

Bungie. And you are correct. Halo was to be released as a Mac game, then disappeared and suddenly reappeared funded (and purchased by MS). Had Halo been released first on the Mac, I think the tables on gmaing would have been turned a little to the right...

dsnort
Jul 24, 2006, 09:42 PM
Wow, a post exploring M$'s crativity and innovation has come up fairly empty!:eek: Even the M$ trolls fear to tread here!:cool:

dsnort
Jul 24, 2006, 09:45 PM
http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/7297/picture1oo7.png

Well done MS.

Geez, I hated that thing. almost lost a comp to shotgun blast over that!

Timepass
Jul 24, 2006, 10:22 PM
Bungie. And you are correct. Halo was to be released as a Mac game, then disappeared and suddenly reappeared funded (and purchased by MS). Had Halo been released first on the Mac, I think the tables on gmaing would have been turned a little to the right...

I hightly doute that. From what I heard and read M$ change halo a lot from what Bungie orginally was working on. The one that would of come out for the mac would not of had the ablity to do what made halo great. It would of just been another FPS out there on computers and on top of that on a very limited plateform. And halo was never even the best FPS on computer with multiplayer.
What made halo so great was that it was the first FPS on a consele and it work really well plus it multiplayer was 2nd to none for that. It was the first one where you could get 16 people playing at one time and that is what made the game what it was.
If it came out on the mac it just would not messure up to games like counter strick and what not. Halo computer online part just is not that great and not many people talk about it. There are a long list of games that people talk about and play on line that are FPS.

I hate to say it but if it came out on the mac it would of more than likely been a failed game for a long list of reason. one of the largests is simple fact iwas on the mac only. At the time it would of been less than 5% market share total. And the people who play halo on computers would of been even less. what made halo so big was the Xbox and the market it was in.

RacerX
Jul 24, 2006, 11:55 PM
I hightly doute that...Given your track record on things like this... pointing out the flaws in your statement would just be tiresome.

My only question is whether you actually believe what you say or if you think you can just BS without anyone questioning you.

dsnort
Jul 25, 2006, 12:12 AM
I hightly doute that. From what I heard and read M$ change halo a lot from what Bungie orginally was working on. The one that would of come out for the mac would not of had the ablity to do what made halo great. It would of just been another FPS out there on computers and on top of that on a very limited plateform. And halo was never even the best FPS on computer with multiplayer.
What made halo so great was that it was the first FPS on a consele and it work really well plus it multiplayer was 2nd to none for that. It was the first one where you could get 16 people playing at one time and that is what made the game what it was.
If it came out on the mac it just would not messure up to games like counter strick and what not. Halo computer online part just is not that great and not many people talk about it. There are a long list of games that people talk about and play on line that are FPS.

I hate to say it but if it came out on the mac it would of more than likely been a failed game for a long list of reason. one of the largests is simple fact iwas on the mac only. At the time it would of been less than 5% market share total. And the people who play halo on computers would of been even less. what made halo so big was the Xbox and the market it was in.

I'm sorry if this is off topic, but I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about Timepass. I am sure you have a point to make, but whatever it is, it is lost in a morass of poor spelling, missing punctuation, and poor gramar. If english is not your native language, maybe you should see if there is a copy of this forum in your native language. ( And my native language, at this point, is early american drunk as a skunk!)

jhu
Jul 25, 2006, 12:29 AM
innovation itself doesn't come about out of nowhere since someone who doesn't have the correct knowledge base wouldn't even come up with a solution in a given area (eg intel probably won't come up with a cure for cancer). however, once a certain knowledge base is achieved, some innovations almost come naturally. for example, hydroelectric dam = falling water + spinning turbines. innovative, right? but the knowledge base required for us to be able to understand and build a hydorelectric dam was built up over many centuries: the wheel, gravity, electricity, concrete, mechanical engineering, etc.

now the question of innovation with regards to microsoft is a rather loaded one, especially on a board such as this one. innovation takes many forms, but people here mostly talk about the superficial user interface similarities between the company's respective operating systems. although this makes sense since this is the part that most people interact with, both companies are much more than just their operating systems. and even within the operating systems themselves, there are innovations that are occurring that the average computer user isn't aware or doesn't care about. on the other hand, at least portions of the mac os innovations can be seen due to the kernel and utilities being open source.

but i digress. a better place to ask such a question would be over at arstechnica or anandtech.

dsnort
Jul 25, 2006, 12:36 AM
innovation itself doesn't come about out of nowhere since someone who doesn't have the correct knowledge base wouldn't even come up with a solution in a given area (eg intel probably won't come up with a cure for cancer). however, once a certain knowledge base is achieved, some innovations almost come naturally. for example, hydroelectric dam = falling water + spinning turbines. innovative, right? but the knowledge base required for us to be able to understand and build a hydorelectric dam was built up over many centuries: the wheel, gravity, electricity, concrete, mechanical engineering, etc.

now the question of innovation with regards to microsoft is a rather loaded one, especially on a board such as this one. innovation takes many forms, but people here mostly talk about the superficial user interface similarities between the company's respective operating systems. although this makes sense since this is the part that most people interact with, both companies are much more than just their operating systems. and even within the operating systems themselves, there are innovations that are occurring that the average computer user isn't aware or doesn't care about. on the other hand, at least portions of the mac os innovations can be seen due to the kernel and utilities being open source.

but i digress. a better place to ask such a question would be over at arstechnica or anandtech.

