It looks like Hololens is useful enough for Toyora and MB USA to be in a production environment. And like I posted before, I don't think that something has to be commonly used to be considered innovative, don't you think?
I think you're missing the point. Lots of companies have been developing AR/VR solutions. Hololens is Microsoft's implementation. While it's good to see Microsoft in the game with this sort of thing, you haven't exactly made the case about what is so innovative about their approach. Very few use it. It's more of an interesting conversation piece than anything else. That's to say there is anything wrong with it, it's just not that unique, innovative or interesting really.
Also, why does it matter that few people use it? What relation does it have with innovation? For example, the Xbox Adaptive Controller is used by very few gamers. But at the end, there is a lot of innovation behind it, and it impacts a very special group of people. Would you ignore the innovations in this controller because few people use it? Xbox Adaptive Controller | Xbox
Yes, I'm aware that Kinect can do authentication. However, let's be clear, there are various levels of sophistication and security with facial recognition type systems. On one end, we had the original Android Face Unlock which just used basic face recognition algorithms... and of course, could be fooled with a simple photograph. Windows Hello is indeed a step above that as it relies in infrared cameras and is more difficult to spoof.. though it can still be spoofed with a picture. Example... https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/21/16804992/microsoft-windows-10-windows-hello-bypass-security Then, there is FaceID which does true 3D imaging and even checks for eye contact, etc. This too can eventually be spoofed with a mannequin and face recognition training, but as you can see, it's much more difficult to spoof. Everything is relative.
Finally, I still don't see how Microsoft using off the shelf technology and then Apple acquiring the company that created that technology is an example of Apple copying MS. Neither company developed that specific tech. Microsoft just used what existed elsewhere. Apple integrated that one component into a much more sophisticated piece of technology. As such, I have difficulty seeing how your opinion is justified here.
The same article you posted explains that the spoof bug was fixed in an update. And like I posted before, it's hard make a 1:1 comparison on which one is harder to break. If you ask me, both offer enough security for most users.
Second, I didn't say I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. My point is that Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy. It's obvious that Apple couldn't make an exactly copy what MS already did, considering there has to be a lot of patents. Looks like in this case, Apple was the follower while MS was the pioneer / innovator.
Yes, I agree that any implementation of a cloud service will require some level of innovation and distinction from alternatives. As someone who uses Azure professionally, I agree that it is a good service and it is something that has effectively saved Microsoft as a company. However, I wouldn't say Microsoft is a pioneer in this space either. They are a follower in this market to Google and even Amazon. There's nothing really wrong with that, but it does illustrate how they continue to be a follower rather than a leader in such spaces. Microsoft's biggest hook in this space is AAD as enterprises insist on being dependent on AD. Azure Active Directory alone is the hook they needed to drive the rest of their cloud based services and business. Good move Microsoft!
Based in your definition, Apple is a follower because we already had in the market smartphones, smart speakers, smartwatchs, gaming, music and movie services, headphones and tablets, right? But like you said, "there's nothing really wrong with that, but it does illustrate how they continue to be a follower rather than a leader in such spaces."
BTW, my post had no mention of Azure as cloud service or AAD. My previous post mention two specific services that are very innovative. Go back to my previous message, so you can read about them.
Based in your definition, Apple is a follower because we already had in the market smartphones, smart speakers, smartwatchs, gaming, music and movie services, headphones and tablets, right?
Don't forget the iPod Watch from 2010. Also who did Apple have to copy to create iTunes, AirPods, Airpods Max etc. MS makes literal knockoffs.
Apple invented the iPhone and iPad. Consider that convo done.
IMO, yes in many cases Apple is a follower, same as many companies. But I don't care too much for that when it's a good product or service. That's the reason most of my devices and services I use are from MS and Apple.
Also you said that MS makes literal knockoffs, but Apple too. Nobody is perfect.
1. Microsoft bought Kinect which was already developed by Primesense for Nintendo.
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
In all fairness, I don't think there is really anything Microsoft is doing that is particularly ground breaking here. Most major tech companies are doing a lot of internal research with AR/VR and Hololens is barely more than a tech demo. It's not something everyone is using. Azure is another cloud service like AWS and Google's Cloud Platform. Even iCloud does much of the same, but it's for Apple's customers only.
Also is interesting that Apple acquired PixelSense to create FaceID, the same company that help MS create Kinect, Windows Hello and the technology behind Hololens. So I suppose MS innovation was good enough for Apple to copy it.
