Inability, perhaps. Unwillingness? You're out of your mind.

Microsoft has had their fingers in smartphones, music players, search engines, touch computing, web mail, [you name it] for YEARS. And they are not just dabbling... they have poured billions into these areas, trying to come up with something that gains traction.

Microsoft doesn't make "the occasional try" at innovation, they are a veritable firehose of attempts to innovate. Microsoft Research is HUGE (and well respected within the research/academic community) and as I mentioned above they spend billions every year trying to develop new products and break into new markets.

The fact that Microsoft's efforts in this area have been largely unsuccessful over the past decade doesn't mean they aren't trying or aren't willing.

Let's take smartphones for instance - look at the Kin. From all reports, killed b/c of politics, in favor of Windows 7. Why not have both and see what the market decides?

The Courier. Killed - who knows why? Most likely politics.

Microsoft has so many innovative ideas that we see in Research - but we never see them in products! It always feels like the right hand is slapping the left hand. Competing fiefdoms are fighting over resources, over pub, and over power.

Microsoft needs to empower it's best leaders to make a product, from start to completion - much like Jobs does with Apple. At the end of the day, the buck stops with Jobs, and his vision goes. What happens at Microsoft? You have 100 PM's working on one project. You work diligently. Your design is "design by committee" but hey, it looks like it's going well.

Then some jealous VP of some other division has a beer with Ballmer expressing some concerns and the project gets killed. This needs to stop. There was no reason that the Kin/Courier should have been killed. If it flops, let it flop. If you don't take chances, you'll never grow.

Microsoft right now is afraid of its own shadow.

Kin was killed after six weeks, the market decided it was crap and only a couple were sold. Actually not so much that the Kin itself is bad, but carriers weren't enthusiastic enough, and Microsoft had marketing problems for a product that would battle WP7 6 months later.

You illustrate another problem - I don't know why MS would view it as "battling" WP7 6 months later: 1) 6 months is a LIFETIME for a phone. The Pre went from amazing, potential company-saver phone to dud in less than that. 2) At the end of the day, all the money goes back to Microsoft. Why is that a battle? Internally it's a battle for mindshare - but MS needs to realize that they're both on the same team. Apple is happy cannibalizing its iPod sales for iPod Touches/iPhones.

3) If Microsoft wants to grow, several products are going to overlap. There seems to be a convergence towards "the one true device". A year from now, MS is going to start worrying if mobile phone sales are creeping into their netbook sales - they already worry that Office 365 sales are going to creep into Office licensing

The problem is that they have a sucky innovation model. They find something that's already successful, throw money at making a slightly better version (or whatever they can convince themselves is a slightly better version).

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It worked when they copied the Macintosh to make Windows. It worked when they copied Netscape to make IE. It worked when they copied Playstation to make Xbox. It stopped working when they copied iPod to make Zune, and continued to not work when they copied Google to make Bing.

Why it's stopped working? Either (a) a run of bad luck or (b) folks have learned to preempt Microsoft's move or (c) the really good people don't work for Microsoft any more.

If that's a success I really don't want to see one of their failures.

I'm actually surprised if the xbox hasn't been profitable. It can't have been that costly to develop (get a fancy graphics chip and stick it in a box), they've sold a helluva lot of them, and they only update it once every five years, and they're making a crapload of money on the games too (don't forget they own Bungie) so I would have thought it would be a bit of a cash cow. But maybe they need to sell the consoles at a loss.

Until relatively recently when manufacturing costs dropped Microsoft were selling the hardware at a significant loss which means that you have to sell a certain number of games just to break even. This isn't an uncommon model for consoles (the Wii was an exception being profitable as a console from day one) but it was pretty extreme for Microsoft who were basically making an aggressive play for market share and damn the expense.

Up to 2005 the XBox gaming division (including hardware and games sales) had lost $4 billion (http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/12/microsoft-management-softwa...) on a total investment of over $20 billion and it continued to lose money up to 2009 including a cost of $1 billion for replacing bricked XBox360's in 2007 (http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/05/xbox-360-warranty-extende...). All in all I'd estimate up to 2009 total losses up to or even in excess of $6 billion.