Uhh, say whut???

jhu
Jul 25, 2006, 12:47 AM
hmm... your question was whether microsoft has ever come up with anything "completely new and innovative." i would argue that there is no such thing as "completely new and innovative" because all innovations have their foundations in prior innovations.

JFreak
Jul 25, 2006, 02:48 AM
Microsoft and innovation do not sound good together. Microsoft is great in marketing products and packaging other companies' work as their own. That's what they do, and they excel at it. Nobody else comes even close.

But what is it that Microsoft really innovates? Nothing. They do very little in-house research and developement, if you don't count the people Microsoft has bought with the aquired products. Sure, they seem to find good companies to be bought, but I would not call that innovation.

jhu
Jul 25, 2006, 07:14 AM
But what is it that Microsoft really innovates? Nothing. They do very little in-house research and developement, if you don't count the people Microsoft has bought with the aquired products. Sure, they seem to find good companies to be bought, but I would not call that innovation.

you may want to reconsider that statement since they do more research and development (http://research.microsoft.com/) than your statement would imply. whether or not they bring their innovations to market is something else entirely.

Dane D.
Jul 25, 2006, 08:28 AM
Timepass:
What made halo so great was that it was the first FPS on a consele and it work really well plus it multiplayer was 2nd to none for that. It was the first one where you could get 16 people playing at one time and that is what made the game what it was.

I don't know what you are talking about. In 1999 Unreal Tournament came out, I believe Halo came later, a couple of years. It supported 16 players in multiplayer mode. I still play that game online.

I hate to say it but if it came out on the mac it would of more than likely been a failed game for a long list of reason. one of the largests is simple fact iwas on the mac only. At the time it would of been less than 5% market share total. And the people who play halo on computers would of been even less. what made halo so big was the Xbox and the market it was in.
Wheres the long list? Either backup your statements with fact or don't brother posting. Nothing worse than reading somebody's opinion without facts and figures to backup said opinion. Oh, and learn how to spell and write it might help you someday.:D

whooleytoo
Jul 25, 2006, 08:53 AM
Long gone, sorry. But I still do have the information, which is 7-8 years old now unfortunately. Here's the section on products with the Microsoft name on them which were developed by others.

[snip]

Fair enough, though just in the interests of balance it should be noted many of Apple's technologies have been bought in/borrowed from too -

OSX, Cocoa & development tools, Final Cut Pro, Shake, DVD Studio Pro, iTunes (SoundJam), Sherlock (Watson) etc. etc.

Funnily enough I was pretty sure Quicktime was based on technology bought in from SuperMac or Radius, but I can't find any reference to it now.

IJ Reilly
Jul 25, 2006, 10:40 AM
While not completely innovative, Microsoft did show how a GUI could change the way people worked with spreadsheets when they made Excel for the first Macintosh.

Of course the Excel deal had strings attached... like getting Apple to agree to them using Apple code and ideas for making a GUI shell (called Windows) for the DOS version of Excel that came out later. While Apple mistakenly thought the agreement was Excel specific, it was actually referring to Windows and allowed Microsoft to continue to use what Apple agreed to in all subsequent versions... which was why Apple lost the copyright case against Microsoft over the release of Windows 3.0 (Apple didn't seem to have very good legal counsel back around 1983 judging from that agreement).

The 1985 agreement for Microsoft's use of Mac interface elements went beyond Excel. Apple thought they were licensing for Windows 2.x as well, but not beyond. When these elements appeared in Windows 3.0 (the first Windows to matter), Apple sued Microsoft in what became the infamous "look and feel" lawsuit. This suit was whittled down bit by bit by the judge until in the end it was dismissed.

The main reason this occurred, from what I've read, was the ambiguities of the 1985 agreement. Later, John Scully would call this one-page license agreement the dumbest thing he ever did as CEO of Apple.

It was probably handled pretty informally at the time, but as everybody was to learn in subsequent years, you can't give Microsoft an inch unless you expect them to take a mile. As the CEO of AT&T once said, Microsoft can be your best friend and worst enemy all at the same time. It seems that every one of Microsoft's "partners" has had to discover this on their own. Apple certainly learned it the hard way.

whooleytoo
Jul 25, 2006, 10:44 AM
It was probably handled pretty informally at the time, but as everybody was to learn in subsequent years, you can't give Microsoft an inch unless you expect them to take a mile. As the CEO of AT&T once said, Microsoft can be your best friend and worst enemy all at the same time. It seems that every one of Microsoft's "partners" has had to discover this on their own. Apple certainly learned it the hard way.

