[Keyframe]

Right, Microsoft Research, IBM Research.. they really have nothing to show for. Google also has what an advertising system and a site to search things for, send/receive email and watch videos, some phones.. that's it. Everything else has been videos and PR.

[dlitwak]

True. I'll admit that there is probably a fair amount of bias because Google has a better PR department. But I doubt it's that much better than these other guys . . . I think much of the research being done is around incremental improvements, and the point is that Google seems to be dreaming much bigger and thinking much more long term.

[Keyframe]

I got what the main thought was, but I'm not sure about much longer term or greater plans. Maybe broader appeal? Again, related to PR. IBM seems to be doing fine long term with their research, but not very PR active, and when they are you notice that - Watson?

[stan_rogers]

Watson is actually sort of boring stock-in-trade stuff for IBM when looked at through a certain lens. (Not that it isn't noteworthy or anything.) The phrase "IBM researchers have..." used to be attached to things like atom-by-atom manipulation (the atomic IBM logo was the PR piece), superconductivity (Bednorz and Müller)... things that might one day mean a whole heck of a lot, but in the meantime amounted to allowing some very smart people to piddle around trying interesting stuff. There was always hope that some technology might fall sideways out of the work, but the IBM of the day was significantly less attached to success. Pre-PC Revolution, they were in a position to afford it; Gerstner's IBM could not.