That was PrimeSense and Apple had to engineer the technology into that tiny little notch. If they simply "copied" it there would be a huge Kinect attached to the top of iPhone and they would have done it without acquiring PrimeSense to create something NEW.
Notice how different and how much smaller this is by comparison.
Plus acquiring a company is not the same as copying. Copying an invention is copying, not acquiring a company to re-purpose it's patents, tech and talent into something new. I always find it funny how the rules change when criticizing Apple.
I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. But it's clear that the innovation MS developed with Kinect and Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy (or as you said, knockoff). So in this case, among other examples, Apple copied MS. And I don't criticize Apple for copying MS. I have a Surface Pro, and I have experienced the benefits of Windows Hello, and I love to have the same system in my iPhone. At the same time, I miss the same experience in my MBP, while MS already have Windows Hello in all of their devices.
You're replying to the person who knows more about Kinect than anyone on this entire forum. I've followed Primesense in real time for over a decade.
Since you wanna be a dic* about it let me educate you.
MS BOUGHT Primesense after seeing the Zcam
Since Microsoft did not buy Primsense I think you need to follow Primesense in better than "real time" in future.
If that's the case then my point is even more solidified! Then Apple bought NOTHING and got NOTHING from Microsoft!
It’s a great tome to be an Apple enthusiast. Like Hockey great Wayne Gretzky Apple skates to where the puck will be instead of where’s it’s at. And it remains funnier than hell to watch Apple do something, get mocked by the competition, declared DOA by the trolls under the AI bridge, and see the competition and the critics follow suit.
I'm not seeing what you're saying here. Surely, it's a mix and Apple gets it wrong as much as anyone else too. As for mocking. It's the same, everybody gets mocked.
Do you think the new Max case will set an industry trend?
Did FaceID set a trend? Was relying on ONE biometric a wise idea? Will Apple include another biometric option on future phones like competing phones have had for years?
Did sticking with 5W battery chargers for 10 years prove trendworthy?
Late to 5G and scrambling to homebrew a 5G modem. They missed that particular puck altogether.
Most of the iOS 14 tentpole features are heavily influenced by Android.
Probably the most common email activity over the last 10 years has involved attachments. For far too long, Apple users couldn't even download an attachment to their phones.
Apple misses lots of pucks or skates to where it isn't too, but for some reason you aren't seeing it. If I'm wrong about that, please give some examples of where you believe Apple screwed up. Or do you think they don't exist?
As it stands today, Apple is simply a CE company. Microsoft can be considered that too but is also far, far more. It has its tentacles in many things and pretty forward thinking too (cloud, undersea optical cabling etc). The foundations of the future (or present, as we stand now because they have already deployed solutions). Apple hasn't. Those pucks again.
As a soundbite, what you say looks nice but scratch the surface and and different reality appears. It's like 'it just works'. It may sound nice but there are a ton of caveats to that.
Yes, we all saw the monopolistic wrongs of the past and they got whacked for it. We laughed at Zune too. They have made their fair share of mistakes. Everybody has! Apple included.
I could reel off a whole series of strategic errors Apple has made. There are pucks Apple apparently doesn't know exist.
Either way, competition can only be a good thing for consumers. Everyone should be happy about more choice. We should celebrate that.
Geez you're really digging low and scrapping the bottom of the barrel to find excuses why Apple isn't the innovator they are. None of those are pucks not even a peppermint patty.
NONE of those "features" are even in the same league of the impact Apple's M1 chips will make.
Seriously, upping the wattage of a charger is innovative to you? This is like praising a scooter manufacturer for for creating a way for the wheels to squeak less while ignoring the inventor of the scooter altogether.
That's it? That's all you have?
What does your second paragraph mean? Please explain.
Upping wattage? Nope! It's far more than that.
Take a look at the market. Take a look at charging from every single angle. The chemistry. The sensors. The electronics. The chargers. Hey, how about the user experience too!
If you're gonna nitpick then every iPhone feature is a new "innovation".
My goalposts are world-changing products and features like iPhone, iTunes, ECG and the App Store.
I have no need to nitpick. Wasn't it you yourself who took issue with my point on batteries?
Well, you had your opportunity to back up what you said and give your reasons for it.
What is clear now, is you really didn't have a valid counter to what I said at all, so my point stands.
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
In all fairness, I don't think there is really anything Microsoft is doing that is particularly ground breaking here. Most major tech companies are doing a lot of internal research with AR/VR and Hololens is barely more than a tech demo. It's not something everyone is using. Azure is another cloud service like AWS and Google's Cloud Platform. Even iCloud does much of the same, but it's for Apple's customers only.