The TrueType/TrueImage debacle would be another example of this.

IJ Reilly
Jul 25, 2006, 11:00 AM
[snip]

Fair enough, though just in the interests of balance it should be noted many of Apple's technologies have been bought in/borrowed from too -

OSX, Cocoa & development tools, Final Cut Pro, Shake, DVD Studio Pro, iTunes (SoundJam), Sherlock (Watson) etc. etc.

Funnily enough I was pretty sure Quicktime was based on technology bought in from SuperMac or Radius, but I can't find any reference to it now.

I don't know about QuickTime, but most technologies rely on prior technologies in some form. The mouse, for example, didn't start with Apple. It didn't even start with Xerox. The concept of a rolling pointing device was developed by Douglas Englebart in the 1960s. But Apple deserves credit for being the first to design an OS for a consumer computer around the mouse, and by so doing, changing the direction of computing. It's not like this was an obvious thing to do in 1979, when the Mac project started. Even after the Mac was delivered in '84 a lot of people were asking whether this "mouse" thing was something computer users wanted or needed.

I had an other section to what I called "The Microsoft Hall of Innovation." I asked readers to nominate technologies that Microsoft claimed were innovations, and then collected comments on the prior art. Suffice to say, none of the claims withstood much scrutiny from people with historical knowledge. It became very difficult to find a single area where Microsoft had advanced the art far enough to call it an "innovation."

whooleytoo
Jul 25, 2006, 11:03 AM
I don't know about QuickTime, but most technologies rely on prior technologies in some form.

That's fair enough - though (if I'm right) QuickTime wasn't just 'inspired by' another technology, rather a further development of it.

IJ Reilly
Jul 25, 2006, 11:08 AM
The TrueType/TrueImage debacle would be another example of this.

And when Microsoft announced their ClearType technology in the late '90s (itself a rip-off of earlier sub-pixel rendering technologies), they tried to take credit for TrueType, though the technology had been developed at Apple in 1989, and Microsoft didn't even adopt it until several years afterwards.

RacerX
Jul 25, 2006, 11:16 AM
[snip]

Fair enough, though just in the interests of balance it should be noted many of Apple's technologies have been bought in/borrowed from too -

OSX, Cocoa & development tools...The problem is that many of the people at NeXT came directly from Apple. NeXT went in directions Apple had decided not to pursue, even though they had started down those paths.

Other examples of technologies that started with Apple are tablet computers and PDAs. Part of the problems with the Newton when it first came to market was the fact that those two projects ended up being merged which forced the Newton to be larger than the original PDA design in order to package the computing abilities originally intended for the tablet system.

But this thread really doesn't need to be balanced by looking at Apple... Apple doesn't attempt to justify it's antitrust violations by claiming innovation. In almost 20 years of litigation Microsoft has been fined over a billion dollars, all the while claiming that it's practices were needed for innovation.

In reality, Microsoft has taken the stance that it is easier (and in the long run, less expensive) to watch and wait for new technologies, and then buy their way into any new market. Once in that market their most common practice is to embrace and extend any established standards to pollute the environment for it's competition.

Examples are easy to point out... Java, HTML, MPEG4, MP3... and now PDF is in Microsoft's sights. And it seems no amount of fines will ever match the profitability of these tactics.

And it isn't like they don't know what they are doing. They knew they were doing this while claiming innovation. And now they are even outlining what they need to do differently... claiming that (like their claims of innovation) they are going to self impose these changes which they have fought against all these years, and which over a billion dollars in fines hadn't been enough to get them to change.

Funnily enough I was pretty sure Quicktime was based on technology bought in from SuperMac or Radius, but I can't find any reference to it now.Both these companies worked closely with Apple to provide hardware solutions for video capture on Macintoshes. Apple didn't have any hardware ability to capture video early on in QuickTime, and these companies help solve those issues. I have a SuperMac Nubus video capture card from 1993, which predates Apple's first Mac with built in capture abilities released later that year (the Quadra 840av).

Apple has a long history of working closely with third party hardware venders. Apple didn't create SCSI, nor did they create Nubus (that was from Texas Instruments).

Odds are that you are mistaking Apple working closely with third party hardware suppliers with how Apple developed QuickTime. But Apple had to also work closely with both Adobe and Avid to produce the first major pieces of QuickTime authoring software, and I don't see anyone claiming that Apple bought QuickTime from either of them.

__________________


The 1985 agreement for Microsoft's use of Mac interface elements went beyond Excel. Apple thought they were licensing for Windows 2.x as well, but not beyond. When these elements appeared in Windows 3.0 (the first Windows to matter), Apple sued Microsoft in what became the infamous "look and feel" lawsuit. This suit was whittled down bit by bit by the judge until in the end it was dismissed.But from Apple's point of view at the time, Microsoft's intentions seemed innocent enough... Windows would provide a shell to let Excel run on DOS systems. And from Apple's point of view (again, at the time) the idea of firing up a shell to run Excel or any other GUI app in DOS hardly made DOS competition for the Mac. And the benefits of Microsoft software on Macs seemed to out weigh the benefit to PCs.

