Hacker News Reader

Comment by zw123456 | Hacker News Reader

I have been in this business a very long time (ahem, over 35yrs) and the one thing I have observed over the years is that it seems like there is a cyclical nature to they way tech companies go up and down. There was a time when everyone thought Apple would rule the world with the Mac, it was so much better than DOS, and then MS came roaring back with windows, then people thought Apple was down for the count and they came roaring back with the the Ipod and Iphone. Sure some companies drift into obscurity and go out of business while new ones come on the scene (eg. Google) but the really good ones figure out a way to become relevant again (e.g. IBM, Watson etc.). It will be interesting to see if MS is able to do the same. I hope so, we still need some big companies like that that are willing to invest huge sums of money on research, it cannot all be done with start ups.

View on HN

You picked one example (Apple) that supports your thesis (technology is cyclical).

It is, however, an exception to the rule.

Computer industry is littered with bodies of slain giants: Borland, Sybase, Lotus, Wordstar, Personal Software (VisiCalc) etc. The rest are companies that stabilized into a success (Oracle, eBay, Microsoft).

It's exceedingly rare to make a come back (IBM, Apple are 2 examples I can think of).

Also, NeXT essentially acquired Apple. The current Apple barely resembles the early 90's / pre-Jobs company

Would we really consider IBM as a come back? From a B2B and patent revenues perspective I concede this could be a possibility, but from a B2C perspective, surely that ship has already sailed?

Remember that IBM Posted an 8 Billion Dollar loss in 1992. It was on the verge of being broken up. To go from there to a ~$212B Company with Revenues of $104B and Income before tax of $21B. --> I think IBM still counts as one of the biggest corporate turn-arounds in history.

IBM was never any good at B2C. Getting back to B2B played to it's strengths.

That's an interesting perspective, but I have to question how much value Microsoft research alone has added versus the many start-ups that Microsoft has worked with in bringing new technology to market.

Microsoft didn't invent the Kinect, it was developed by PrimeSense and brought to market by Microsoft (if I've got that right).

As the cost of much of the large technology plays comes down, and it can be done easier, I think we'll continue to see large companies continue to rely on start-ups to provide the initial impetus of ingenuity. I suspect it has always been that way. Don't forget Microsoft was a start-up which took advantage of IBM's scale to build their market advantage.

The Kinect is a depth camera. Nothing new there. PrimeSense had one that was a lot cheaper than existing ones, and Microsoft bought it. It was primarily the cost of the device that had PS in the running.

The skeletal tracking was totally Microsoft's stuff; in fact, it was an utter surprise to PrimeSense when it was announced (that was fun -- they had no idea what we were really doing with the camera until very late in the game).

So: PrimeSense: Depth camera.

Microsoft: EVERYTHING else (from the firmware and the drivers on up, including a /bunch/ of manufacturability stuff that PS had little experience in).

Thanks for clarifying that Kabdib, I wasn't aware that was the story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com