Why doesn't Microsoft out-innovate Apple?

Innovative organizations seem to be of two types: a) top down design leadership like Apple, or more likely b) bottom up environment that allows innovation to happen organically. SteveB and most of the VP's don't have the product design gifts Steve Jobs has, so A is out of the question. Unfortunately, Microsoft is so large and un-agile that B is impossible as well.

Fanboys.

I'm not kidding. Microsoft can innovate well (and they have in the past) and they'll always have an evil stigma around them. Apple, whatever they do, mostly has an "everything Apple does is awesome and good" while glossing over the things Apple has done wrong.

Granted, Apple's done some great stuff. But I'll say this: when Apple releases a Tablet PC, fanboys will praise it even though if it is with similar functionality to Microsoft's Tablet PC, and will cause the inertia to start and people start pointing out the obscure flaws in Microsoft's Tablet PC and talk about how amazing Apple's is.

I'm being absolutely serious here. It's something that's akin to the Google/Yahoo! competition also. Fanboys and the people that they influence have a great effect on a company's desire to innovate.

"... [Apple] is a company with leadership who has the fortitude to take the risk, find the budget, and push the technology for the single cause of designing compelling user experiences. Apple got it right."

Keyword: Seems.

Yes, if you're preaching to the converted, that's proof enough, but Apple has rebadged BSD and has gotten a large degree of success through a remake of a 1979 device, the Sony Walkman. But those aren't really innovations at all. Shiny object!=innovation. I don't know how else to put it.

Here's microsoft's research page,

http://research.microsoft.com/research/default.aspx

Here's, umm, Apple's

http://www.apple.com/education/research/

...or, at least, that's the 1st link for the search query, "Apple Research":

Hmm, the page you’re looking for can’t be found.

A 404.

At the end of the day it's just computers but when imbued with the idea that through computers peoples' lives are easier, more efficient, and more fun, you just attract people willing to work harder and longer and wanting to change the world.

Sappy, yes, but it works.

The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, they have absolutely no taste, and what that means is -- I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they they don't think of original ideas and they don't bring much culture into their products. And you say, "why is that important?" -- well, you know, proportionally spaced fonts come from type setting and beautiful books, that's where one gets the idea -- if it weren't for the Mac they would never have that in their products and so I guess I am saddened, not by Microsoft's success -- I have no problem with their success, they've earned their success for the most part. I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third rate products.

(from Triumph of the Nerds)

Apple has obviously concentrated on making things that people would actually _want to_ use. The truckloads of money they're raking in is just an (intentional) side-effect.

The plan with Vista was to ram it down everyone's throat through Microsoft's monopoly position, but where is the added value for the users?

Leopard received a much warmer response. Fanboys, yes, and bugs, but still - it's something that people want to use.