When Windows started to be a user environment beyond running a handful of apps, that was what woke Apple up to the mistake.

I mean, do you really think that if PCs were running MS-DOS 2006 Professional and all the apps had to use a shell to run in GUI mode today that Apple would have had any problem with that? Of course not.

The main reason this occurred, from what I've read, was the ambiguities of the 1985 agreement. Later, John Scully would call this one-page license agreement the dumbest thing he ever did as CEO of Apple.

...Apple certainly learned it the hard way.But Scully (though in charge at the time) shouldn't take the full blame. The reason companies have legal counsel is for things like this.

whooleytoo
Jul 25, 2006, 12:12 PM
The problem is that many of the people at NeXT came directly from Apple. NeXT went in directions Apple had decided not to pursue, even though they had started down those paths.

Which just shows how incestuous the computer industry was in its infancy (and still is, to some degree). Still, the NeXT technologies were, as you say, not the direction Apple had travelled - hence the need to buy them (or Be).


But this thread really doesn't need to be balanced by looking at Apple... Apple doesn't attempt to justify it's antitrust violations by claiming innovation. In almost 20 years of litigation Microsoft has been fined over a billion dollars, all the while claiming that it's practices were needed for innovation.

Fair enough, I just prefer threads which are balanced, rather than focusing entirely on the flaws of one company to the exclusion of the rest. But you're absolutely right though, for a company the size of Microsoft, they've contributed surprisingly little new.

I think an important consideration though is the value Microsoft placed, from very early on, in keeping backward compatibility. As the runaway market leader, it is in their interest to preserve the status quo. If they introduced new APIs, and features, which required developers to recode their apps and users to re-learn the interfaces and (possibly) buy new PCs and peripherals, Microsoft would in an instant lose their most compelling competitive advantage, their pre-existing dominant market position.


Odds are that you are mistaking Apple working closely with third party hardware suppliers with how Apple developed QuickTime. But Apple had to also work closely with both Adobe and Avid to produce the first major pieces of QuickTime authoring software, and I don't see anyone claiming that Apple bought QuickTime from either of them.


I can't find it either now, so perhaps it was my imagination. Last time I'll trust THAT voice in my head..

dpaanlka
Jul 25, 2006, 01:09 PM
After the Windows 3.x lawsuit died down, look how massively different Windows 95 ended up, and how much closer to a Mac it was. Essentially, some sort of navigational bar at the bottom instead of at the top, and icons moved from the right side to the left side, plus the addition of the Recycle Bin - which was included in Apple's series of ads about Windows 95 (below).

I hightly doute that.

Please use a spell checker. Control click or right click into the text editor, and select Spelling -> Check Spelling as You Type.

RacerX
Jul 25, 2006, 01:19 PM
I think an important consideration though is the value Microsoft placed, from very early on, in keeping backward compatibility. As the runaway market leader, it is in their interest to preserve the status quo. If they introduced new APIs, and features, which required developers to recode their apps and users to re-learn the interfaces and (possibly) buy new PCs and peripherals, Microsoft would in an instant lose their most compelling competitive advantage, their pre-existing dominant market position.Good point... Microsoft has also been known to kill or cripple new technologies that threaten it's markets.

But at the same time they also learn the lesson of using their position to force upgrades. While they may have been keep backwards compatibility alive in their application environment, within their applications they have been making their formats less and less backwards compatible.

(note: old story that I've given before... if
it looks familiar, skip to next paragraph)

Back in 2000 with the release of Office 2000, Microsoft saw a drop in Office sales. As it turned out, many of their customers found that Office 97 did everything that they needed and they had no reason to upgrade. After attempting to push a subscription based idea (in Australia with Office 2000, which failed), they decided on making sure that new Office document formats would not be compatible with previous versions of Office... forcing older users to upgrade to read the documents of newer versions of Office.

This file format plan has two major advantages, first was format lock in (which was reached early on) and second is herding users to make upgrades.

One of the reasons Microsoft is so set against ODF (OpenDocument Format) is that it is an open standard (without proprietary lock in ability) which will always have future interoperability (today's standard can be used in the future even if the companies of today are long since gone).

And I would credit Microsoft too much with backwards compatibility... one of the major issues around Office 2007 was that it wasn't going to be compatible with Windows 2000 (which a lot of government agencies and businesses still use). And the new formats in Office 2007 are not going to be compatible with previous versions of Office.

MisterMe
Jul 25, 2006, 01:22 PM
....

Apple has a long history of working closely with third party hardware venders. Apple didn't create SCSI, nor did they create Nubus (that was from Texas Instruments).

