Why doesn't Microsoft out-innovate Apple?

Speaking from experience, innovation is VERY difficult to achieve from within the Microsoft organization. It's not impossible. It's just hard. Microsoft is a collection of loosely related fiefdoms linked at the VP level, which is easily 8 or more reporting levels above the normal joe level of software engineers and PM's. You need to have the ear of some very important people to get things done, which just probably won't happen for most.<p>Innovative organizations seem to be of two types: a) top down design leadership like Apple, or more likely b) bottom up environment that allows innovation to happen organically. SteveB and most of the VP's don't have the product design gifts Steve Jobs has, so A is out of the question. Unfortunately, Microsoft is so large and un-agile that B is impossible as well.

I'd absolutely agree with rantfoil and damon, but here's another reason why (and I own and love a Mac, for the record):<p><i>Fanboys.</i><p>I'm not kidding. Microsoft can innovate well (and they have in the past) and they'll always have an <i>evil</i> stigma around them. Apple, whatever they do, mostly has an "everything Apple does is awesome and good" while glossing over the things Apple has done wrong.<p>Granted, Apple's done some great stuff. But I'll say this: when Apple releases a Tablet PC, fanboys will praise it even though if it is with similar functionality to Microsoft's Tablet PC, and will cause the inertia to start and people start pointing out the obscure flaws in Microsoft's Tablet PC and talk about how amazing Apple's is.<p>I'm being absolutely serious here. It's something that's akin to the Google/Yahoo! competition also. Fanboys and the people that they influence have a great effect on a company's desire to innovate.

It isn't that Apple has better designers or programmers, but they have a culture that thrives on quality, innovation and just plain building better products than the competition. Here's a great post on that: <a href="http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/05/how-many-of-your-teams-ideas-are-in-the-iphone-2/" rel="nofollow">http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/05/how-many-of-your...</a><p>"... [Apple] is a company with leadership who has the fortitude to take the risk, find the budget, and push the technology for the single cause of designing compelling user experiences. Apple got it right."

There are a lot of people in Microsoft with a wide range of skills. Give MS employees 1 day a week to work on there own special projects and create a "Microsoft labs" page and they would get some great stuff created. But I believe that MS likes to have ideas flow from the top instead of from the bottom/middle. People at the top (likely) want to protect there position, so they do not allow people to "stand out" in any way.

A big part of Microsoft's R&#38;D is paying people like Erik Meijer to not work for someone Microsoft is competing with.

Innovation takes more than deep pockets...

they just need a steve jobs like person. I don't even like apple but you need to have a guy who can make large decisions and also have a vision of the ways things need to work. If the people in charge are not already like that they will not jump at the chance to give up their power to some one else.

<i>Yet Apple seems to deliver far more innovative products to market</i><p>Keyword: Seems.<p>Yes, if you're preaching to the converted, that's proof enough, but Apple has rebadged BSD and has gotten a large degree of success through a remake of a 1979 device, the Sony Walkman. But those aren't really innovations at all. Shiny object!=innovation. I don't know how else to put it.<p>Here's microsoft's research page,<p><a href="http://research.microsoft.com/research/default.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://research.microsoft.com/research/default.aspx</a><p>Here's, umm, Apple's<p><a href="http://www.apple.com/education/research/" rel="nofollow">http://www.apple.com/education/research/</a><p>...or, at least, that's the 1st link for the search query, "Apple Research":<p><i>Hmm, the page you’re looking for can’t be found.</i><p>A 404.

Speaking from experience, it's the ability Steve Jobs has to merge benevolence with good design. It's a mission and within the DNA of Apple to bring to the world good designs, intuition, and stuff that just works.<p>At the end of the day it's just computers but when imbued with the idea that through computers peoples' lives are easier, more efficient, and more fun, you just attract people willing to work harder and longer and wanting to change the world.<p>Sappy, yes, but it works.

Steve Jobs summed up his opinion on why this is:<p>The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, they have absolutely no taste, and what that means is -- I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they they don't think of original ideas and they don't bring much culture into their products. And you say, "why is that important?" -- well, you know, proportionally spaced fonts come from type setting and beautiful books, that's where one gets the idea -- if it weren't for the Mac they would never have that in their products and so I guess I am saddened, not by Microsoft's success -- I have no problem with their success, they've earned their success for the most part. I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third rate products.<p>(from Triumph of the Nerds)

My biased guess is that Microsoft is concentrating too much on forcefully extracting money from whereever it can.<p>Apple has obviously concentrated on making things that people would actually _want to_ use. The truckloads of money they're raking in is just an (intentional) side-effect.<p>The plan with Vista was to ram it down everyone's throat through Microsoft's monopoly position, but where is the added value for the users?<p>Leopard received a much warmer response. Fanboys, yes, and bugs, but still - it's something that people want to use.