[kenjackson]

MS's approach to research is fundamentally different than Google's. Google's approach is about creating better Google products. Microsoft's approach (which is really Bill Gates's dream) is to advance science.

Both are good goals. But if you ask a researcher from MS how important it is to get in a future version of Windows, they may well shrug their shoulders. Their feeling is if they can advance technology then all boats rise, which is good for Microsoft.

I must say when I'm actually doing research, and not just dev work for product Version Next, I don't want to do unit tests and a whole bunch of other cruft. My code isn't meant to be shipped to customers. Its meant to test a hypothesis.

[ikuygtyuiouy]

MSFT research is much more like research of great American companies of the past, Bell, AT+T etc - I'm sure this is what they were aiming for.

[Maro]

I agree. For example, Leslie Lamport, who invented many distributed algorithms that are used at Google (eg. Paxos is used in Chubby and in Megastore) works at Microsoft Research. Watching or reading interviews with him, I get the feeling that he is a "pure [computer] scientist", probably not that interested in getting his stuff into the next product.

[xtacy]

This is what scares me about Microsoft Research. Since Google's research adds direct value to what it's doing, it is quite unlikely to disintegrate.

[kenjackson]

I suspct if left completely up to Sinofsky or Ballmer MSR would shut down (or be substantially smaller). I think as long as Gates is alive and/or has large influence, it will be a relatively big part of MS.

[nostrademons]

The appeal of Google for many researchers is that you can test your hypothesis much more broadly when actual people use it than when it's confined to a research lab. Having a billion+ actual users generates tons of data which can itself spawn new research directions and inform new hypotheses.