Also is interesting that Apple acquired PixelSense to create FaceID, the same company that help MS create Kinect, Windows Hello and the technology behind Hololens. So I suppose MS innovation was good enough for Apple to copy it.
That was PrimeSense and Apple had to engineer the technology into that tiny little notch. If they simply "copied" it there would be a huge Kinect attached to the top of iPhone and they would have done it without acquiring PrimeSense to create something NEW.
Notice how different and how much smaller this is by comparison.
Plus acquiring a company is not the same as copying. Copying an invention is copying, not acquiring a company to re-purpose it's patents, tech and talent into something new. I always find it funny how the rules change when criticizing Apple.
I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. But it's clear that the innovation MS developed with Kinect and Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy (or as you said, knockoff). So in this case, among other examples, Apple copied MS. And I don't criticize Apple for copying MS. I have a Surface Pro, and I have experienced the benefits of Windows Hello, and I love to have the same system in my iPhone. At the same time, I miss the same experience in my MBP, while MS already have Windows Hello in all of their devices.
You're replying to the person who knows more about Kinect than anyone on this entire forum. I've followed Primesense in real time for over a decade.
Since you wanna be a dic* about it let me educate you.
MS BOUGHT Primesense after seeing the Zcam
Since Microsoft did not buy Primsense I think you need to follow Primesense in better than "real time" in future.
If that's the case then my point is even more solidified! Then Apple bought NOTHING and got NOTHING from Microsoft!
Thanks!
Danvm already addressed this angle. What appears to have happened is: Microsoft utilised the technology, Apple saw what Microsoft was doing, wanted a piece of it, so bought the company.
If you don't think there's an element of copying or following in there, then take your glasses back to the opticians, the rose tint is affecting your reality.
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
In all fairness, I don't think there is really anything Microsoft is doing that is particularly ground breaking here. Most major tech companies are doing a lot of internal research with AR/VR and Hololens is barely more than a tech demo. It's not something everyone is using. Azure is another cloud service like AWS and Google's Cloud Platform. Even iCloud does much of the same, but it's for Apple's customers only.
Also is interesting that Apple acquired PixelSense to create FaceID, the same company that help MS create Kinect, Windows Hello and the technology behind Hololens. So I suppose MS innovation was good enough for Apple to copy it.
That was PrimeSense and Apple had to engineer the technology into that tiny little notch. If they simply "copied" it there would be a huge Kinect attached to the top of iPhone and they would have done it without acquiring PrimeSense to create something NEW.
Notice how different and how much smaller this is by comparison.
Plus acquiring a company is not the same as copying. Copying an invention is copying, not acquiring a company to re-purpose it's patents, tech and talent into something new. I always find it funny how the rules change when criticizing Apple.
I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. But it's clear that the innovation MS developed with Kinect and Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy (or as you said, knockoff). So in this case, among other examples, Apple copied MS. And I don't criticize Apple for copying MS. I have a Surface Pro, and I have experienced the benefits of Windows Hello, and I love to have the same system in my iPhone. At the same time, I miss the same experience in my MBP, while MS already have Windows Hello in all of their devices.
It looks like Hololens is useful enough for Toyora and MB USA to be in a production environment. And like I posted before, I don't think that something has to be commonly used to be considered innovative, don't you think?
I think you're missing the point. Lots of companies have been developing AR/VR solutions. Hololens is Microsoft's implementation. While it's good to see Microsoft in the game with this sort of thing, you haven't exactly made the case about what is so innovative about their approach. Very few use it. It's more of an interesting conversation piece than anything else. That's to say there is anything wrong with it, it's just not that unique, innovative or interesting really.
Also, why does it matter that few people use it? What relation does it have with innovation? For example, the Xbox Adaptive Controller is used by very few gamers. But at the end, there is a lot of innovation behind it, and it impacts a very special group of people. Would you ignore the innovations in this controller because few people use it? Xbox Adaptive Controller | Xbox
Yes, I'm aware that Kinect can do authentication. However, let's be clear, there are various levels of sophistication and security with facial recognition type systems. On one end, we had the original Android Face Unlock which just used basic face recognition algorithms... and of course, could be fooled with a simple photograph. Windows Hello is indeed a step above that as it relies in infrared cameras and is more difficult to spoof.. though it can still be spoofed with a picture. Example... https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/21/16804992/microsoft-windows-10-windows-hello-bypass-security Then, there is FaceID which does true 3D imaging and even checks for eye contact, etc. This too can eventually be spoofed with a mannequin and face recognition training, but as you can see, it's much more difficult to spoof. Everything is relative.
