Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The State of R&D At HP, IBM, and Microsoft

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the no-monopoly-on-good-ideas dept.

HP 107

jcatcw writes "Computerworld surveys the R&D efforts at HP, IBM and Microsoft ($17 billion annually) and raises the question: Are these companies supporting more long-term basic research, or just the usual short-term, product-oriented work? HP is consolidating its focus on a few 'big bet' projects in five major research areas — information explosion, dynamic cloud services, content transformation, intelligent infrastructure, and sustainability. IBM has four 'high-risk' basic research areas — nanotechnology, cloud computing, integrated systems and chip architecture, and managing business integrity through advanced math and computer science. Many of the 272 research projects named at Microsoft Research's Web site are structured with major product lines like Windows, Office, or Xbox in mind, but many also seem to have no likely application to anything the company sells today."

cancel ×

107 comments

Cloud computing (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24154153)

Dear fucking god, my boss comes in at least once a week and asks me if our flagship app could run on cloud computing. Give me a gun and one bullet please.

Re:Cloud computing (5, Funny)

vilgefortz (1225810) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154201)

You should heed dilbert's advice and take away all industry magazines from your boss.

Re:Cloud computing (2)

Otter (3800) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154439)

C'mon, moderators -- both of these were funny, and certainly inoffensive.

Re:Cloud computing (5, Funny)

bryce4president (1247134) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154691)

Not if you are a PHB

Re:Cloud computing (1)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154681)

It's funny because it's true

Re:Cloud computing (2, Funny)

everphilski (877346) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154513)

I'm not sure if it's possible to kill a cloud with a bullet ...

Re:Cloud computing (4, Funny)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154591)

sure it is. it needs to be a really big bullet though and you need to super heat it before it hits the clouds. Fire it from space. The cloud will dissipate around it.

Re:Cloud computing (2, Funny)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154779)

Dear fucking god, my boss comes in at least once a week and asks me if our flagship app could run on cloud computing. Give me a gun and one bullet please.

A bullet for you or your boss?

Re:Cloud computing (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155519)

Kind of makes you wonder what the world would be like if more people became homicidal instead of suicidal when confronted by assholes on a daily basis. Probably more than a bit better :P

Re:Cloud computing (5, Funny)

Eighty7 (1130057) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155705)

Hans? Is that you?

Re:Cloud computing (1)

mdf356 (774923) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155883)

It depends on your focus.

If you focus on the asshattery, then homicide leads to fewer asshats.

If you focus on the anger that comes from dealing with asshats, then suicide leads to fewer angry people.

I think we need a research project to see which focus is correct. :-)

Re:Cloud computing (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#24156191)

If you focus on the anger that comes from dealing with asshats, then suicide leads to fewer angry people.

Ah, but that is treating the symptoms, not the disease...

Re:Cloud computing (1)

podperson (592944) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155747)

You should have a pretty well-prepared answer by now.

Re:Cloud computing (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 5 years ago | (#24157717)

Of course you mean a Silver Bullet! What other kind would management want?

Re:Cloud computing (4, Funny)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#24158443)

That's easy, one day when he's out, connect wall current directly to the motherboard of his computer, Apply an etherkiller as well just to be complete.

Tell him you tested the app with cloud computing as he asked, but it was so powerful it turned into a thunderhead and nearly burned the building down. Luckily it grounded itself into his PC.

Tell him you'll be trying again soon, but need to requisition a few electricians to rewire the building first.

If he balks, come back in a couple days and tell him you've figured out how to do a small scale test. Have him order everyone in the office to hop on one foot over a rubber mat patting their heads and rubbing their bellies at the same time (to generate an intermittent ground wave of opposing static charge). Video tape his orders and the results, be sure to get his whacked out explanation to the staff.

Now, call mental health services and submit the video anonymously to his boss.

Bonus points if your story about the experiment magnetizing him and attracting cosmic rays actually convinces him he feels little pinpricks periodically. The random twitching and slapping himself should seal the deal.

Lather, rinse, repeat endlessly.