In 2009 it finally posted it's first profit - $165 million, though it's probably worth noting that as a percentage of the $6 billion it had lost to that point this is basically nothing.

They have a total installed user base of 41 million consoles (360s) world wide. This puts it slightly ahead of the PS3 (38 million) - though it should be noted that the PS3 launched a year later and is currently selling faster - but way behind the Wii (79 million) and the PS2 (over 140 million). It's likely that by the start of 2011 once Christmas is out of the way they'll be last place in terms of installed user base - not a great reward for all that money spent.

(If these numbers don't feel representative of what you see it's worth noting that the XBox is far stronger in the US than in Europe and Japan).

On the positive side Kinnect is apparently priced so that it will be profitable from day one, they do have a decent installed user base for new games sales and live subscriptions, and console production costs are now a lot lower than they were which means that the next three or four years (the likely remaining life of the console) will all be profitable, however it would seem unlikely that they'll be able to bring the total investment to break even for the life of the XBox range.

Maybe we have different definitions but for me that's not only not a success, but it's not far off being a disaster, particularly given that this isn't a tale of a couple of years of growth at the expense of profit, but a decade long tale.

IIRC they've always made money off of the special edition elite consoles, they've been making a profit off of the elite as a whole for a while now, however these represent a small amount of their sales compared to the big sales of the arcade consoles they had.

PS3 made huge losses to try to stay competitive with 360, and never really dropped much in price and lost huge market share because of it.

However, both have been ridiculous profit makers for their parent companies as the entire devision makes wheelbarrow loads of cash from selling games for ridiculous prices (again something Sony fucked up with by getting greedy in the beginning, although Xbox eventually followed).

Sorry, this is completely untrue for the XBox which has haemorrhaged cash for it's entire life as a division, not just on hardware sales. I've linked to the figures in my post above.

The PS3 is in a similar position - it moved into profit on the hardware sales earlier this year and total losses are estimated at around $3 billion to date. I can't find any figures on the whole division profitability (other than that it is profitable) to know how likely it is to recoup this, though there are statements that they do expect it to make money over it's full life (though I suspect it will be questionable how much for an investment of that size).

If you're wondering how this can be possible, the console subsidies at launch were of the order of $250 - $300 per console. That's a lot of money to make up off of game sales and live subscriptions (remember you're making it off the profit on each game - maybe $10 - $20, not the revenue of $50).

> PS3 made huge losses to try to stay competitive with 360, and never really dropped much in price and lost huge market share because of it.

In terms of global (not US) market share the PS3 will pass the XBox360 shortly which isn't great news for the 360 given that it launched a year earlier so had a head start. Given that Microsoft's sales figures are based on shipped to retailers and Sony's are on sold to consumer's it's possible that the PS3 is already in the hands of more people (rather than sat on shop shelves). In the US the figures are better (18 million vs. 12 million) which might explain why you think it's doing well but that picture isn't reflected in Japan (1 million vs. 5 million) or Europe.

But if you're wondering where the next generation of consoles are, these figures should make it clear - they're nowhere. Both companies need to eek out the life of the current consoles for financial reasons before looking at further significant investment.

Indeed it may be the case that the XBox360/PS3 generation of consoles will prove to be a one off in terms of the level of investment made given the difficulty in recouping it, and that future consoles will be based on smaller, cheaper increments in power and functionality.

Just to be clear, I'm not knocking MS for the sake of it (I actually really like the look of Kinnect and give them great credit for the innovation) but the economics of consoles aren't quite what some people seem to think they are.

If you disagree and think that Microsoft's leadership is willing to change and has just not been able to, then their leadership must be phenomenally incompetent. Just ask yourself, what's their cohesive product strategy? Where's their commitment to excellence? How many of these research projects are designed to build on the strengths of Microsoft's offerings or fix their weaknesses? Why aren't these research projects winnowed down into economically viable and marketable products and services? What's the corporate vision?