Finally, I still don't see how Microsoft using off the shelf technology and then Apple acquiring the company that created that technology is an example of Apple copying MS. Neither company developed that specific tech. Microsoft just used what existed elsewhere. Apple integrated that one component into a much more sophisticated piece of technology. As such, I have difficulty seeing how your opinion is justified here.
The same article you posted explains that the spoof bug was fixed in an update. And like I posted before, it's hard make a 1:1 comparison on which one is harder to break. If you ask me, both offer enough security for most users.
Second, I didn't say I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. My point is that Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy. It's obvious that Apple couldn't make an exactly copy what MS already did, considering there has to be a lot of patents. Looks like in this case, Apple was the follower while MS was the pioneer / innovator.
Yes, I agree that any implementation of a cloud service will require some level of innovation and distinction from alternatives. As someone who uses Azure professionally, I agree that it is a good service and it is something that has effectively saved Microsoft as a company. However, I wouldn't say Microsoft is a pioneer in this space either. They are a follower in this market to Google and even Amazon. There's nothing really wrong with that, but it does illustrate how they continue to be a follower rather than a leader in such spaces. Microsoft's biggest hook in this space is AAD as enterprises insist on being dependent on AD. Azure Active Directory alone is the hook they needed to drive the rest of their cloud based services and business. Good move Microsoft!
Based in your definition, Apple is a follower because we already had in the market smartphones, smart speakers, smartwatchs, gaming, music and movie services, headphones and tablets, right? But like you said, "there's nothing really wrong with that, but it does illustrate how they continue to be a follower rather than a leader in such spaces."
BTW, my post had no mention of Azure as cloud service or AAD. My previous post mention two specific services that are very innovative. Go back to my previous message, so you can read about them.
Based in your definition, Apple is a follower because we already had in the market smartphones, smart speakers, smartwatchs, gaming, music and movie services, headphones and tablets, right?
Don't forget the iPod Watch from 2010. Also who did Apple have to copy to create iTunes, AirPods, Airpods Max etc. MS makes literal knockoffs.
Apple invented the iPhone and iPad. Consider that convo done.
IMO, yes in many cases Apple is a follower, same as many companies. But I don't care too much for that when it's a good product or service. That's the reason most of my devices and services I use are from MS and Apple.
Also you said that MS makes literal knockoffs, but Apple too. Nobody is perfect.
1. Microsoft bought Kinect which was already developed by Primesense for Nintendo.
2. What Microsoft knockoffs does Apple develop?
1. MS didn't bought Kinect. They develop and created it using PrimeSense technology.
2. English is not my main language, so the definition I saw for knockoff is "a copy or imitation of someone or something popular". Maybe FaceID could match that definition, and even the Apple TV, since they are trying to make it a gaming console as the Xbox, with a game subscription service as GamePass. Also Apple have other devices and services that could considered knockoffs of other companies. At the end, is that really important? I'm very happy with my Apple and MS devices and services, and really don't care if they are a knockoff of other companies. You should try to enjoy your devices, instead of looking if others are knockoff.
It’s a great tome to be an Apple enthusiast. Like Hockey great Wayne Gretzky Apple skates to where the puck will be instead of where’s it’s at. And it remains funnier than hell to watch Apple do something, get mocked by the competition, declared DOA by the trolls under the AI bridge, and see the competition and the critics follow suit.
I'm not seeing what you're saying here. Surely, it's a mix and Apple gets it wrong as much as anyone else too. As for mocking. It's the same, everybody gets mocked.
Do you think the new Max case will set an industry trend?
Did FaceID set a trend? Was relying on ONE biometric a wise idea? Will Apple include another biometric option on future phones like competing phones have had for years?
Did sticking with 5W battery chargers for 10 years prove trendworthy?
Late to 5G and scrambling to homebrew a 5G modem. They missed that particular puck altogether.
Most of the iOS 14 tentpole features are heavily influenced by Android.
Probably the most common email activity over the last 10 years has involved attachments. For far too long, Apple users couldn't even download an attachment to their phones.
Apple misses lots of pucks or skates to where it isn't too, but for some reason you aren't seeing it. If I'm wrong about that, please give some examples of where you believe Apple screwed up. Or do you think they don't exist?