No money in Research (3, Interesting)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154239)

These are businesses not institutions. They are in the business of making money via products they have mastered. Not a troll just the truth. However check out some of the better colleges and you'll find some sweet research going on. Then these big companies pay the kid 1m for the rights, patent it and make 100m off of it. Cycle of life :)

Narrow view (5, Informative)

jmcbain (1233044) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154667)

Parent poster has a narrow view of industry research. I graduated with my PhD in CS about six years ago from a top-20 university and have worked in an industry research lab. The primary output of industry research are patents, papers, and products (either new products or improving products). And the research labs at Microsoft, IBM, HP, and Yahoo are all very good at this. Take a look at the top CS conferences in the fields where these companies have a stake, and you will see that industry research contributes a large share of the paper output (e.g. SOSP, OSDI, SIGMOD, VLDB, WWW, KDD, etc.). Further, these companies are spending lots of money sponsoring a wide breadth of conferences and helping to drive fundamental research at a time when NSF funding is low. These companies should be applauded.

Re:Narrow view (2)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154705)

I gladly stand corrected :) in that case glad to hear that money is going to people who create.

Re:Narrow view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24155993)

There should be a mod option for +1 Takes it like a man

Re:Narrow view (5, Interesting)

xtracto (837672) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155247)

I completely agree.

I was fortunate to participate in (Comp. Sci.) a research project where some industry companies worked along with some Universities. One of those companies was HP (participating via a researcher appointed to the project).

I can say from first account experience that HP was one of the companies which put more interest and time in the research (while, other unamed companies sometimes were not even present at the meetings).

From that project, I learnt several things about HP research (at least in Europe). They indeed have several projects going. A lot of those projects are however "sensitive" or secret. But you certainly can see several good publications with interesting implications coming from HP.

Re:Narrow view (1)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 5 years ago | (#24160443)

Furthermore, IBM is a bad company to throw into that mix. The ComputerWorld article skews their research contribution to the world greatly by focusing on a paltry $400 million worth of their research projects (IBM invests BILLIONS a year on R&D - in very diverse fields, including medical; which have resulted in numerous advances in things that are not computer related in the normal sense). IBM's research covers far more diverse areas than Microsoft, HP and Yahoo combined... and they thus apply for and win more patents than any of the other companies 15 years in a row so far....

Looking into the list (assuming you find it and have the time to read it) provides a startling insite to just how many areas they innovate in (and how many technologies are beholden to either their research and findings, or beholden to them for improving on someone else's research).

http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2007/01/2007_01_11B.html

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20868.wss

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS118240+14-Jan-2008+PRN20080114
("This year (2007), IBM Corp. continues to maintain the top slot, as it has for the previous 14 years" (14+1=15))

And the list of them can be obtained on IBM's (or others') Patent Server... there doesnt seem to be any area they dont try to innovate in.

As noted, their (all of them) research is indispensable... and yes, they should be applauded... but it is still also about money. Licensing (or selling) these patents brings in a lot of money.

Either way, the benefit usually gets to the consumer in one fashion or another.

Re:Narrow view (1)

PingPongBoy (303994) | more than 5 years ago | (#24164681)

And the research labs at Microsoft, IBM, HP, and Yahoo are all very good at this.

Here's a big but - what about the local gasket manufacturer or soda bottler? Businesses are so bottom-line oriented, especially these days with the high prices and people losing their homes. There's little motivation to do any research if it's left to the big-name companies. While it does take a certain level of training and inclination to get involved in research, our technological base should be making research a snap.

I want to be a consultant that helps the little-guy company get a foothold into structured research and make some small breakthroughs that may put that business ahead of the competition. What technological resources are available to make a research program successful on a budget?

The nature of research (5, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154249)

Whether research is aimed at solving an immediate problem or a problem conjured up in the mind of a scientist, it is not the technical abilities that make research useful. Any project can come up with a solution, pretty much. Rather, it is the mindset that "we are doing research" that makes the activity so productive.

By opening your eyes to all possibilities and outcomes makes even mistakes useful, and having no penalty (relatively speaking, of course) when those mistakes arise frees researchers to create and build. Instead of creating a tailored solution, they can find various solutions and even branch out into more fruitful areas if the main branch turns cold.

Having overarching themes that you want to pursue, like HP and IBM have, makes it easy for researchers to focus. On the other hand, pure research as they do at MS allows the researchers to go off in any direction that seems fruitful, even if most of the projects end up as dead ends.