....SCSI was an open standard when Apple adopted it for the Macintosh's high-speed parallel port. Read more about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCSI). NuBus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuBus) was developed at MIT as the expansion bus for the NuMachine artificial intelligence workstation. MIT licensed the NuMachine and the NuBus to Texas Instruments. Apple adopted the NuBus for its new Macintosh II during the same time frame that IBM adopted the MicroChannel Architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_architecture) in its attempt to regain control of Intel-based personal computers. Apple urged the IBM-clones to go with NuBus, but they declined. Instead, the Gang of Nine got together and developed the EISA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Industry_Standard_Architecture) bus which has since faded into obscurity.

IJ Reilly
Jul 25, 2006, 02:19 PM
But from Apple's point of view at the time, Microsoft's intentions seemed innocent enough... Windows would provide a shell to let Excel run on DOS systems. And from Apple's point of view (again, at the time) the idea of firing up a shell to run Excel or any other GUI app in DOS hardly made DOS competition for the Mac. And the benefits of Microsoft software on Macs seemed to out weigh the benefit to PCs.

When Windows started to be a user environment beyond running a handful of apps, that was what woke Apple up to the mistake.

I mean, do you really think that if PCs were running MS-DOS 2006 Professional and all the apps had to use a shell to run in GUI mode today that Apple would have had any problem with that? Of course not.

But Scully (though in charge at the time) shouldn't take the full blame. The reason companies have legal counsel is for things like this.

Oh sure, Microsoft's intentions always look innocent "at the time."

Have you ever read Jerry Kaplan's book "Start Up," about his efforts to capitalize Go, Inc. and get the product to market? (The first tablet computer, circa 1990, for those who've never heard of it.) The chapters of his book about his encounters with Microsoft are priceless. They came in as Go platform application developers, and turned into competitors, stealing Go's ideas left and right. Microsoft is one of the reason Go failed. Microsoft never released their pen-based OS, because by that time they'd spirited away most of Go's application developers. Go was dead, so they didn't need to release the product.

As to Scully, he was willing to take the blame as the man in charge. This speaks well of his character.

RacerX
Jul 25, 2006, 02:37 PM
MIT licensed the NuMachine and the NuBus to Texas Instruments..I didn't know that MIT had licensed that technology to Texas Instruments... special since I was under the impression that NuBus II was a TI development (NuBus II was only used in the Power Macintoshes as I recall from the developer notes for the 6100/7100/8100).


Have you ever read Jerry Kaplan's book "Start Up," about his efforts to capitalize Go, Inc. and get the product to market?I haven't... but I'll be adding it to my to read list.

SC68Cal
Jul 25, 2006, 03:47 PM
I can't believe that Microsoft did that to Office 97 users! I can't believe that they are going to do it again!

I'm currently about 50/50 on my dependency on Microsoft Office. I have it for mac and it's been an easy way for me to transition into the Mac. Open Office has me excited about what it can become, and the ODF stuff makes me even more interested.

I just need to do an actual paper or something in Open Office and see how it compares to writing a paper in the MS Suite. If it's relatively painless and picks up on my mistakes then it's a no brainer for me.

MisterMe
Jul 25, 2006, 05:24 PM
I didn't know that MIT had licensed that technology to Texas Instruments... special since I was under the impression that NuBus II was a TI development (NuBus II was only used in the Power Macintoshes as I recall from the developer notes for the 6100/7100/8100).I gave you a link to read more about the NuBus and its history.
I can't believe that Microsoft did that to Office 97 users! I can't believe that they are going to do it again!

...You are concerned about the Office 97 to Office 2000 transition? The Office 95 to Office 97 transition was worse. Many of those users found themselves unable to open their old documents in the new suite. They were forced to convert their files to plain text and then open them in Office 97 where they could redo the formatting.

IJ Reilly
Jul 25, 2006, 05:28 PM
I gave you a link to read more about the NuBus and its history.
You are concerned about the Office 97 to Office 2000 transition? The Office 95 to Office 97 transition was worse. Many of those users found themselves unable to open their old documents in the new suite. They were forced to convert their files to plain text and then open them in Office 97 where they could redo the formatting.

But just remember, "it's the standard."

jaxstate
Jul 25, 2006, 05:37 PM
Go to the top of you Mac, choose another account and switch to it. You'll see some very good and much needed Microsoft innovation.

jaxstate
Jul 25, 2006, 05:42 PM
I watched the NExt demo on youtube, when steve job is doing a demo. It's funny how much OSX look like the NExt OS. It cool to see how advanced this OS was. To me, this is where Apple go pretty much everything for OSX. It was even funny to hear Steve say, "You see this, you can't do this on a Mac or a Windows PC."

RacerX
Jul 25, 2006, 05:55 PM
I gave you a link to read more about the NuBus and its history.You gave links to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great)... before I trust anything there I generally need a lot more outside sources. Having seen the amount of errors in Wikipedia on subjects that I know like the back of my hand, I'd be naive to believe that those are the only areas with flaws.