As it stands today, Apple is simply a CE company. Microsoft can be considered that too but is also far, far more. It has its tentacles in many things and pretty forward thinking too (cloud, undersea optical cabling etc). The foundations of the future (or present, as we stand now because they have already deployed solutions). Apple hasn't. Those pucks again.
As a soundbite, what you say looks nice but scratch the surface and and different reality appears. It's like 'it just works'. It may sound nice but there are a ton of caveats to that.
Yes, we all saw the monopolistic wrongs of the past and they got whacked for it. We laughed at Zune too. They have made their fair share of mistakes. Everybody has! Apple included.
I could reel off a whole series of strategic errors Apple has made. There are pucks Apple apparently doesn't know exist.
Either way, competition can only be a good thing for consumers. Everyone should be happy about more choice. We should celebrate that.
Geez you're really digging low and scrapping the bottom of the barrel to find excuses why Apple isn't the innovator they are. None of those are pucks not even a peppermint patty.
NONE of those "features" are even in the same league of the impact Apple's M1 chips will make.
Seriously, upping the wattage of a charger is innovative to you? This is like praising a scooter manufacturer for for creating a way for the wheels to squeak less while ignoring the inventor of the scooter altogether.
That's it? That's all you have?
What does your second paragraph mean? Please explain.
Upping wattage? Nope! It's far more than that.
Take a look at the market. Take a look at charging from every single angle. The chemistry. The sensors. The electronics. The chargers. Hey, how about the user experience too!
If you're gonna nitpick then every iPhone feature is a new "innovation".
My goalposts are world-changing products and features like iPhone, iTunes, ECG and the App Store.
I have no need to nitpick. Wasn't it you yourself who took issue with my point on batteries?
Well, you had your opportunity to back up what you said and give your reasons for it.
What is clear now, is you really didn't have a valid counter to what I said at all, so my point stands.
That was not me. I did mention that Apple has worked on battery tech before. That's it.
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
In all fairness, I don't think there is really anything Microsoft is doing that is particularly ground breaking here. Most major tech companies are doing a lot of internal research with AR/VR and Hololens is barely more than a tech demo. It's not something everyone is using. Azure is another cloud service like AWS and Google's Cloud Platform. Even iCloud does much of the same, but it's for Apple's customers only.
Also is interesting that Apple acquired PixelSense to create FaceID, the same company that help MS create Kinect, Windows Hello and the technology behind Hololens. So I suppose MS innovation was good enough for Apple to copy it.
That was PrimeSense and Apple had to engineer the technology into that tiny little notch. If they simply "copied" it there would be a huge Kinect attached to the top of iPhone and they would have done it without acquiring PrimeSense to create something NEW.
Notice how different and how much smaller this is by comparison.
Plus acquiring a company is not the same as copying. Copying an invention is copying, not acquiring a company to re-purpose it's patents, tech and talent into something new. I always find it funny how the rules change when criticizing Apple.
I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. But it's clear that the innovation MS developed with Kinect and Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy (or as you said, knockoff). So in this case, among other examples, Apple copied MS. And I don't criticize Apple for copying MS. I have a Surface Pro, and I have experienced the benefits of Windows Hello, and I love to have the same system in my iPhone. At the same time, I miss the same experience in my MBP, while MS already have Windows Hello in all of their devices.
You're replying to the person who knows more about Kinect than anyone on this entire forum. I've followed Primesense in real time for over a decade.
Since you wanna be a dic* about it let me educate you.
MS BOUGHT Primesense after seeing the Zcam
Since Microsoft did not buy Primsense I think you need to follow Primesense in better than "real time" in future.
If that's the case then my point is even more solidified! Then Apple bought NOTHING and got NOTHING from Microsoft!
Thanks!
Danvm already addressed this angle. What appears to have happened is: Microsoft utilised the technology, Apple saw what Microsoft was doing, wanted a piece of it, so bought the company.
If you don't think there's an element of copying or following in there, then take your glasses back to the opticians, the rose tint is affecting your reality.
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
In all fairness, I don't think there is really anything Microsoft is doing that is particularly ground breaking here. Most major tech companies are doing a lot of internal research with AR/VR and Hololens is barely more than a tech demo. It's not something everyone is using. Azure is another cloud service like AWS and Google's Cloud Platform. Even iCloud does much of the same, but it's for Apple's customers only.
Also is interesting that Apple acquired PixelSense to create FaceID, the same company that help MS create Kinect, Windows Hello and the technology behind Hololens. So I suppose MS innovation was good enough for Apple to copy it.
