Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does Google do "research"?

matt-welsh.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 22 posts

Re: Does Google do "research"?

#11

Post by ikuygtyuiouy »

kenjackson wrote: post #7
TomOfTTB wrote: post #2

Two disconnected thoughts that came to mind reading this... 1. I agree with Google's approach. Microsoft spends $10 billion a year on R&D yet I can't think of a revolutionary product they've come up with (Kinect was bought from the outside) 2. I notice the word "patent" is never mentioned in this piece. A big reason companies like Microsoft and Intel have research labs is to patent protect themselves in the future (w…

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 b…

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.

Re: Does Google do "research"?

#12

Post by ot »

hnhg wrote: post #5
TomOfTTB wrote: post #2

Two disconnected thoughts that came to mind reading this... 1. I agree with Google's approach. Microsoft spends $10 billion a year on R&D yet I can't think of a revolutionary product they've come up with (Kinect was bought from the outside) 2. I notice the word "patent" is never mentioned in this piece. A big reason companies like Microsoft and Intel have research labs is to patent protect themselves in the future (w…

I read repeatedly that much of Kinect's software was derived from their in-house R&D. Is that not true?

It is true. Microsoft bought from PrimeSense the IR depth sensor technology, but all the body recognition/tracking software was developed by Microsoft Research.

Re: Does Google do "research"?

#13

Post by stevenbedrick »

hnhg wrote: post #5
TomOfTTB wrote: post #2

Two disconnected thoughts that came to mind reading this... 1. I agree with Google's approach. Microsoft spends $10 billion a year on R&D yet I can't think of a revolutionary product they've come up with (Kinect was bought from the outside) 2. I notice the word "patent" is never mentioned in this piece. A big reason companies like Microsoft and Intel have research labs is to patent protect themselves in the future (w…

I read repeatedly that much of Kinect's software was derived from their in-house R&D. Is that not true?

I don't know specifics about Kinect, but I do know that MSR has done a ton of work on computer vision and its applications over the last ten or fifteen years, and I would be extremely surprised if that work didn't inform the efforts of whoever did invent Kinect.

Re: Does Google do "research"?

#14

Post by xtacy »

ikuygtyuiouy wrote: post #11
kenjackson wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

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.

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.

Re: Does Google do "research"?

#15

Post by kenjackson »

xtacy wrote: post #14
ikuygtyuiouy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Does Google do "research"?

#16

Post by apu »

hnhg wrote: post #5
TomOfTTB wrote: post #2

Two disconnected thoughts that came to mind reading this... 1. I agree with Google's approach. Microsoft spends $10 billion a year on R&D yet I can't think of a revolutionary product they've come up with (Kinect was bought from the outside) 2. I notice the word "patent" is never mentioned in this piece. A big reason companies like Microsoft and Intel have research labs is to patent protect themselves in the future (w…

I read repeatedly that much of Kinect's software was derived from their in-house R&D. Is that not true?

The computer vision aspects to the Kinect (and there are a lot, and very well done), were headed up by Andrew Blake at MS Research Cambridge, who's one of the foremost vision scientists in the world.

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/ablake/

Most recently they have built the machine learning technology inside the Xbox Kinect human motion tracking system.

Re: Does Google do "research"?

#17

Post by jackowayed »

ikuygtyuiouy wrote: post #3
TomOfTTB wrote: post #2

Two disconnected thoughts that came to mind reading this... 1. I agree with Google's approach. Microsoft spends $10 billion a year on R&D yet I can't think of a revolutionary product they've come up with (Kinect was bought from the outside) 2. I notice the word "patent" is never mentioned in this piece. A big reason companies like Microsoft and Intel have research labs is to patent protect themselves in the future (w…

As were Google earth, gmail, google docs, wave etc

GMail was definitely internally done (by Paul Buchheit). I'm pretty sure Wave as too.

But yes, maps/earth, docs, voice, etc. were acquisitions.

Re: Does Google do "research"?

#18

Post by nostrademons »

kenjackson wrote: post #7
TomOfTTB wrote: post #2

Two disconnected thoughts that came to mind reading this... 1. I agree with Google's approach. Microsoft spends $10 billion a year on R&D yet I can't think of a revolutionary product they've come up with (Kinect was bought from the outside) 2. I notice the word "patent" is never mentioned in this piece. A big reason companies like Microsoft and Intel have research labs is to patent protect themselves in the future (w…

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 b…

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.

Re: Does Google do "research"?

#19

Post by Smerity »

strlen wrote: post #6

Reading this article confirms my tremendous respect for Google for: 1) Creating a culture where writing unit tests, fixing bugs and the like are not viewed dirty work or an overhead, something that scientists (or even engineers) are above 2) At the mean time, being a place where creation of new technology (even if not strictly related to the primary product i.e., not just information retrieval algorithms) is not view…

I was spoiled as my internship January last year with Google was my first introduction to the world of corporate IT. Google as a culture really encourages engineers to follow best practices - "Testing on the Toilet"[1] was always a highlight.

As you say, the emphasis on unit tests is amazing and something not found in a lot of professional companies. When you tell someone you haven't committed your code yet because you're writing unit tests they don't tell you to hurry - it's not considered something you can rush.

Additionally some of the research that has come out of Google Research [2] is stunning and I suggest if people are interested they can keep tabs on new publications via their feed [3]. A lot of their tools and products really are pushing the boundaries of the field they're in, both in complexity and scale, so the "reports from the front line" offer a unique insight.

[1] - http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/08/tott-100-and-count... [2] - http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html [3] - http://research.google.com/pubs/atom.xml

Re: Does Google do "research"?

#20

Post by Maro »

ikuygtyuiouy wrote: post #11
kenjackson wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

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.

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.
Post reply on HN