Re:The nature of research (3, Insightful)

Ichoran (106539) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154345)

Researchers--good ones, anyway--generally don't have a problem focusing. Having an overarching theme just makes it easier for them to focus on the problem that you want them to work on.

Also, research doesn't need to involve a solution. Much of the best basic research usually involves just wanting to know how something works. (Once you understand, then you can come up with applications and devise solutions using the new findings, but that's often the &D part of R&D.)

Re:The nature of research (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154393)

R&D means product development.

A simple truth: sometimes companies just do R&D to lobby the government, esp. in foreign nations. HP is an example, but also Microsoft.

Re:The nature of research (2, Interesting)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155227)

R&D means product development.

Of course; otherwise, it would just be called "R" instead of "R&D".

A company doing research for purely altruistic reasons is probably going to get sued by its shareholders someday. Microsoft plans to make plenty of money by controlling future markets through its R&D efforts. That, and sequestering researchers who had a chance to make a difference behind a "silicon curtain" of obscurity so they don't threaten the status quo. ("If we give those graphics professors from CMU enough toys, maybe we can make them irrelevant without them caring.")

Re:The nature of research (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24154675)

"Never mistake Activity for Achievement" - John Wooden

Re:The nature of research (1)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154891)

"Never mistake Achievement for Completion" - me

Re:The nature of research (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155755)

"Never mistake Completion for Success" -- me

Re:The nature of research (1)

AllIGotWasThisNick (1309495) | more than 5 years ago | (#24157003)

"Never mistake Success for Activity" -- you

Re:The nature of research (2, Funny)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 5 years ago | (#24157073)

"Never mistake Success for Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush, private diary, November 8th, 2006.

Article fails to mention... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24154261)

...that $35 million line item in Microsoft's budget that reads "EVIL (misc.)"

Designed in Taiwan (0, Troll)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154283)

These days, very little research, development and product design is done in the US. It's marketed as done in the US, but in reality, many if not most companies will order designs from no-name design firms across the dam, who specialize in delivering solutions and keeping strict NDAs. The US participation tends to be limited to those who communicate with the foreign designers.

Re:Designed in Taiwan (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154375)

These days, very little research, development and product design is done in the US. It's marketed as done in the US, but in reality, many if not most companies will order designs from no-name design firms across the dam, who specialize in delivering solutions and keeping strict NDAs. The US participation tends to be limited to those who communicate with the foreign designers.

You might want to try explaining this to the tens of thousands of IBM employees in North America.

Re:Designed in Taiwan (1, Flamebait)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154545)

You might want to try explaining this to the tens of thousands of IBM employees in North America.

I think that thousands of former IBM employees in North America already know.

Re:Designed in Taiwan (3, Insightful)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155265)

You might want to try explaining this to the tens of thousands of IBM employees in North America.

I think that thousands of former IBM employees in North America already know.

So explain why they're hiring [ibm.com] ?

Yes... they may have reduced their helpless desk staff, but R&D is growing

Re:Designed in Taiwan (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155971)

And their hapless Unix sysadmins but yea, more R&D, more Indian sysadmins and helpdesk staff. Rah.

[John]

Re:Designed in Taiwan (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24157233)

So explain why they're hiring [ibm.com]?

Yes... they may have reduced their helpless desk staff, but R&D is growing

Oh so you believe that they are increasing their staff of scientists and engineers while reducing their staff of lower skilled workers.

Bzzzttt... you would be surprised to find how many out of work American chip designers, physicists and skilled electrical engineers there are out there.

The forces that affect outsourcing at the bottom have now taken hold at the top and research is being shipped over seas. If you can convert your money into a local devalued currency and you have a talent pool in a region with a devalued currency then you are going to save money moving any enterprise abroad, be it the help desk or R&D.

Re:Designed in Taiwan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24160325)

Big companies try to hire the best researchers in order to prevent them from inventing things for their competitors. This kind of "security" is easily understood by shareholders.

Dynamic Cloud Services? (3, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154359)

Evidently, their lab's automated buzzword generating script is being tested.

