I see all these articles about how this is a stupid post, and that obviously every company should bar the use of company funds to buy competitors products. My reaction is entirely the opposite. If you want your products to be great, you *absolutely* want your staff to be exposed to as many of the competing products as possible.

Do all of you honestly think it's a good thing for MSFT employees not to be exposed to iPhone, iPad and Macbook Pro products? Really? They're way behind, and it's clearly in their best interest to understand why it is that consumers are flocking to their competitor's platform. If I were in charge of the Windows Phone team I'd want everyone that works for me to have an iPhone and iPad, because that's who we need to beat. If they want to grow their market share, they're going to have to get people who have iPhones and iPads to buy their stuff. Those people won't unless Microsoft builds a product that is even better.

By the same logic, do you think it's advantageous for a Ford employee to never drive a Toyota? Or a Nissan? It's ridiculous to think that a company actively wants its employees not to try out competing products, yet expects them to create products that are superior. How do you know what you need to do to appeal to the customers you don't have when you have no idea what those customers are experiencing? These are the people you are directly competing with in the marketplace. To not have your employees exposed to them and experience them at all is just idiocy. If all you want to do is keep your existing customers, fine. But if you want to take market share from competitors you have to appeal to consumers of those products. Creating a strategy to do that without even understanding what you're competing with is impossible.

Just a little background here. My wife, two boys and I recently relocated back to the bay area. My son (and wife and I) interviewed at the Waldorf school, and my son was admitted. We decided not to have him attend because 1) the cost was high (roughly $15K a year for 3 half-days a week for a pre-schooler) and 2) the people making decisions there are little bit... eccentric. They made it very clear that they are anti-computers and anti-video (TV or videos of any sort). That's fine, if a bit unrealistic. Next they let us know that the teachers provided deep-tissue massage to the kids during each day's nap time. And explained how cell phones and electromagnetic radiation are giving people cancer. And talked about how a montessori education (aka actual learning in the classroom versus solely focusing on play as they do for preschoolers at Waldorf) isn't effective at an early age. I'm fine with these folks taking whatever positions they like, but I don't need my son to go to a school that believes technology is evil and learning is inappropriate in a preschool classroom. We're paying roughly the same money for my son to attend a montessori school nearby (5 half-days a week) and are pretty happy with it. To each their own, but honestly the attitudes present there really didn't work for my family.

One thing they could do to speed adoption would be to make sure there are more than ZERO devices available at retail to work with it. I understand it's new tech, but to hype Thunderbolt all over the product description when you CAN'T BUY ANY DEVICES THAT USE THUNDERBOLT is a bit ridiculous. Do a search on Amazon, Newegg, Best Buy, anywhere... you will find nothing. Meanwhile USB 3.0 outperforms FW 800 easily, and devices that use it actually exist. I like what Apple is trying to do here, but they should spend more time convincing Lacie, Western Digital, Seagate, etc. to actually ship devices that uses it and less time selling us on its thus-far untapped potential.

I'm fine with being in a small space. I just need a desk for my laptop and a phone, plus a place to stash my bag and coat. But for the love of god, give me some privacy and quiet. I need to be able to talk on the phone with some privacy. I need to be able to think without putting on headphones. Bottom line, if you want me to come to work rather than work at home... you need to make it not be worse than working at home in every possible way. I have a toddler and an infant at home, so one would think I would do anything to leave. Yet at the office I have two coworkers constantly talking to each other, others loudly talking on the phone, the temperature is ridiculously variant to the point that I have an extra coat in my cube and always wear layers, the cafeteria food is awful and oddly more expensive than fast food... plus I have to drive 15 minutes each way (an easy commute) to have the privilege. If you want me to commute, make it worth it. As it is I do anything I can to avoid going to the office because I am _far more productive at home_. Make the office awesome for getting work done, or bail on the concept entirely. This "how little can we get away with" mentality is a waste of money and time for everyone.

Innovation is all about scope though. If the context is 'has ever been done on any technology platform ever,' then sure... what Microsoft has done with Xbox Live is not innovative. But, then that means that everything Apple has done over the past 5 years--that basically everyone classifies as innovative whether we like it or not-- isn't either. Ipod, done before. Iphone, done before. Etc.

If you focus the lens to video game consoles, what Xbox Live has done is without a doubt innovative. That you can use it without worrying about hardware requirements, operating system requirements and with a very low cost of entry is what has made it so successful. Live is the differentiator between Microsoft's console offering and what Sony and Nintendo are selling... and it has proven to be a solid advantage within a key segment of the gaming community. Re: Office, I'm inclined to disagree with you. Sure there is some lock-in, but they have provided saving to xml and export to PDF for several versions now. People like me use Office instead of the alternatives because, frankly, the applications are superior to competitive offerings. Sure there is the myth that OpenOffice is as good, or within my firm (IBM) the concept that Lotus products offer the same functionality... but for people that spend hours a day with these tools Excel and PowerPoint are head and shoulders above the competition. Keynote is impressive, but there aren't enough people using Macs to make using that format a smart choice if you share content with a reasonably broad audience.

While the Xbox may seem to somewhat fit the 'throw money at it until it's relevant' idea you provide, Xbox Live on the other hand is innovative in many ways. It was innovative to include an ethernet plug on the original Xbox (ps2 offered this later, Dreamcast offered it as a separate $100 addon, etc), and then to have a network with gamertags and proper matchmaking. On the 360, Xbox Live is consistently ahead of the competition as well, offering in-game chat across games first, Live-only games for download with demos that always include the full version within them for a simple, in-game pay to unlock.. Etc.. Sony has been trying to catch up with PSN, but still doesn't offer some key features that Xbox Live provides, namely cross-game chat. For the most part, Sony has just been implementing whatever features of Xbox Live people seem to enjoy (trophies to replicate achievements, etc). They are also pushing the envelope with other services on Live... like Netflix support for Gold account holders and now the ESPN live functionality. They had TV episode and movie downloads prior to Sony, and Netflix long prior to Sony and Nintendo.

So.. like it or not, Xbox Live is hugely innovative. Aside from Live, however... I completely agree with your argument. I used to work at Microsoft, and embrace+extend is definitely the name of the game. Their problem lately, in my opinion, is poor leadership. Steve Ballmer takes the 'me too' nature of the company too far, consistently looking to copy others that are making money even when Microsoft has no competency to beat that competitor. Bing is the perfect example... Microsoft continues to try to beat Google at search, when it's apparent to anyone that they won't ever accomplish that (and no one else will either). Lately they have at least realized that their massive cash cows in Windows and Office are what deserve the most attention, but the company still needs to do a better job (any job) of focusing on their competencies and delivering against those rather than simply trying to follow the money others are making.

Of course they won't kill OS X, but it would certainly make some sense to put iOS on the cheaper machines and restrict OS X to the MBP's and Mac Pros. Mac Pros become a lot more appealing (despite their high price) if you need to buy one to have a legit Mac desktop machine for development. Think about it, iOS on Mac Mini, Macbook, OS X on MBP and Mac Pro. Justifies the high price they want to keep on MBP and Mac Pros, and also lets them go lower on the pricing of the mini, the iPad and the Macbook. I don't think this is farfetched at all.

Clearly they need to strike a balance, but let's be honest here. A few years ago, the 'pure' Discovery Channel you liked could take literally any topic, no matter how interesting, and make it a cure for insomnia. While I agree they've swung the pendulum entirely too far in the other direction, that doesn't mean that their 'HD filming of something interesting with a narrator putting you to sleep with a monotone commentary' style was somehow stellar tv either.