A simpler explanation is that the leadership of Microsoft is afraid of anything that competes with their two cash cows: Windows and Office. If this explanation is correct, then any product or service that Microsoft makes (or participates in) will be sufficiently hobbled in order to keep Windows and Office at the forefront of their offerings. It's their "strategy tax." Mobile devices and web services both compete with Windows and Office, in some way, so the company has done relatively little to advance in these two areas.

It doesn't matter which way you look at it, though: spending billions and having little success to show for it isn't a merit badge, it's a mark of failure.

Yes it does. That is exactly what it means.

Throwing crap against a wall and hoping it sticks, even if you spend billions, isn't innovation, that's flailing.

This ruling is really only one or two steps away from a court mandating that all ISPs monitor network traffic for unlicensed content and restrict it accordingly (since they are enabling piracy just as much as Limewire was).

I know Limewire has been around for a long time and all the cool kids moved on to other filesharing networks and technologies long ago, but I think this news is significant and troubling.

The fact that the music industry has managed to shut them down is just one more lost battle in the net neutrality war.

If MS Windows is given away for free on new laptops, by filling the OS with banner ads and then bribing manufacturers to bundle it, would the EU still require IE to be removed?

First of all, others might upvote this post simply because they're intrigued by the experiment itself (or for any number of other reasons) and not because of what is or isn't in the title. Secondly, your sample size is one and there is no control group (that I know of).

If you're truly interested in studying this, might I suggest reviewing historical hacker news submissions and, after controlling for as many other effects as you can (author reputation, time of day, other keywords in title, etc.), measure the statistical impact of having the words "Hacker News" in a title. It might be a bit of work to gather, parse and analyze the data you need, but I'm sure the community would be interested.

So while you're right that the instance-hour cost has remained flat since the launch, the actual costs of using the AWS platform as a supercomputer or server farm has fallen dramatically.

It's true that you can order the markup however you want and write the CSS to make it look right, but the key point is recognizing that (unless you position everything absolutely) there is still no true separation between the markup and the CSS (at least where layout is concerned). If they were truly independent, then it wouldn't matter what order the elements appeared in the markup... the CSS would lead them to render the same way on the screen every time.

It's worth pointing out that there is true independence between the markup and CSS where styling is concerned (and this is where CSS shines). If you style the background, font, opacity, whatever of a particular element and then move that element to a different location within the markup, the element will still look exactly the same (unless the new position in the DOM subjects it to other CSS rules that override the old ones).

I'm rambling a bit here, but all I'm really trying to say is that CSS has its place in the web development toolbox, but old-school tables often have the edge when looking for a layout that just works.

Another place where tables have the edge: when a new browser version comes out, css layouts are often broken, especially if they rely on hacks.

Quality matters, but there are other things that also matter, such as actually getting working code written. Some of us (and I've personally struggled with this for a long time) have a hard time letting go of our quest for perfection and settling for shipping code that's imperfect but works. When Jeff says that "quality just doesn't matter that much," what I took this to mean is: quality matters, but it matters less than we sometimes feel like it does. And that doesn't mean he's condoning writing crappy code; he's simply saying that we tend to overvalue this abstract concept of quality and that can have a crippling effect on our productivity.

Joel focuses on dogmatic adherence to development methodologies/principles as an example, specifically testing. I got the impression that he thinks testing is great and it has its place in the software development ecosystem. It tends to increase software quality and there are certain types of software for which it is really, really important (Jeff mentions framework code as an example). That said, taken to an extreme, testing can get in the way of getting things done... getting working code written and out the door / live on the server / whatever. It can also get in the way of modifying working code, as intentional changes to the way that code works always breaks some percentage of your unit tests, just as a regression will. And while catching unintentional regressions is great (and one of the best reasons you should unit test), constantly having to rewrite your tests every time you change the behavior of an internal class can be a real drag on your productivity. And that can be bad.