Re:Dynamic Cloud Services? (2, Funny)

Moofie (22272) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154547)

Your sig is like grammar nazi kryptonite. Reading it felt like getting hit in the face with a fish four times.

I hope you mean for it to be funny, because if not...wow.

Re:Dynamic Cloud Services? (2, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154787)

What sequence of events led you to getting hit in the face four times with a fish?

Re:Dynamic Cloud Services? (2, Funny)

charlesj68 (1170655) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154995)

I'm sure it was a ... um ... *private* moment. Let's not pry too closely.

Re:Dynamic Cloud Services? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24155283)

Grammar nazi's are the WORST waste of human space there is online. It is about all idiots of that nature have to contribute, so their stupidity only manifests itself in that manner in their doing of it. Too bad they are useless unmotivated idiots that only just managed to learn to read evidently, because anyone with any worth realizes people do make spelling &/or grammar mistakes online, even if only occasionally. They are apparently the ones with the problem, because if anyone that reads any given statement online (not last wills & testaments or documents for legal purposes etc.) should be able to get the concept attempting to be conveyed simply by reading it & gaining its meaning via the context in which the words/phrases are used, pretty simple (for normal people that is, these morons do not count as such). If they are ADD or Dyslexia victims, this might be understandable, but that does not give them a license to criticize (especially those afflicted w/ those conditions). Also, I have yet to see one of these "spelling & grammar nazi's" online produce a PHD in English for example, OR proof they are a professional editor of others' writings & for years to decades. No, there is little doubt, that the people you mention (spelling & grammar nazis) are the worst idiots & underachievers there is online today. In short? They're assholes + idiots.

Re:Dynamic Cloud Services? (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155571)

Grammar nazi's are the WORST waste of human space there is online.

That's "Nazis". HTH, HAND.

Re:Dynamic Nazi's Services? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24165913)

Thats "GRAMMER", You dolt.

Bet you didn't know Kelsey was a National Socialist, huh?
(When he's not pissed on Pinoqachole...)

Re:Dynamic Cloud Services? (5, Funny)

SilverEyes (822768) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155757)

I think what you mean to say is: "Grammar [corrected as above] Nazis are the WORST waste of human space there [b]are[/b] online." However... as I read on in your post, I think you're trying to be ironic. I applaud your hilarious use of (but not limited to); run-on sentences, missing subjects, improper abbreviations (PHD should be PhD), using the wrong conjugation ("OR proof" should be "OR prove"), extra commas ("...have to contribute, so their stupidity..."), and wrong plurality ("...underachievers there is online today.").

Re:Dynamic Cloud Services? (1)

mpeskett (1221084) | more than 5 years ago | (#24162911)

I couldn't care less about the use, or disuse, of the word whom, but "all intensive purposes"?

The phrase is "all intents and purposes"

Re:Dynamic Cloud Services? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24154605)

Evidently, their lab's automated buzzword generating script is being tested.

You are obviously someone from the static cloud sector.

Re:Dynamic Cloud Services? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24154997)

I think I just got five in a row in bullshit bingo!

Re:Dynamic Cloud Services? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24158805)

intensive purposes

God, I hope that's an intentional error. My eyes - THEY BUUUUUUUUUUURN!!!!!!

As much as I don't like Microsoft... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154437)

MS research actually does some pretty cool stuff and, more notably, that cool stuff includes things unrelated to OMG-Must-Keep-Wall-Street-Happy-This-Quarter type projects.
I fully admit that I am speaking from a small dataset; but I am inclined to suspect that good corporate R&D is perhaps the one upside to companies with more market power than is strictly desireable. Think about Bell Labs back in the day. They did loads of basic research, including such minor little projects as transistors and Unix. Compare this to our dear present day carriers, whose primary mode of "innovation" appears to be writing ever more incomprehensible contracts.

This is hardly to say that high concentrations of market power are a good thing, as R&D can be done in startups and universities and the like without all the downsides; but it does seem that high levels of market power do, somewhat, preserve R&D from being sacrificed on the altar of quarterly results.

Re:As much as I don't like Microsoft... (3, Interesting)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154709)

Compare this to our dear present day carriers, whose primary mode of "innovation" appears to be writing ever more incomprehensible contracts.