I'll look into it further... but with more references than just Wikipedia.

wwooden
Jul 25, 2006, 06:19 PM
They probably didn't invent it, but I think the side tilt scroll wheels on their mice are pretty innovative.

RacerX
Jul 25, 2006, 06:21 PM
It's funny how much OSX look like the NExt OS. It cool to see how advanced this OS was. To me, this is where Apple go pretty much everything for OSX.That is where most everything in Mac OS X came from. The OS lineage is as follows:

NEXTSTEP -> OPENSTEP -> Rhapsody -> Mac OS X

Which is why many of the things we take for granted today in Mac OS X existed (in some form or another) in earlier versions of the operating system.

Today's Dock grew out of the original NeXT Dock. Todays Finder windows grew out of NeXT's Workspace Manager windows (including the sidebar which functions very much like the original shelf). And many of the bundled apps function pretty much the same... TextEdit works very much like Edit in NEXTSTEP (and even more like the original TextEdit from OPENSTEP). Spotlight takes the concepts of the Digital Librarian quite a few steps further, but the relationship between the two is evident. And Dictionary is (sadly) almost identical to the Digital Webster from NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP (Apple could have learnt from the Omni Group and Nisus in this area).

For me, moving between my OPENSTEP, Rhapsody and Mac OS X systems is pretty easy. They all work pretty much the same, and in my case I have mostly the same application titles on all of them. The only issues I ever have is the scroll bars in OPENSTEP (the vertical bars are on the left hand side of windows :( ).

dpaanlka
Jul 25, 2006, 07:19 PM
Go to the top of you Mac, choose another account and switch to it. You'll see some very good and much needed Microsoft innovation.

Fast user switching is simply an obvious feature evolution (not revolution) of multiple users... which Macs had much much longer than Windows (At Ease).

I'll give Microsoft 1% credit for taking the idea of Multiple Users, taking absolutely forever to implement it properly, then coming up with the idea of having more than one user logged in at a time before anyone else.

jaxstate
Jul 25, 2006, 07:57 PM
I'm just saying, it seems to me, that all the big companies take basic ideas from smaller companies and implement them into their OS with some minor tweeking. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that they all do it.

Don't want to stray too far off topic or hijack the thread, but here is the video of SJ demoing the NExt OS. I was blown away at how advanced it was.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j02b8Fuz73A&search=Steve%20Jobs%20demoing%20Next

whooleytoo
Jul 25, 2006, 08:18 PM
But at the same time they also learn the lesson of using their position to force upgrades. While they may have been keep backwards compatibility alive in their application environment, within their applications they have been making their formats less and less backwards compatible.


The Office case you mention is a good counter-point to what I mentioned above. In the office business software suite market, Microsoft are so utterly dominant, they can afford to forego backward compatibility; in this case to force previous versions of Office to upgrade.

Which, when you think about it, only becomes necessary if the new version isn't providing sufficient innovative features.

zephead
Jul 25, 2006, 08:23 PM
Let's not forget that Microsoft invented the infamous CTRL-ALT-DELETE. :D

whooleytoo
Jul 25, 2006, 08:29 PM
Have you ever read Jerry Kaplan's book "Start Up," about his efforts to capitalize Go, Inc. and get the product to market? (The first tablet computer, circa 1990, for those who've never heard of it.) The chapters of his book about his encounters with Microsoft are priceless. They came in as Go platform application developers, and turned into competitors, stealing Go's ideas left and right. Microsoft is one of the reason Go failed. Microsoft never released their pen-based OS, because by that time they'd spirited away most of Go's application developers. Go was dead, so they didn't need to release the product.

Their 'co-development' of OS/2 is another entertaining read.

Is FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) another Microsoft innovation? ;)

RacerX
Jul 25, 2006, 09:14 PM
... but here is the video of SJ demoing the NExt OS. I was blown away at how advanced it was.Actually using it can be quite a rush too. ;)


:rolleyes:

Well, I'm sure that it would be to someone new to it at any rate. Its just an (almost) everyday type of thing for me... but I do appreciate it still. :D

dsnort
Jul 25, 2006, 10:16 PM
Well, I hate to do it, but I'll throw in one thing I think M$ did that was good for the computer industry.

They licensed their GUI OS to any IBM compatible manufacturer. Running the same OS, they had to compete on other planes, features, specs, and price. Especially price. This has lowered the price of computers across the board.

I love my Mac, but I'm not sure I could have afforded it without M$.

Maybe not creative or innovative, but important.

This is just theory of mine, I throw it out so you more knowledgeable types can shoot it full of arrows. :D

MisterMe
Jul 25, 2006, 10:43 PM
You gave links to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great)... before I trust anything there I generally need a lot more outside sources. ...FWIW, most of the post was from my own memory. The Wikipedia link served as supplementary material.

