In my opinion, yes, but others are free to disagree (and "inferior" is subjective). In addition to the kinds of applied research that Google also does (machine learning, etc.), MSR also does a lot of fundamental research much further afield, like that done by the biology group at MSR Cambridge [1], or the quantum computing work done in the quantum computing group and Station Q [2] (see also Scott Aaronson's relevant blog post [3]).
Don't get me wrong, Google does lots of great research across a variety of fields. And I'm neither a biologist nor a quantum physicist, so I can't claim to know exactly how important either MSR or Google's research is in those fields, but my distinct impression is that Microsoft is investing more and doing more in each of them (again, see the Aaronson post for the take of one person familiar with the state of quantum physics research). And not that it's especially important, but for the at least the first paper you cite it doesn't look like any of the research was actually done at Google.
It's really strange to discuss putting weights of importance on topics you (and I) are tangibly quantify.
I'm not even sure how anyone justifies claiming MS or Google research is _inferior_ to the other's. If we have that much insight into what is superior, then surely we've already won and know where to throw our bucks?
Regardless, Google already does plenty of work in these fields. This year, they've expanded to partnerships with NASA, USRA, and D-Wave with a new AI Lab -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMdHDHEuOUE.
Well, if we are to trust the data provided on your parent's link, yes, Google's research is inferior. At least in terms of number of "best papers awards", which is of course only a metric.