That is so not true! They are very innovative at figuring out ways to charge their customers for add-on services. For instance - sell them a camera phone and then *charge* them to get the pictures out of the phone. Sell them a "music" phone that uses proprietary headphones only. Sell them their favorite song as a ringtone, then sell it again to them as a full track, and then sell it to them again as a ringback tone -- brilliant!

Re:As much as I don't like Microsoft... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154859)

You are correct sir, I have given the carriers far too little credit! And, lest we forget our great debt to them, let me remind you all of the amazing strides in UI design embodied by Verizon's lovingly crafted custom user interface, as seen in uncountable numbers of maddeningly inconsistent versions on every phone unlucky enough to fall into their grasp.


Incidentally, I have a project just begging for a talented flash designer with a sick sense of humor: Create, in the form of a flash demo app(or, for extra cruelty value, an iPhone app to be loaded on the victim's phone), the "iPhone by VZ" user interface. The exact details of such a monster are left to the imagination; but the mere words are saturated with the sickening stench of squandered promise and meaningless sorrow.

Microsoft R&D (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24154789)

Microsoft R&D do make some stuff that's applicable to current products.

One clear example of that is multi-touch surfaces, that will be supported in Windows 7.

Re:Microsoft R&D (2, Funny)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155773)

That's amazing. I mean, someday that groundbreaking research might even enable multitouch on smartphones. That would be awesome!

Re:Microsoft R&D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24157227)

awww, did he hurt ur little fanboy feelings?

Multitouch display tech., especially the size of a table, takes years to produce. The surface team has been at it long before the iphone was even announced. Get your head out of your ass.

Oh, and did you pickup the extra smug coupon they give with the new apple products?

Re:Microsoft R&D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24159689)

I've been waiting to say this for a long time: Shut up, Mr. Gates.

Re:Microsoft R&D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24160473)

awww.. did you get your feelings hurt too? How cute. in which marketshare are you? 1% or the 5% one? I never can figure that out.

Heres a nice flamebait tidbit to lighten up the evening:

if you go via statistics alone, even though linux is **FREE** nobody seems to want it. Actually people prefer paying rather than use that crap for free...

I cant wait to see the huge line when the shitty linux phone comes out. Oh wait....

Re:As much as I don't like Microsoft... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24156163)

So you claim that MS "actually does some pretty cool stuff" but then, without pointing out a single example or backing yup your own statement, you dash towards a Bell Labs reference as if the comparison was legit.

So, care to give any example of that cutting edge MS research results or are we happily talking out of our own ass?

Re:As much as I don't like Microsoft... (2, Insightful)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 5 years ago | (#24158415)

Probably Singularity [wikipedia.org] , F# [wikipedia.org] , Spec# [wikipedia.org] , Sing# [wikipedia.org] , .... Actually, just look at their Wikipedia page yourself: Microsoft Research [wikipedia.org] . I may not be a big fan of Windows (see: my sig), but Microsoft Research does some cool stuff.

big company r&d (1)

heroine (1220) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154455)

It's usually 6 month time frame projects that are very likely to become products, not voodoo academic research. It was IPTV implementations after IPTV became big. Blu-Ray demos after Blu-ray technology was developed. iPOD syncing after iPods became big.

Re:big company r&d (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154737)

That's usually called product development, not R&D.

short term of course (1)

cats-paw (34890) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154539)

1 company does short term r&d, i.e. product development
2 govt & univ do long term research
3 take over IP of publicly funded work
4 profit !!

One page (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24154573)

didn't we just hear about HP? (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154651)

Didn't researchers at HP recently discover how to build memreistor's? That isn't a 6 month to market product and can profoundly change computing.

Thus negating the article at least for HP. IBM does work like this also it is where the Cell processor idea came from years and years ago.

MSFT does have singularity, and a few other pieces of completely random but cool tech that will break compatibility with their other offerings so they will never see the market but are still done just because.

Re:didn't we just hear about HP? (2, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#24158793)

Oh, there's plenty of stuff that comes out of Microsoft Research into the mainstream MS products. Implementation of generics in .NET 2.0 was one such thing. LINQ was another. Now they're "productizing" (i.e., polishing up for inclusion in Visual Studio) F#.

