Microsoft downsizes Seadragon and Photosynth brains

Innovation?

"Diminishing the group's ability to transfer innovations to business groups who're understandably giving priority to 'needs' vs. 'opportunities.'"

Does this mean that Microsoft is going to quit blathering on about innovation all the time? Because, clearly, this quote suggests they are now thinking innovation is not important in a down economy.

Gravestone, because I think Microsoft will be thoroughly outflanked by Free software, if they are cutting down R&D and "pie-in-the-sky" projects as it sounds like they are.

Why Innovate When You Can Steal?

MS has never been about innovation. They started business by stealing CPM, rebadging it as MS DOS and then reselling it to IBM. Windows NT (the code base for XP, Vista and 7), was largely based on work done by IBM when MS and IBM were supposedly collaborating on OS/2. MS made off with code that it had little to do with development, then used heavy handed monopolistic behavior to kill off OS/2 (in cooperation with mamby-pamby IBM who didn't know a good thing when they had it). Internet Explorer was a cut and paste job derived from the so called open source software that MS loves to despise, then bolted into the Windows OS in another successful monopolistic blitzkrieg that illegally destroyed Netscape and very nearly brought the internet under MS domination. I could go on and on, but we all get the picture. Despite voluminous its propaganda (aka advertising), Microsoft has never been about innovation. It's simply not in the company DNA. MS was in the right place at the right time and were by far the shrewdest, and perhaps the crookedest, business in the software business and they succeeded in establishing a monopoly. Monopolists don't innovate because they don't have too. Rather, they manipulate their offerings in order to reinforce their monopolistic position, through mandatory file format changes that force feed upgrades otherwise unwanted and unneeded, they intentionally interconnect separate software in order to avoid legal prohibitions against tying arrangements (honest, your honor, Windows simply won't work without Internet Explorer, they're one and the same). Why be responsive to customers desires when you've got no real competitors? And this was indeed the case from the late 1980's until fairly recently. The resurgence of Apple, the increasing importance of mobile devices as computing platforms and the rise of the Netbook spell doom for MS's monopolistic, business-as-usual practices. Why do you think they're attacking Apple, who still have less than a 10% market share, or why they try and force the Dells, HPs and IBMs of the world to drop Linux support or refuse to bulk license Windows to manufacturers that try and sell PCs with no OS pre-installed? They are afraid. . .they are very afraid.