Here's where I see the fundamental difference between Microsoft and Google:
Google has a conference, well known to all and sundry. Google plans a big reveal. Microsoft plans a big reveal to steal some thunder. Normal PR all around.
But look at the scope of the two reveals. Google essentially plans to reboot the entire mechanism of interpersonal interaction on the internet. Whether it will ever work, catch on, or even be useful it's without question astonishingly ambitious. Arrogant even. "We're so smart we'll tell you how you should be talking to each other." Love, hate, angry blog posts are generated in abundance.
Microsoft launches a new search engine. Which, to be fair, seems like a quite nice new search engine. But where's the ambition? Where's the absolutely insane, balls-out wtf? Even if the Zune was better than the iPod it would be a clone. Even if Bing is better than Google it'll be a clone. Even if the Xbox is better than the Playstation it still won't be qualitatively different. Sure some of them may succeed and none will likely fail completely but it's hard to see the ambition in any of them.
But where's the ambition? Where's the absolutely insane, balls-out wtf?
The WFT is in the scope of where Microsoft competes. Microsoft is competing with Google on search, Apple on OS and MP3 players, Sony and Nintendo on Game consoles, with open source on programming languages and Office Suites, Oracle and IBM in Databases, Logitech and Kensington on input devices, VMWare and Xen in virtualization... The list goes on and on and on.
MSFT actually has a foot in the door at least in almost _every_ software market and some hardware markets. That's seriously WTF as far as I'm concerned. That's ambition far beyond what any other company is trying to do as far as I'm concerned.
While I agree that MSFT being present in all those markets is an overall WTF, I think a customer/user in one of those markets (eg. search) doesn't really care about the provider being present in others (eg. consoles).
I'm surprised you didn't make the larger point: this is true for every product Microsoft has ever made. Copy, improve, persist. Basic, DOS, Windows, Office, IE, etc.
Their business does not revolve around creating new things but about copying and improving things that already exist in the market. And to be fair, this strategy has worked out quite well for them so far, so why would they change course?
It worked for shrinkwrap software, where release cycles are large. It has not worked for web software, where releases can happen daily. They can never catch up.
It worked for shrinkwrap software when they had an OS monopoly they could abuse to drive their competition out of business, and likewise it worked for their OS business when they could negotiate illegal anti-competitive terms and conditions with their licensees.
I'm sure they have done some great work, but it is hard to look at their track record and figure out how much of their success was earned on the merits of their products and how much was earned on the "merits" of their business practices.
Ah, no. They rode IBM's success to their monopoly and even in their first business dealings they had anti-competitive goings on. For example, it was possible to purchase an IBM-PC with DR-DOS instead of PC-DOS, but you ended up paying for PC-DOS and DR-DOS, so it was always cheaper to stick with PC-DOS.
Again, I'm saying that it is hard to look at their success and disentangle their products's merits from their business practices.
Making a good product is not always about revolution. Many times it is about improving and refining.
Remember the story of Microsoft and Lotus?
Microsoft Excel won because it was a better product. Nothing revolutionary. Just better. Microsoft Word eventually replaced Wordperfect. Where are those companies today?
Really? There was no special advanage their applications group had from their relationship with their OS group? Also, I recall Microsoft telling everyone to invest big in OS/2, and I recall Lotus and Wordperfect buying into it big time. Then I recall Microsoft investing big in Windows instead, and thus everyone else was way behind on Windows because they had developed for OS/2.
DO I miss-recall that moment in history when Microsoft's applications lept ahead of everyone else simultaneously?
Excel really took off on the Mac platform -- at first. So at least there they had no advantage. I agree that on Windows they always had an edge. But the truth is - everyone ignored the platform (everyone except users).
Microsoft was heavily invested in OS/2 as well. Just had the courage to ditch the platform when Windows was gaining market.
Point is: you don't have to leap ahead of everyone or be super innovative. Just make products that are useful and provide some advantage over the competitors (another example is the Flip video camera).
Excel really took off on the Mac platform -- at first
I remember that. I also remember that Excel was limited to using no more than 1MB of RAM. When they ported Excel to Windows, they fixed that so it could use as much RAM as your machine had, but strangely they didn't fix the Mac version. So, if you wanted to use Excel for very large spreadsheets, you had to use the Windows version or you had to go with a different Mac product.
But of course, if you wanted to share docs within an office, you would go with Excel and then gradually the Mac users in the office would be forced to switch to Windows :-)
I don't think it's fair to turn the Bing vs Wave previews into this kind of corporate comparison. Bing is being released to try and gain MS a good double digit market in a billion dollar industry. It is little more than a clone because that is all that a search engine can realistically be with current technology.
Sure innovation is great. That's why we're all at HN right?! But the big money (short of creating a whole new industry) is about getting market share in established markets. That is what MS are doing - from Bing to Silverlight to Xbox to most other things they do. Nothing more or less.
I think it's driven more by their respective business models. Google is more focused on incubating fresh ideas and growing those ideas into the next established market where as Microsoft tends to reiterate on accepted ideas, Market the @%#* out of it, and our favorite (step 3) profit.
Why is it that the big money is there to eek out a Nth of a percent but not available for fresh big ideas? I'm not at all disagreeing with you, I just think that's an interesting point. I wish the world were the other way around it might be a better place (or maybe there'd just be less "big money" for having tried). Maybe if MS let smaller groups run wild more often they'd see more of these elusive "innovative ideas".
Micrsoft's entire model is predicated on fast following & iterating, and pouring money into projects till the other company slips or gives up or runs out of money -- Xbox is a good example.
While I may or may not agree on your point at large, the complete Xbox package (the Xbox 360 software, Xbox live etc) is clearly superior to anything Sony can produce. I don't care about the PS3 having provenly more capable hardware, when everything I care about is better on the Xbox 360.
If you are going to flag an example, try an example which doesn't prove your point wrong next time.
Edit: To do my best to avoid a console war, let me make it clear that I own both an Xbox 360 and a PS3. I realize my opinion is clearly not 100% objective, but sales-figures alone should to some extent back my point.
I guess my point didn't come across clearly, I used Xbox for the same reasons you mention. It started out trailing all major consoles, now, as you mention, it's pretty good.
Xbox is an example where it worked out, that probably won't be the case with search.
Google has a conference, well known to all and sundry. Google plans a big reveal. Microsoft plans a big reveal to steal some thunder. Normal PR all around.
But look at the scope of the two reveals. Google essentially plans to reboot the entire mechanism of interpersonal interaction on the internet. Whether it will ever work, catch on, or even be useful it's without question astonishingly ambitious. Arrogant even. "We're so smart we'll tell you how you should be talking to each other." Love, hate, angry blog posts are generated in abundance.
Microsoft launches a new search engine. Which, to be fair, seems like a quite nice new search engine. But where's the ambition? Where's the absolutely insane, balls-out wtf? Even if the Zune was better than the iPod it would be a clone. Even if Bing is better than Google it'll be a clone. Even if the Xbox is better than the Playstation it still won't be qualitatively different. Sure some of them may succeed and none will likely fail completely but it's hard to see the ambition in any of them.