I would imagine that it works roughly the same for other companies. You have to keep track of their research projects to find out about that, though. It's rare that a research project transforms into a cash cow straight away - instead, good (and marketable at the given point of time) ideas are reused.

memreistor (1)

ypctx (1324269) | more than 5 years ago | (#24159035)

http://www.google.com/search?q=memreistor [google.com]
Congratulations, you just invented the memreistor!
What is it and what it does is up to you, but you only have 6 months to finish it, and it has to profoundly change computing!
See you in the Slashdot discussion of the announcement of the memreistor!

Research is practically a Moot Point (4, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154659)

Seriously,

These companies are so large the basic research dies sometime after the researcher gives his presentation to Marketing/Product Management.

Marketing may, actually come up with some good ideas, and send them into some Managerial circle jerk with Sales Management. After a couple of comments, the good ideas die in a perpetual Gordian knot.

The knot presents itself as:

1. No customers for new idea.
2. No budget for some new idea.
3. No "proven" market for new idea.
4. No one is willing to risk their status taking a chance at a new product.

Which leads to a tremendous waste of resources "catching up" to upstarts at a later date.

Re:Research is practically a Moot Point (1)

Amisinthe (1308593) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155561)

1. No customers for new idea.
2. No budget for some new idea.
3. No "proven" market for new idea.
4. No one is willing to risk their status taking a chance at a new product.

This is one reason Apple can get away with new case/computer designs, and also why their prices are a bit higher. There is a higher R&D cost in their final product, but you get new features that aren't seen (at least not right away) in the PC world, and don't have to deal with legacy hardware.

Even small things such as the design of the Mac Pro case is fairly sophisticated to what's commonly available in the PC world. Just for fun I tried to find an ATX case that had the properties of the Mac case (location of RAM, drives, air flow), and I only found a couple, and they were over $200 for just the case (no PSU).

Re:Research is practically a Moot Point (1)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155997)

Certainly not true about Microsoft Research. As mentioned in the article, Microsoft Research is practically a university. Everything they research ends up peer-reviewed at academic conferences and in academic journals. It's virtually in the public domain.

Still a Moot Point (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#24156121)

All of that research ends up in academia but not in their products.

The supposed point behind R&D is enhancing the company's future prospects, not enrich the academic community.

You haven't dis-proven (is that a word?) my argument that the R&D rarely, if ever, makes it into new things from the same company.

Re:Still a Moot Point (2, Informative)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 5 years ago | (#24156547)

Sorry I didn't think we were confined to the same company. I was arguing against the idea that the research "dies".

A public example is the Glasgow Haskell Compiler [haskell.org] . True, it's not actually Microsoft branded as "MS Visual Haskell" or anything like that, but it is developed largely by Microsoftians (most prominently Simon Peyton Jones at Microsoft Cambridge). We all get a pretty decent and very usable compiler out of it; does it matter so much that it isn't branded as a Microsoft product?

Re:Still a Moot Point (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#24158823)

How about F# "productization" [msdn.com] ? And the C-omega [wikipedia.org] , which beget LINQ and Parallel LINQ?

Re:Research is practically a Moot Point (2, Insightful)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#24156127)

Certainly not true about Microsoft Research. As mentioned in the article, Microsoft Research is practically a university. Everything they research ends up peer-reviewed at academic conferences and in academic journals. It's virtually in the public domain.

I find it kinda hard to believe that they don't patent anything.

Re:Research is practically a Moot Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24156189)

Seriously? Research is a moot point? Insightful? What?

Research is key. In a lot of areas. Research is what lets you surpass your competitors

Re:Research is practically a Moot Point (1)

naasking (94116) | more than 5 years ago | (#24157205)

Cool thing about research: it's not limited to use within one company! Much of the research is published and presented for the world at large to use.

Universities and Corporations. (1)

Tragek (772040) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154911)

The mention that Universities and corporations are starting to work more together jives perfectly with what my supervisor has said: A lot of work in his field has been done that perhaps is a little 'too' blue sky. By working with a corporation (one of the article mentioned infact), he gets a perfect insight into what is a real problem in the real work, and what is a problem only the researchers care about.

Indian Help Desk Clones (0, Offtopic)

gelfling (6534) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155263)

And all of them are named "Chris" or "Barbera".

