>>> That is, Microsoft is viewed by a definition of "innovative" which sheds them in <<<
That's just because although your enthusiasm for MSFT has been dampened, it has not been extinguished. So you suspect a double standard. (Not to mention, you may already be on the MSFT PR influencer list.) But I think you should believe it. This is not about competing definitions of innovation. Over the last five years, Netscape has had one great bit of innovation: it was crucial to building the Internet as it is today. Microsoft was not only not a driving force for the Internet, it deliberately slowed things down in some cases, e.g. Java and CORBA.
Why is this the comparison? Because these days innovation is sometimes counted in terms of whole new industries being created. Internet, hi-def/DVD, mobile phones. That's big company innovation. Not just your better mousetrap.
You can't compare the two companies before the last five years because Netscape didn't exist then. But you could argue that twenty years ago MSFT had an industry-innovative role for PCs, though in that case although it was important it was really Intel, IBM, Motorola, and a bunch of small players like Apple that did the driving, and MSFT that came after and cleaned up the money.
Of course there is a lot of hype in the software business. Actually, I would bet that General Motors files more patents per year by a large margin than either of these software companies. However, it has not been helping to invent any new industries.
Chaz |
