Im as big an Apple fan as anybody, but its tiring to see other Apple fans sling vitriol at other companies actually trying different and new things. Apple hasn't done shit since the iPhone other than MOARZ THIN
Vitriol, seriously? Hard to take that seriously.
Also, remember iPad? It's the top selling tablet in the world. Has been outselling the next 4 producers. Changed things.
And they introduced the Watch. We'll see how it performs as a product. But if you're just counting attempts, Apple has a pretty hit record of beating everyone else every year since iPhone in phones (8 years), and iPad in tablets (4 years), both full size and mini.
Google has thrown a lot out there, but none of it has stuck. Microsoft too. And Samsung has tried lots of things: Android Camera, iPod knockoffs, super big tablets all failed. Note started gaining an audience and the company certainly pioneered the big phone, but that lasted 3 years for them before getting derailed by Apple's first larger iPhones. So who exactly impresses you? Rich dicks who blow money on stupid ideas that never take off, because they're trying?
Cnet has an decent on what the Hololens is and how it works;
"But Oculus, Microsoft, Google and others believe in a different, potentially more natural way to interact with our technology. These companies and the hardware they're creating imagine a world where hand gestures, 3D images and images superimposed on reality are the next-generation tools for productivity, communication and everything else we use gadgets and the Internet for."
MS knows it lost the war on the mobile space (ie: smartphones). The HoloLens is about them trying to lead and take charge of the next generation of computing.
Oculus was an independent project began in the open, and it hasn't shipped as a finished product yet. It's novel but lots of companies have been doing this (Sony showed theirs at CES 2012, I believe on sale but it's not selling in any big quantity). Google Glass was a big LOOK AT US thing but it was a poor product and they couldn't ship it as a real product. You could pay $1500 for a prototype. That's not very impressive. Imagine launching that as a kickstarter: "My idea is poorly conceived and I can sell prototypes for $1500. Any takers?" Would be laughed at.
What does Microsoft have to offer here? I'm not really seeing it. The silly, impractical video is just like the old Knowledge Navigator stuff, who cares that you can make unentertaining science fiction short videos? You're a hardware company or a conceptual movie maker?
If some college students were doing this then it would be a cool thing to check out. When billion dollar companies sit around and try to take credit for other's work, mingling stuff like this with their Brand name as a distraction from the fact that they have nothing to deliver and their other products just aren't very intersting is just not very impressive. I don't think they need to get an "A for effort" award like they're children. Make something worthy of the massive salary you're drawing.
As of 2010, about half a billion people were reported to be using Microsoft Office. So I wouldn't say they are getting "floor wiped" by Apple
What can I say? "Great artists steal", and all that
True. I'm expecting that we'll have to wait for a 2.0 release before it really grabs consumers, like many of Microsoft's products
What Microsoft 2.0 product grabbed consumers in the last five years?
Windows 7 II (aka 8)?
Windows Phone #2?
Metro second time around?
On PCMag's 2013 approval rating charts, Windows Phone 8 received a 9.0, compared to iOS's 8.6
I don't know what you mean by "Windows Phone #2"
As I mentioned before, the Surface 2 got very good reviews and was used extensively by Delta Airlines, Coca Cola and even BMW
Seeing as "Metro second time around" will be Windows 10 (for which it seems most people have a very positive outlook) I'd say yes, I think it will do well
The Zune HD was actually quite good, and received very positive reviews. But by that time Apple had already monopolized the market with the iPod Touch, so it didn't matter
I'm not gonna argue with you on the Slate. I think everyone can agree it was conclusively a flop
And the Surface 2 actual landed a 4.7 on Engadget, compared to the iPad Air's 4.6. Not a huge difference, but hey, it's there
They could have, but they didn't. Instead, they shipped many new computers with Office for free, offered it as a free download for college students, they made Office Online free. There are many instances in which Microsoft avoided charging for their software, so clearly money is not the issue. (also I suggest you cease using the term "MicroCrap". It's just childish)
And it's currently 57 and partly cloudy in Redmond
What do you suppose it was that shifted Microsoft from charging $500 for a copy of Office to giving it away?
Perhaps a loss of its monopoly power? That's what I'm guessing, not some altruistic finding god moment that has them "avoiding charging" for their software all of a sudden.
I never said they did it to be good people. I just pointed out they aren't always all about business and making money, whatever their reasons
crowley wrote: »
I actually feel quite positive about HoloLens now. Hearing some people rant about it with decades of pent-up bile makes me like it more.
canukstorm wrote: »
Cnet has an decent on what the Hololens is and how it works;
Is this the future? In a few years' time will we do away with computer screens and walk around with magical 3D glasses? I don't know about that. Traditional screens are better for shared viewing, don't have battery life concerns, don't require headgear, and so on and so forth.
But HoloLens certainly felt like part of the future. It excites me. I imagine a world of gaming that interacts with the environment around me. A world where designers and engineers can manipulate virtual 3D objects JARVIS-style, simply by using their hands. A world where I can sit at my desktop PC and have a monitor that's near infinitely large and totally private. I don't know exactly what people will use HoloLens for, but it feels very much like the killer app is out there, just waiting for someone to develop.
I felt it to be a much more compelling future than VR, too. The VR systems I've tried make me feel too detached from the outside world, to a degree that I find disorienting. Also unlike VR systems, HoloLens didn't make me want to instantly vomit. It felt very natural.
I can see a chip in your brain in the near future.
Why eat Chinese food with chopsticks when you could have nutrition pumped directly into your stomach with a feeding tube?
That's not a very good analogy. There's pleasure in eating food, but unless you really like Google's web interface, there's not much pleasure in using that vs a more direct alternative.
The point is that if you want seamless integration between your brain and Google you will have given up your free will. Only Google will determine what you think.
I don't see how that follows. Free will is a process of initiation, if you are initiating the queries you are still in control. The query results are just information to consider, they don't take control of you by their mere presence.
nouser wrote: »
Sadly, Microsoft has become the master of ineptitude in recent years. They appear to be desperately grasping for the path back to relevance but clearly they have not yet found it.
This, IMO, is a total lack of vision, passion and leadership at the top. I can recall Apple was struggling with these same problems back when Guy and John were at the helm of Apple.
This AR tech may also have some applications built in to phones and tablets instead of glasses. It will probably never be much more then Kinect level of usefulness. It would be interesting for some casual games and 3D visualizations. I would buy one, but I don't see it as transformative. If they can figure out the haptic feedback problem then it might be interesting for application UIs, but that would be a huge shift for both developers and users.
This AR tech may also have some applications built in to phones and tablets instead of glasses. It will probably never be much more then Kinect level of usefulness. It would be interesting for some casual games and 3D visualizations. I would buy one, but I don't see it as transformative.
You mean something like this?
[Here Maps City Lens]
benjamin frost wrote: »
It's this lack of compelling selling points that is the real death blow to the Watch, even more than the clunky, dated looks, the limited battery life and limited functions, like the lack of GPS.
"What Apple product is this competing with? "
None, but then why does it have to? HoloLens, and technologies / technology products like it, represent the future of digital interaction. Give it 5 years.
I doubt it will be so even in 10 years time.
What Primesense did is more plausible than this.
You talking about Picasso...
Yes, thank you for noticing. Your point?