Today's Dock grew out of the original NeXT Dock. ...It goes back a little earlier than that. Ever heard of the LISA (http://home.san.rr.com/deans/prototypes.html)?

...

They licensed their GUI OS to any IBM compatible manufacturer. Running the same OS, they had to compete on other planes, features, specs, and price. Especially price. This has lowered the price of computers across the board.

...This is pure, unadulterated, Microsoft, propaganda. The Redmond Monopoly did not create the IBM PC-compatible world. That was done by Compaq and others. Microsoft captured it. However, if it had not done so, other companies would have filled the void. Because the hardware was largely interchangeable, it was have still be commoditized. You would have had CP/M-86 with a GEM-based GUI or some such thing. To claim that Windows drove down the prices of computers when the retail price of Windows over the last 10 years has risen to $299 takes lot of chutzpah.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2006, 12:12 AM
This is pure, unadulterated, Microsoft, propaganda. The Redmond Monopoly did not create the IBM PC-compatible world. That was done by Compaq and others. Microsoft captured it. However, if it had not done so, other companies would have filled the void. Because the hardware was largely interchangeable, it was have still be commoditized. You would have had CP/M-86 with a GEM-based GUI or some such thing. To claim that Windows drove down the prices of computers when the retail price of Windows over the last 10 years has risen to $299 takes lot of chutzpah.

Thanks. You beat me to it. Now, if we could talk about how Microsoft captured the PC hardware market... then we'd be right back on topic.

dsnort
Jul 26, 2006, 12:17 AM
This is pure, unadulterated, Microsoft, propaganda.

If you read the rest of this thread you might see that I am NOT a fan of the M$ Monolith. Please do not accuse me of propogandizing for M$.

To claim that Windows drove down the prices of computers when the retail price of Windows over the last 10 years has risen to $299 takes lot of chutzpah.

It was not my intention to "claim" that Windows was solely responsible for the price competition, but, I DO believe that the role they played in this cannot be ignored. If all of these "box" makers had had to use different OS's, it would have introduced a different variable into the cosumers decision process, and who knows where that would have lead, maybe several of the less innovative falling by the wayside? As for chutzpah, yeah, I got plenty. I got my share, plus yours, plus your mom's, your dad's, your sisters.......

zephead
Jul 26, 2006, 12:29 AM
Now, if we could talk about how Microsoft captured the PC hardware market...
Simple. The average consumer at the time didn't know enough about computers to notice how faulty Microsoft's products were. Who would you rather sell to, the small amount of computer-savvy techies who would be smart enough to notice an inferior product when they see one, or to the much, much larger market of average consumers who think it's just the greatest thing in the world? That move, although totally messed up, put ~$60 billion into Bill's pockets. Hence the name "M$"

RacerX
Jul 26, 2006, 01:05 AM
FWIW, most of the post was from my own memory. The Wikipedia link served as supplementary material.I never said I doubted you... I doubted the links that you gave.

Ever heard of the LISA (http://home.san.rr.com/deans/prototypes.html)?What do you think?

It goes back a little earlier than that. Lisa didn't have a dock... plus those are development illustrations and not the final GUI of the Lisa. What you do see there is window shade with windows collapsing to folder tabs. Which shows that even though the windows shade feature in the original Mac OS came from a shareware product, the idea was at Apple long before it. It would have been cool if the tabs could be set to the bottom of the screen like tabbed windows in Mac OS 8 and later.



The reason for having a Dock was for multitasking and easy access to apps. Neither of which was a concern of the early GUI design team as neither the Lisa nor the Mac that followed had those abilities. NeXT, by contrast, was being geared for the workstation market and was expected to do things that weren't on the desktop yet.

That having been said, I still prefer the Apple Menu and Applications Menu from Rhapsody/Mac OS 8/9 to either the Dock in Mac OS X or OPENSTEP.

__________________


They licensed their GUI OS to any IBM compatible manufacturer.They didn't have a GUI OS until Windows NT 3.1 and they didn't have a consumer GUI OS until Windows 95. Before that they had DOS with a GUI shell.

Further, Microsoft forced OEMs to license DOS on every PC they made or face retaliation. This was one of the things that sparked the first antitrust case against Microsoft. Later they settled with the government promising not to do it again.

Did they stick to their agreement? Of course not! This is Microsoft we are talking about.

Be Inc. brought up charges against Microsoft for threatening OEMs that had agreed to ship systems running the BeOS.

:rolleyes:

Ya know, it'd be one thing if Microsoft had done a couple of these tactics... but when you sit back and look at the vast amount of illegal stuff they do it is truly amazing. And the fact that they just figure in the legal troubles as a "cost of doing business".

While the EU may think it is making headway with Microsoft... the truth is that they really aren't. The only thing that will stop Microsoft is ending Microsoft. Judge Jackson recognized that breaking them up was the only effective solution.

Dane D.
Jul 26, 2006, 09:57 AM
Well, I hate to do it, but I'll throw in one thing I think M$ did that was good for the computer industry.

