Medieval secrets behind Microsoft Research

Medieval secrets behind Microsoft Research

Summary: Microsoft will spend $9bn (£6bn) on research and development this year. What it will get in return is harder to quantify

SHARE:
TOPICS: Tech Industry
2

Thomas Edison is famous for lightbulbs and phonographs, but his major invention was Menlo Park, the world's first industrial research laboratory. Taking up two city blocks and stocked with everything that could conceivably be useful for researching, it provided the model for the great corporate labs of the 20th century — IBM, Bell, General Electric. The general principle is easy to grasp: if you give creative, disciplined people the chance to have good ideas and the means to follow them up, good things will follow.

At a Microsoft Research's open day at Cambridge recently, this line was promoted heavily in the keynote speech: fundamental research helps generate brand new technologies that give companies competitive advantages. In some cases, that's unarguable. If Intel shut down its research, it would die overnight. But what would happen if Microsoft stopped doing research? Based on the researchers' demonstrations, the answer is 'not very much'.

The ideas on show in Cambridge, while good and interesting, did not address Microsoft's core problems, nor even any of their minor ones. There was research into ecological systems, into displaying networks of influence, into low-power network hardware, into capturing people's lives as a timeline. Try matching those with any known Microsoft strategy — or any conceivable one — in a way that makes compelling sense.

With Intel, you can see the research up on the screen. I've had a briefing from a solid-state physicist on a new transistor design and seen it emerge as a major strand of processor strategy three years later. With Microsoft, it's hard to trace such developments – easier now than it has been, but the link between bright idea and bottom line is very weak.

It's not as if you can't just shut down fundamental R&D. Apple had a classic operation in its Apple Research Labs, which did good work in networking, data recognition, human-computer interaction and so on. It was highly thought of, and some of its legacies live on in QuickTime and many other ideas spread throughout the Web and software development.

It ran for 11 years. Two months after he regained control of the company in 1997, Steve Jobs shut it down.

Apple survived the operation. Microsoft would too, purely in terms of the products it makes. That's because big company research in this instance is not primarily about the science and technology, it's about marketing — marketing of a kind Apple decided it just didn't need, but Microsoft needs more than ever. And they're not 21st- or even 20th-century ideas at work: the principles go back much further.

This is hidden by a common misconception about fundamental research. Ask someone to describe a scientist or inventor at work, and you'll get a picture of an eccentric loner crouched over a bench in a deserted lab late at night. What research is, really, is networking. It's about influence and status and competition and being the first to know, all of which only work well in a large group of peers. Becoming part of a big industrial R&D operation while continuing an academic style of working is landing a plum; there's money, and brand recognition among the laity. And so, the entire research community warms to the idea — and its sponsor.

This works all the way up the chain. The director of a big R&D organisation will find doors open and ears pricked at the highest level of universities and government; the divisional head will be lionised at conferences. You can see why Jobs found this a useless distraction in building the Apple brand, which stands for direct user experience. Microsoft, on the other hand, relishes every chance to become part of the infrastructure of influence. Individuals don't buy Microsoft products: they get them from organisations or by default. Microsoft's most important marketing is to those in power, and what could be a finer advertisment of your suitability for partnership than a big building in Cambridge University filled with happy academics? It worked for King Henry VIII: it can work for Steve Ballmer.

In its own way, the company is influenced too. Being a high-profile public supporter of a social good like fundamental research means you have to look very much as if you take it seriously. The first open-source MS software came from MS Research's work in IPv6; the academic necessities of collaboration and openness feed both ways and that does the company more good than it'll ever admit on the record.

What research is for, in cases like Microsoft, is status. It's a very tax efficient, with many valuable and wonderful side effects that occasionally benefit the company, but its primary task is marketing. It's proof, even in these most distressingly modern of times, that patronage works.

Topic: Tech Industry

Rupert Goodwins

About Rupert Goodwins

Rupert started off as a nerdy lad expecting to be an electronics engineer, but having tried it for a while discovered that journalism was more fun. He ended up on PC Magazine in the early '90s, before that evolved into ZDNet UK - and Rupert evolved with them into an online journalist.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

2 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Rupert, a question if I may...

    You say that Microsoft's key benefit from its 'research' is 'status capital', which it converts to increased revenues in some way further down the corporate pipeline, which I can accept as a valid perspective.

    However, what would happen if Microsoft's core franchise monopolies vanished overnight? Would that translate into a new era where Microsoft's research <i>actually produced</i> ($DEITY forbid) viable and beneficial technological breakthroughs?

    I ask this knowing that this is pretty much what happened at IBM back in the day...

    At IBM, technologies, even brilliant ones, which might in some way eat into Big Blue's then cash cows, were often suppressed.

    You see, if you have a phenomenally lucrative monopoly market, it's difficult to visualise a scenario where <i>any</i> new technology which you might devise, not matter how brilliant, could generate more profit than what you already have. Therefore, it's best to suppress many of these new discoveries, on the off-chance that they somehow devour your key markets.

    It is one of the more insidious aspects of monopolies within the ICT space, and a great loss to our industry of clever ideas from clever people.

    Thoughts?
    conz-fd600
  • I absolutely agree

    Monopolies will always suppress their own innovations should they have any concern that future profits may be damaged by them.
    However, they continue to innovate and patent such innovations to prevent competitors from implementing technology which will harm the monopoly and so it is still in the interests of all monopolies to innovate (or buy up small companies with potentially profit damaging products).
    This is exactly why there should never be any legislation to support software patents- thank God we don't have it in the EU yet!

    I can see parallels here with the oil cartels buying up profit endangering technologies.
    brudinie-9a7a8