Hacker News Reader

> More like Microsoft wastes more money on R&D that doesn't convert in revolutionary products [...]

This sentence is weird to read here.

We have a big company spending money on science that is not tied to what they can sell. That is a good thing. I am disappointed that anyone on HN can say anything different.

Of course, we could have a discussion about the difficulties of running pure research alongside a commercial arm. But that's not what your comment is doing.

I don't think research whose results do not see the light of day is valuable in any shape or form. This is especially true for corporate-sponsored research, where the results are either kept as trade secrets or patented by the corporate lawyers, which means scientists elsewhere cannot build on top of that research later.

But you're completely wrong here. All research done by Microsoft and IBM is published as academic papers. That's what the people there are paid to do: publish papers. Many of them are postdoctoral researchers and need this for their academic careers. Just like Bell Labs, Sun Labs, and IBM Research, this is more of an academic institution backed by a corporation than a corporate R&D division.

MS Research's stated mission is to "take our best ideas and push them into our products as rapidly as we possibly can".

You are being extremely disingenuous. This is the rest of the quote:

“It embodies what we believe in and our sense of values,” Rashid said. “It states, first and foremost, that our goal as an institution is to move the state of the art forward. It doesn't matter what part of the state of the art we're moving forward, and it doesn't say anything in that first part of the mission statement about Microsoft. It simply says our goal is to further research in the fields in which we work.

“The second part is equally simple: When we have really good ideas, our goal is to make sure we get them into use, that we change the world with our ideas and with our technology. We take our best ideas and push them into our products as rapidly as we possibly can. That's important.”

You are very, very mistaken.

Microsoft sponsors many top people in computer science and allows them to spend time on pure research and to publish academic papers. Ever heard of Simon Peyton Jones or Sir Tony Hoare?

How can that be bad?

For example, Microsoft pays most of the top Haskell developers to research and develop Haskell. There's no patents on that, and the source code and papers are all freely available. Microsoft isn't turning it into a product, it's just doing it to better computer science, to increase their standing, and to inform their other products such as C#.

And you say that's bad? Fuck you.

I see that you're new here. Please remain civil. This is not Reddit.

It is true that a portion of the research sponsored by Microsoft is published as academic papers, but I'd suspect that, in relation to the vast amount of money Microsoft is spending on R&D, those papers represent less than 1% of the results. We never hear about the hundreds of millions spent where the results never saw the light of day.

My problem with what you've said is that you've accused Microsoft of placing patents on their research, and of not publishing their results.

These accusations are false. MSR does not generally patent their work. I'm in language research and have not encountered any of their work that they've patented. Also, MSR's researchers and evaluated and appraised based on their publication record, so the only incentive is to publish. Microsoft's people publish a huge amount. Most university researchers are envious of how much they manage to publish, which they achieve through very high quality people, properly compensated, with lots of resources and being left alone.

Why do you "suspect" that only 1% is published? Where do you get that number from? Have you worked there? Have you collaborated with them? If they're only publishing 1%, the research would be superhuman.

You have put a false accusation to a group of people, and that pisses me off. It's not even like it's a difference of opinion - you've clearly not worked with these people or studied their publications, and are just making assumptions.

I went to UW for my undergrad. I know people who work in MSR and talk to them on a regular basis. You're definitely right about them being high quality people and being very properly compensated, but wrong about everything else you said. Language research, for example, constitutes a tiny minority of MSR's total budget. Most of it goes to graphics and multimedia, hardware and devices, and human-computer interaction, with smaller portions going to software development and security/anti-piracy research. Everything else is breadcrumbs.

>>If they're only publishing 1%, the research would be superhuman.

Well yes, they spend over $10 billion on research. Of course it is superhuman. Perhaps you are lacking this context, which is why you find it hard to believe my suspicion that they publish a tiny percentage of all research findings.

When I look through MSR's papers, I see a pretty massive level of output, across many of the domains you say get most of the money. Of course there's going to be information that isn't published. There's lots of information not worth publishing.

As a matter of defense against patents, though, MSFT has a strong interest in insuring that its basic research is thoroughly documented in public, establishing prior art.