How far Dell has fallen. (2, Interesting)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155333)

At one time Dell had a very active R&D. They employed some of the best in the industry. Now they aren't even mentioned. Once the carper baggers got into the company, R&D became a needless expense.

Re:How far Dell has fallen. (1)

ThousandStars (556222) | more than 5 years ago | (#24156419)

Do you have any citations for these claims? My impression is that Dell R&D has never been big.

Re:How far Dell has fallen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24164165)

scene: Dell headquarters, Austin TX, 1999.

Interviewer: "I didn't have time to read this [resume]. So what have you done?"

Candidate A: "I'm finishing up my Ph.D thesis at Stanford, on a new PC bus architecture that provides a thousandfold throughput increase over PCI, along with many other advantages. I also spent two years as Prof. Knuth's research assistant."

Interviewer: "Hmm, sounds interesting. Maybe one of the other hiring managers.... um, we'll get back to you."

Candidate B: "Hi there, my name's Steve. I own three Dell PCs and I use them constantly! They're really cool and I'd like to learn about them from the inside."

Interviewer: "Dude! You're hired."

Corporate research then and now (4, Insightful)

ErichTheRed (39327) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155425)

Yes, it is true that large companies spend some money on research. It's not the same kind of spend we used to have though, and that won't change until companies don't have to constantly scramble to post big numbers every quarter.

Since this pressure is going to be there from now on, all research will continue to focus on a product the company can sell in a very short time. (Look at multi-touch surfaces rumored to be included in Windows 7 for example.)

There are two problems that will keep this short term focus going forever. The first is that everyone depends 100% on the stock market for their retirement now -- this wasn't the case in the 60s and 70s when Bell Labs, IBM, etc. were able to invest huge amounts of money in research. The second problem is that because everyone's responsible for their own retirement, they're constantly watching the market, making it impossible for a company to think long term. If you miss your numbers as CEO for more than a quarter or two, you're fired, even if you're doing the right things long-term.

I can't imagine a CEO being able to address a shareholder meeting and explain that research is important. Everyone would start shouting "Shut up and gimme my money!"

Re:Corporate research then and now (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155893)

The pleasures of capitalism, comrade.

Re:Corporate research then and now (2, Informative)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 5 years ago | (#24163047)

In Germany there a lot of medium sized companies that are family-owned and not registered at the stock market (take Boehringer Ingelheim for example, 40.000 employees). These companies are very robust in their long-term planning. They cannot generate a lot of money at once to invest in research in new tech, but they spend procentually more to R&D than stock-registered companies, and have the patience to do long term high-risk projects.

This works out. Their stock-market competitor Pfizer is in big troubles because they forgot to invest in R&D but instead extended their sales force. Now they have an empty drug pipeline and their sales force will have nothing to sell.

tfro7l (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24155703)

is bUsy infighting world-spaaning grandstanders, the

Dilbert (2, Funny)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155715)

"So, what do you think of my program?"
"I wouldn't buy this."

"You wouldn't buy it, because it's designed for engineers."
"Engineers think the same as marketeers."

"If that were true, we would still be in caves wondering if rocks were edible."
"You know, you could keep recipes on this."

Keeping the smart people busy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24155863)

Then most important function these research projects serve is to keep smart people busy under the company's payroll. Otherwise, they would be out on their own developing competing products.

What has MS achieved in the R&D department? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24155879)

I mean, other than toys. IBM's and HP's R&D's pedigrees are superb, what with technological breakthroughs and Nobel prizes involved. What can MS's R&D stack up against that? Nothing much. In fact, MS seems to have a penchant for hiring people who have done superb research elsewhere, only to stop producing anything interesting after joining MS.

The only thing IBM is researching (0, Troll)

linuxpng (314861) | more than 5 years ago | (#24156529)

is LEAN. How to get rid of American jobs.

... still seems like a bunch, to me ... (2, Informative)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#24157913)

is LEAN. How to get rid of American jobs.

Hmmm ... then what about all this stuff: http://www.research.ibm.com/areas.shtml [ibm.com]

Or maybe IBM has secretly invented cell processor AI technology to produce scientific papers ... and "Dr. Who" Cybermen who present them at conferences ...