They licensed their GUI OS to any IBM compatible manufacturer. Running the same OS, they had to compete on other planes, features, specs, and price. Especially price. This has lowered the price of computers across the board.

I love my Mac, but I'm not sure I could have afforded it without M$.

Maybe not creative or innovative, but important.

This is just theory of mine, I throw it out so you more knowledgeable types can shoot it full of arrows. :D

Big deal, price does not equate quality. I want a computer that actually works and is headache free. The Macintosh is the closest thing on the market to meeting this requirement. Apple keeps pushing the boundaries of many computer catagories. From the OS to the body that houses the hardware, MS just keeps rehashing a OS that should of been thrown away and replaced with something much more user friendly and safe. The adage "if you can't compete with them, buy them" is what MS relies on.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2006, 10:37 AM
Simple. The average consumer at the time didn't know enough about computers to notice how faulty Microsoft's products were. Who would you rather sell to, the small amount of computer-savvy techies who would be smart enough to notice an inferior product when they see one, or to the much, much larger market of average consumers who think it's just the greatest thing in the world? That move, although totally messed up, put ~$60 billion into Bill's pockets. Hence the name "M$"

Not quite so simple. They quickly set about eliminating the OEM's opportunities to bundle other OSs with PC hardware by forcing them into exclusive "all Microsoft or no Microsoft" deals, and also by imposing the infamous "CPU tax." They also punished OEMs who strayed off the Microsoft reservation by charging them more for Microsoft products than the OEMs who toed the line. Many of these anticompetitive practices were ultimately found to be violations of antitrust laws, but Microsoft didn't have to give the market share back.

dsnort
Jul 28, 2006, 01:15 PM
Big deal, price does not equate quality. I want a computer that actually works and is headache free. The Macintosh is the closest thing on the market to meeting this requirement. Apple keeps pushing the boundaries of many computer catagories. From the OS to the body that houses the hardware, MS just keeps rehashing a OS that should of been thrown away and replaced with something much more user friendly and safe. The adage "if you can't compete with them, buy them" is what MS relies on.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly with you, that's why I HAVE a Mac, I hav two in fact. (Ooo, poetry!) But I still think there is some correlation between the price of the various systems. A premium price is a premium price, but there are limits to everything.

dsnort
Aug 1, 2006, 12:07 PM
Wow, this thread died a lot faster than I thought it would.:confused: I guess I asked a question even the M$ trolls were afraid of.;)

jhu
Aug 1, 2006, 01:04 PM
Wow, this thread died a lot faster than I thought it would.:confused: I guess I asked a question even the M$ trolls were afraid of.;)

i think your post itself was nothing more than a trolling post since you were already begging the question.

dsnort
Aug 1, 2006, 02:37 PM
i think your post itself was nothing more than a trolling post since you were already begging the question.

*Sigh*
First of all, "begging the question" is a fallacy of logic as relates to making an argument; not, oddly enough, to asking a question.

From the Wikipedia:
"In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: "Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this." Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition—in this case, "politicians are untrustworthy"—in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself."

If I had written, "M$ is not an innovative company. I know this because they have never innovated anything!". That would be "begging the question".

The question I asked was:
...has MS ever came out with something that was completely new and innovative on their own?
That's an open question, fairly asked. While provocative, it seeks an answer, and does NOT answer itself.

And if you can think of something to refute the proposition, post it!
(You'll get a lot further with that than you will by coming up with some weak a**ed argument you don't even understand.)

jhu
Aug 1, 2006, 05:24 PM
*Sigh*
First of all, "begging the question" is a fallacy of logic as relates to making an argument; not, oddly enough, to asking a question.

From the Wikipedia:
"In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: "Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this." Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition—in this case, "politicians are untrustworthy"—in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself."

If I had written, "M$ is not an innovative company. I know this because they have never innovated anything!". That would be "begging the question".

The question I asked was:

That's an open question, fairly asked. While provocative, it seeks an answer, and does NOT answer itself.

And if you can think of something to refute the proposition, post it!
(You'll get a lot further with that than you will by coming up with some weak a**ed argument you don't even understand.)

you're right about the "begging the question" part. i had meant to suggest that there was an a priori answer of "no" when you did ask the question. if you look further back in this thread, you'll have my rebuttal to your question.

dsnort
Aug 1, 2006, 06:05 PM
you're right about the "begging the question" part. i had meant to suggest that there was an a priori answer of "no" when you did ask the question. if you look further back in this thread, you'll have my rebuttal to your question.

Well, I freely admit it was a loaded question. Both because I believe it, and to provoke some spirited debate. And while I may have an ax to grind, I also posted a couple of item in M$"s favor that , while not innovative, I believe contributed to the accessability of computers to the mass market.

As to your rebuttal, I saw that the other day, but did not connect it to your last post. I would have hoped for something more specific though.

For the intemperance of my earlier response, I apologise