Originally Posted by Firefly7475
Read the actual interview. He talks a about mobile phone that project a HDTV sized screen onto your retina.
No doubt they will do a tablet, but this guy sounds like he is talking about a 15-20 year timeframes.
This isn't anything new and definitely isn't something that Microsoft pioneered either. Five years ago I was doing graduate work on a retinal display meant for fighter pilots and funded by DARPA. This technology is farther along than most people know. I honestly don't think it is even 15-20 years out.
However, this is still a technology which solves one problem, but not another. Retinal display is great for personal device usage, but does nothing for the person that needs to share something. For instance, just today I loaded up over a thousand pages of manuals on a six-axis robot that we are programming onto my iPad and took it down to the floor. Just a year ago, before I got my iPad, I would of had to printed out certain pages and ran from the production floor to my office and back when my electrical tech needed to reference a schematic from inside the control panel. Today I just pulled up the schematic, zoomed in on the relevant section, and handed it in to him.
I apologize to Microsoft, but a laptop wouldn't have worked for this (I guess a netbook could have), a "room as a computer" would not have worked for this, and even a smartphone would not have worked as well. But a tablet worked perfectly for this.
Originally Posted by MacRulez
MS: 87% of worldwide PC market
HP: #1 computer manufacturer
Dell: #3 computer manufacturer
Yep, those companies are totally irrelevant.
Can you tell me who the #1 buggy whip manufacturer is? Didn't think so (oh and Googling it doesn't count).
My company was one of the big players in mechanical indexers over a decade ago. It used to be a very lucrative market. Now that market is fast becoming a niche as servo motors become cheaper and easier to implement. The higher ups saw the writing on the wall a while back and started offering value-added services to their indexers, which eventually led to our company moving more into automation services. We still sell indexers, but they aren't the bulky of our business anymore. That is future planning. There will always be a market for mechanical indexers, but being the #1 in a market that is only 1% of what it used to be isn't that good of a thing.
Of the three companies that you listed I only see one that seems to have a comprehensive strategy and a corporate environment apparently capable of achieving it, and that is HP.
Microsoft has the resources, but from inside sources (meaning I know some people who work for MS) their corporate structure is set up all wrong for them to truly create a comprehensive strategy capable of dominating in the future. Basically, the teams don't work together and jealously guard every advance that they make to ensure that their department does better than the other departments.
Dell is a sinking ship. Their entire business model is quickly becoming irrelevant and they don't seem to have any clue which way that they should go, nor the resources to move in the direction when they stumble upon the correct one.
Originally Posted by mbmcavoy
Oddly enough, While I don't really agree with MS, I also don't agree with most of the posters here either.
The major issue is that one type of machine doesn't necessarily replace another outright. The PC has been the dominant (not not the only) type of computer for many years. "Post-PC" doesn't mean that it is dead, just that it's glory days are over. It isn't going away, and probably will continue to be what most people think of when they hear "computer".
To make a point, here is a list of the types of computing devices that are out there today:
- Server / Cloud
- Workstation ("PC")
- Smart Phone
- Game Console
- Media Player (iPod, Roku, connected TV, etc)
- Point-of-Sale Terminal
- Machine Controls
Note that these categories are complex, general purpose, and expensive at one end, and simple, specific, and cheap on the other. I also expect that the middle of the list is where the most growth will happen in the future.
Microsoft has absolutely dominated the Workhorse category, and with the exception of the Xbox, has struggled in all others. Without a doubt, they are interested in all these categories (See Zune, Media Center, Surface, Sync, Windows CE Embedded, and the little reported fact that MS does the engine control software for Formula 1 cars).
The problem is that Windows is a "Workhorse" OS, and is not well-suited to the simpler devices, yet at the top they are too focused on their "Windows Everywhere" strategy.
Apple has shown the world that a different OS is needed to fit a different device category. (To be fair, Microsoft did try this years ago with Windows CE; the problem was that it was a simplified desktop, not a new interface. The poor sales were just interpreted as meaning people don't want those devices.)
I agreed with pretty much everything that you said. However, the biggest error in your post was the assertion that machine controls (and I assume you are talking PLC or PAC here) are on the cheaper end of the spectrum. The machine controls for a small and simple machine will run you about the cost of a mid-range iMac, a medium sized machine will run you about the same as a tricked out Mac Pro, and a large machine can easily run you more than a server setup for a small company.
Originally Posted by majjo
I don't think quoting sales numbers is a good way to say if something is a 'fad' or not. case in point, the netbook, which many of us (myself included) consider a 'fad' sold over 30 million units in 2009 IIRC.
It's funny, just yesterday I was reading an article on the input problem with tablets
on AT. I definitely think this is a problem tablets have to solve if they want true mainstream adoption.
I love my iPad, but when asked by people about it, that is the first thing that I tell them. It is not a laptop replacement if you are needing to do much creation. The touch interface is just too cumbersome for most task involved in creation of documents.
Now, that being said. I believe that Apple has already thought about this and is why they seem to be working towards melding OS X and iOS into a single operating system. Think about this. If OS X and iOS were the same underlying program and all that really changed was the user interface from touch to mouse, then what is to keep a program from functioning in both/either mode depending upon availability or necessity?
For instance, in four years I can forsee the day when I can open up a Pages document on my iPad while I am sitting in a restaurant and type out some things with the touch interface. Then when I get home I link the iPad to my bluetooth mouse and the program automatically shifts from the touch interface to the mouse interface and suddenly I can do things like cut and paste much easier than I can with my fingers. Then when I need to resize a graphic and drag some margins, I can click a button to switch back to the multi-touch interface which is much better for this type of operation.
To me, this is the genius of where Lion and Apple seem to be taking us. I can easily see the version after Lion being an OS that can be used with either a mouse or touch as necessary and being capable of running on a Mac or an iOS device.
Originally Posted by Firefly7475
Did you know the comments Mundie made about "a world where the room is the computer" and "there'll be a successor to the desktop [PC], it'll be the room" were actually made two years
ago, not in the same context as the other comments made in this article?
Did you know Microsoft has been working on the "natural user interface" since the inception of Surface a decade ago?
Did you know the "touch screen" on the original Surface wasn't actually a "touch screen" but a matrix of cameras, and worked in a similar way that Kinect does?
Did you know that the interface in "Minority Report" (2002) that people often refer to when looking at Kinect actually came from the Microsoft Surface team? (they worked with Spielberg on the movie)
It's crazy to say "Kinect probably would not have even been on Microsoft's radar had the Wii HCI revolution not happened" when it has been on their radar for pretty much the last decade.
Computer vision has been researched for a very long time. It isn't like Microsoft was even the leader in this field. What I believe though is that if it hadn't been for Nintendo and the Wii that Microsoft would never have thought to integrate their vision research that they have been working on for years, but seemingly having no clue how to monetize, into the XBox and gaming consoles.