Is Microsoft Actually Innovating?
blog.villainousmind.com
blog.villainousmind.com
That's an adorable bit of engineer-brain reductionism, but I don't think it's right. Having some kind of device in the loop is useful as a symbol. It tells other people that you're listening to music, that you spent a certain amount of money to do so, or that you do or don't pay attention to what's popular. If you bought a certain color, you probably did so to convey (or to avoid conveying) something about yourself, etc. People like to carry around and display tokens of their interests.
http://social.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/genuinevista/thread...
Never mind the recovery process now that they don't even ship some computers with the OS disk.
As an aside, I don't actually think it's unfair for MS to block access to Windows to users who are using illegal copies of Windows. It's their product; it stays their property so long as you haven't pay for it. If you don't like that, use something else instead (like Linux for example) or pay for the license.
Please note I'm not accusing you in particular of using an illegal copy of Windows. I'm just expressing surprise at people getting outraged when their PCs stop booting up into Windows because they have invalid licences (there was a story in China recently, which as I remember it was reported with glee by one of the Mac sites.)
(PS you could always load up the hard disk on another machine and copy the data from there)
Let me rephrase that. Sideshow looks stupid and the name invites mockery. Make it a tablet touchscreen and say it's the future of the mouse, and then please send me one if this turns out to be profitable.
Obviously this guy has never watched a television. Apple spends hundreds of millions each year making sure people do want an iPod.
They spend their money on branding ads, to make sure that when people think about "listening to 'the right song wherever they are'" they associate that with an iPod. That's the only explanation, since everybody has known what an iPod is for years and yet they still spend literal hundreds of millions per year on ads for them.
Microsoft has made a LOT of innovations. A massive amount of modern computing is based of how accessible microsoft made computing - if we still had to recompile our kernel to enable sound, I don't think we would be near as far as we are.
Sure , they've enabled innovation. How much have they actually done ...
Apple did not invent the phone, mp3 player, video player, application store, etc. They just perfected and skillfully crafted hypes around them. Microsoft did not invent the Office suite, IDE's or the hardware acceleration layer, but they did perfect and deploy them through aggressive business strategies.
Is your claim that a company must invent something from whole cloth to be "innovative"?
Amazon.com did invent Cloud Computing, Philips did invent the CD, Sun did invent Java, Toyota did invent the hybrid, AT&T did invent the cell phone, Xerox did invent the GUI. Those are the companies that run on innovation.
A refinement on the laserdisc.
"Sun did invent Java"
A refinement on C, C++, and Smalltalk.
"Xerox did invent the GUI"
A refinement on Doug Engelbart's work at SRI. (Edit: Though many of the researchers working for him later went to PARC, I find no evidence that Engelbart himself ever did.)
Now here's the real question. If inventing a new type of laserdisc that's five inches wide is innovation, why isn't inventing a GUI-based computer system that costs half as much as a Star and a third as much as a Lisa? If inventing a new object oriented language with C style syntax is an innovation, why isn't inventing a smartphone with a multitouch screen and unprecedented amounts of storage space?
What do you mean innovation.
That doesn't mean they aren't innovative. It's easy to invent the MP3 player. It's hard to invent the MP3 player that people actually want to use. That doesn't suck.