MSR does in fact file quite a few patent applications. At least in the past, Microsoft employees got little tchotchkes for each patent application filed, and it's not uncommon for MSR researchers to have small mounds of these patent 'cubes' on their bookshelves.

True, but as percentage of their academic output (papers, talks, prototypes, ...) they're not so high.

In my view this is one of the things people in this discussion are not realizing. Microsoft Research is not R&D, it's R. The rest of MS spends a lot in R&D too, but MSR's work and goals are distinct.

Of course transferring tech into products is part of their goal, but it's the product teams that continue from there (R passes the ball to R&D).

Regarding publications, as other pointed out in this thread, MSR does publish a huge percentage of their work.

>And you say that's bad? Fuck you.

I seriously hope you are a teenager. Because if you're an adult and you talk to people like that ... well then good luck in life man ...

It's incredible that people are downvoting you for pointing out a legitimate problem with his post. But hey, I guess even supposedly-intelligent HN readers cheer-lead in debates.

Here at hacker news your point is completely irrelevant. All we care about is the tone of your post and, of course, your grammar.

Solved the meaning of life but posted it with speeling errers? We do still keep a few roadside crosses and nails laying around from old Rome; you'll get your comeuppance.

> Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

See http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#institutions for one measure of MSR's published work...

Microsoft's R&D mission is not pure scientific research. The shareholders expect profitable products from it. Google for: "When we have really good ideas, our goal is to make sure we get them into use, that we change the world with our ideas and with our technology. We take our best ideas and push them into our products as rapidly as we possibly can. That's important."

That's what corporate R&D is. Are you opposed to all R&D not done by universities?

Microsoft's R&D mission is not. But Microsoft Research's is.

The idea is that MSR explores (R), then Microsoft integrates what they feel is interesting into products (R&D).

Lab inventions aren't meant to be successful in the market, and I'm not sure Microsoft is doing all that research just for financial gain, but even if it is, and it's not succesful -- so what?

It is actually quite known in the tech industry (among those who really care about technology and not just business) that after the slow decline of Bell Labs and Sun Labs, the two most innovative tech companies are IBM and Microsoft. Actually, I've always assumed everybody knows this.

I don't know if it means Microsoft (or IBM) "has a future", but who cares? There's so much good stuff coming from those two companies (or their research divisions to be exact), so why not just enjoy it?

Also, I don't know how it works at Microsoft, but at IBM Research, the company is responsible for only half the funding. The researchers have to secure the rest themselves from grants and such, just like in any academic institution.

A lot of their R&D goes into things like improvements to database architecture or compiler technology that gets rolled into new releases, but doesn't constitute a "product".

Research doesn't have to be sexy to be useful.

I'm a compilers guy, and I approve this message. Research spending by both Microsoft and Apple has produced massive advances that then got packaged into Visual Studio and XCode, generating quite a whole lot of value and even capturing a fair portion of it as revenue.

"I haven't seen much come out of it."

While designers have spent a decade gushing over skueomorphism, rounded rectangles and gradients, Microsoft has made two steps forward in the WIMPy UI development - the ribbon and Metro.

Furthermore, while Google and Apple are trying to partition the world into walled gardens; via TouchDevelop, Microsoft is the only major company pursuing mobile devices for general computing.

"I haven't seen much come out of it"

Are you mad?!

In fields such as machine learning and languages, papers by Microsoft Research _dominate_ top conference proceedings.

Quite the same in Computer Graphics and Systems/Networking.

Actually, the problem with Microsoft is not their R&D. If they stop spending on R&D, Microsoft will still have the same set of problems.

It seems like their problem is that actually that they are not bold enough to push some of their research things to the market. Why do they need to copy Apple or Google in order to succeed in mobile market? Why not to do something bold and push it?

lab inventions can look so far ahead of the industry that they are ignored and considered useless toys.

see plan 9.

R&D is almost entirely tax deductible from what I remember.

Remember first you have to earn 10B and then spend. If you just paid taxes on 10B you will still have a lot of net gain couple of B at least. I guess haters will hate regardless.

One thing you (and the other replies so far) are forgetting is the patent portfolio. Industry research groups generate IP which can be used as a cudgel up to 17 years down the line.