Note to self: buy more tinfoil, IBM Cybermen are just like totally *everywhere* ...

... well, that stuff about american jobs ... by a sad coincidence, some folks used to call that "Operations Research"

Re:... still seems like a bunch, to me ... (1)

linuxpng (314861) | more than 5 years ago | (#24160183)

All that stuff is for patents to license or use as leverage against other companies. Do I really qualify as a troll if I've been LEANed from IBM?

Microsoft shouldnt be in the list.... (0, Troll)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#24157969)

IBM does LOADS of research in materials, chip, silicon, quantum, math...and etcetera. They actually live off some real patents and some trolish stupid patents.

HP does less than IBM, but its sort-of in the same league: they do, for a big part, live of real patents

Microsoft has only patented really stupid ideas (not that the other two havent, but MS practically ONLY has patents for trolling or to "prevent" trolling).

In the end, the truth for the US, is that the government pays for R&D and the corporations profit from it. And its not a bad system at that: the gov. pays A LOT for GOOD R&D (hey, they gave the internet to the world, didnt they?), and it cannot massify it, move it to cheaper markets, comoditize it, foster competition arround the result of R&D.

Thats what the free market is for and it SORT OF works.

But... thats another discussion altogether. Ive allways thought that the IT industry is basically a trust like the old Oil Trust: they sit down and share the cake, set prices, lobby for stupid software patent laws, and the public suffers from this.

In come FOSS.... and thats going to change this ways at least for software.

Re:Microsoft shouldnt be in the list.... (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 5 years ago | (#24158579)

MS does very little hardware research, and depending on the general viewpoint regarding software patents, then it's harder to do "real" stuff. I've certainly read interesting and novel papers from Microsoft R&D, though (in the field of information extraction, specifically).

Re:Microsoft shouldnt be in the list.... (1)

ChatHuant (801522) | more than 5 years ago | (#24159141)

IBM does LOADS of research in materials, chip, silicon, quantum, math...and etcetera. They actually live off some real patents and some trolish stupid patents.

HP does less than IBM, but its sort-of in the same league: they do, for a big part, live of real patents

Microsoft has only patented really stupid ideas (not that the other two havent, but MS practically ONLY has patents for trolling or to "prevent" trolling).



People who actually work in the field disagree with you.

See here [iptoday.com] for more information. MS, IBM and HP have led the patent quality scorecard for years, and last year MS actually took the title from IBM. A better example of patent troll would be Samsung, who leads in number of patents, but lags the world average in patent quality.

Re:Microsoft shouldnt be in the list.... (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#24164863)

You mean people that actually think software patents are a good idea?

No wonder we disagree.

mod dowN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24158325)

Um, you're missing one... (2, Interesting)

afabbro (33948) | more than 5 years ago | (#24160467)

Sun.

As far as corporate R&D for IT companies, here's my take...

Microsoft: I have no idea what they spend their billions on, and yes, they do spend a bundle on R&D. They just never have much in the way of either (a) actual products to show for it, or (b) wow technologies like HP PARC. Seriously, considering all they spend, they should be HP PARC. They're not.

IBM: Well, they do make the fastest chips on earth at the moment (POWER6), as well as tons of other things, and the best O/S on the planet (z/OS), not to mention another awesome O/S (OS/400), plus...OK, IBM does great things with R&D.

Google: See Microsoft. Seriously - they have a great search engine. Best in the world. Hands down. And also...oh wait, I guess that's it.

HP: HP has pissed away more technology they've bought than anyone else. VMS? Tru64? Alpha? And then there are things they do that are awesome - Tandem Nonstop - but never integrated into the rest of their line. ARGH! They make great printers, I'll give them that...

Sun: Really forward-thinking, great R&D. The Solaris O/S has been Microsoft's crystal ball for years. DTRACE. ZFS. Java. Even just cool implementations like Thumper. Of course, Sun can't seem to make dime one on any of this...they really do seem to have the most clueless management on earth...a pity.

Did I forget anyone?

You've missed one, as well! (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 5 years ago | (#24162639)

Xerox. Without them, you'd have a shorter list.

lets face it... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 5 years ago | (#24160835)

xerox parc style blue sky research is no more...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...