The key is to avoid being overly dogmatic in your adherence to development principles. Instead, be pragmatic and find a balance. Test enough to ensure adequate quality (whatever that happens to be for your product), but no more. Otherwise you're just doing yourself (or your employer) a disservice.

> Quality matters, but there are other things that also matter, such as actually getting working code written.

"Working code written" is setting a quality bar. Really. I've seen enough code that has omitted the "working" qualifier that I think it is worth making that point. Many developers spend far too much time erring on the side of too little quality. Not developers here, mind you; I suspect that we care enough to tend to err the other direction. I mean the type that Jeff and Joel repeatedly point out who will never visit sites like this or StackOverflow.

> Joel focuses on dogmatic adherence to development methodologies/principles as an example, specifically testing.

And I think Bob is focusing on people with a complete lack of methodologies and principles. The problem is that they are both talking in greater extremes than are necessary for the sake of emphasizing their point. For what it is worth, I think they are both right, and are violently agreeing on the same gray area.

FWIW, Jeff and Joel strike me as intelligent enough developers that they likely keep their code sufficiently clean without having to consciously remind themselves, or have someone else remind them. Their subconscious quality bar is sufficiently high that they don't have to consciously think about that either. They both seem to have a sense of design that most developers just don't. So does Bob.

I suspect that Bob has worked with or heard of enough developers who don't that he feels compelled to advocate his position with a little more gusto. But both took the other's position as an attack against their own ability or philosophies; this wasn't the point. I think Joel/Jeff were addressing the people who have the tendency to care about what they do, perhaps a little too much at times, and convince them to let go a little bit; Bob is address the people who don't give a crap, and trying to give them a least somewhat of a mental framework to make things that at least kind of work most of the time. The problem is that these people need things told to them dogmatically, to get them out of their comfort zone. That kind of dogmatic advice tends to rub those who think about what we do to begin with the wrong way.

Unfortunately, such a simple and effective solution is politically very unpopular, which is why we have yet to see it passed into law. People want to take care of the environment, as long as it doesn't cost them anything. Well, most people anyway.

You could even couple the tax with an offsetting decrease in other taxes, if you're worried about increasing the total tax burden.

I consider those much worse than carbon.

If a pollution tax was implemented I would give the money back as cash to every person in the country. So the money would basically move in a circle, but those who are more efficient will gain.

Well, I'm predisposed against this idea, but that sounds more like an argument for than against it. If everyone's paying in proportion to their cost to others (a big 'if'), then those who cost others less should be paid more than they pay, all else equal.

I agree if you think that global warming is uncertain, or that perhaps we actually want to increase CO2 in the atmosphere, a carbon tax would be a bad idea.

This is actually a great heuristic, but pollution is only part of the story. A more general (and correct) statement would be "excluding externalities (including pollution) the cheaper one really is better for the environment".

Externalities are basically costs or benefits (to society, the environment, etc.) that aren't reflected in the price paid for an item. One really important thing to note is that externalities extend far beyond pollution and can be both positive and negative.

Pollution is one of the more visible negative externalities that get discussed, but there are plenty of others (for example, driving a car involves a host of negative externalities in addition to pollution such as increased road congestion (longer commute times, more fuel burned in traffic, more accidents)).

There are also plenty of positive externalities that often get ignored. Take windmills, solar panels and hybrid cars. The positive externalities associated with manufacturing these items include lower future manufacturing costs for such items (and lower prices and environmental costs as a result) and investment in R&D aimed at making electricity and/or transportation cheaper (both in terms of environmental and financial costs). So even though solar panels may currently be losing proposition environmentally, there are positive externalities that make buying solar panels today (and thereby moving the industry forward) a Good Thing for the environment.

You state that your company is profitable. In this case, if you pay yourself a low salary and get audited, the IRS can (and will) retroactively adjust your salary to whatever THEY feel is reasonable and comparable for a CEO of a successful small company. Then you will owe back taxes, penalties and interest on whatever amount they determine you cheated them out of. The process isn't very democratic and getting audited is a HUGE pain, so I'd recommend going with something reasonable in the 100K range to avoid scrutiny.