That was PrimeSense and Apple had to engineer the technology into that tiny little notch. If they simply "copied" it there would be a huge Kinect attached to the top of iPhone and they would have done it without acquiring PrimeSense to create something NEW.
Notice how different and how much smaller this is by comparison.
Plus acquiring a company is not the same as copying. Copying an invention is copying, not acquiring a company to re-purpose it's patents, tech and talent into something new. I always find it funny how the rules change when criticizing Apple.
I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. But it's clear that the innovation MS developed with Kinect and Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy (or as you said, knockoff). So in this case, among other examples, Apple copied MS. And I don't criticize Apple for copying MS. I have a Surface Pro, and I have experienced the benefits of Windows Hello, and I love to have the same system in my iPhone. At the same time, I miss the same experience in my MBP, while MS already have Windows Hello in all of their devices.
Yes because Apple "copied" the Kinect to develop FaceID. Not even sure how that's possible since Apple actually developed FaceID.
It looks like Hololens is useful enough for Toyora and MB USA to be in a production environment. And like I posted before, I don't think that something has to be commonly used to be considered innovative, don't you think?
I think you're missing the point. Lots of companies have been developing AR/VR solutions. Hololens is Microsoft's implementation. While it's good to see Microsoft in the game with this sort of thing, you haven't exactly made the case about what is so innovative about their approach. Very few use it. It's more of an interesting conversation piece than anything else. That's to say there is anything wrong with it, it's just not that unique, innovative or interesting really.
Also, why does it matter that few people use it? What relation does it have with innovation? For example, the Xbox Adaptive Controller is used by very few gamers. But at the end, there is a lot of innovation behind it, and it impacts a very special group of people. Would you ignore the innovations in this controller because few people use it? Xbox Adaptive Controller | Xbox
Yes, I'm aware that Kinect can do authentication. However, let's be clear, there are various levels of sophistication and security with facial recognition type systems. On one end, we had the original Android Face Unlock which just used basic face recognition algorithms... and of course, could be fooled with a simple photograph. Windows Hello is indeed a step above that as it relies in infrared cameras and is more difficult to spoof.. though it can still be spoofed with a picture. Example... https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/21/16804992/microsoft-windows-10-windows-hello-bypass-security Then, there is FaceID which does true 3D imaging and even checks for eye contact, etc. This too can eventually be spoofed with a mannequin and face recognition training, but as you can see, it's much more difficult to spoof. Everything is relative.
Finally, I still don't see how Microsoft using off the shelf technology and then Apple acquiring the company that created that technology is an example of Apple copying MS. Neither company developed that specific tech. Microsoft just used what existed elsewhere. Apple integrated that one component into a much more sophisticated piece of technology. As such, I have difficulty seeing how your opinion is justified here.
The same article you posted explains that the spoof bug was fixed in an update. And like I posted before, it's hard make a 1:1 comparison on which one is harder to break. If you ask me, both offer enough security for most users.
Second, I didn't say I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. My point is that Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy. It's obvious that Apple couldn't make an exactly copy what MS already did, considering there has to be a lot of patents. Looks like in this case, Apple was the follower while MS was the pioneer / innovator.
Yes, I agree that any implementation of a cloud service will require some level of innovation and distinction from alternatives. As someone who uses Azure professionally, I agree that it is a good service and it is something that has effectively saved Microsoft as a company. However, I wouldn't say Microsoft is a pioneer in this space either. They are a follower in this market to Google and even Amazon. There's nothing really wrong with that, but it does illustrate how they continue to be a follower rather than a leader in such spaces. Microsoft's biggest hook in this space is AAD as enterprises insist on being dependent on AD. Azure Active Directory alone is the hook they needed to drive the rest of their cloud based services and business. Good move Microsoft!
Based in your definition, Apple is a follower because we already had in the market smartphones, smart speakers, smartwatchs, gaming, music and movie services, headphones and tablets, right? But like you said, "there's nothing really wrong with that, but it does illustrate how they continue to be a follower rather than a leader in such spaces."
BTW, my post had no mention of Azure as cloud service or AAD. My previous post mention two specific services that are very innovative. Go back to my previous message, so you can read about them.
Based in your definition, Apple is a follower because we already had in the market smartphones, smart speakers, smartwatchs, gaming, music and movie services, headphones and tablets, right?
Don't forget the iPod Watch from 2010. Also who did Apple have to copy to create iTunes, AirPods, Airpods Max etc. MS makes literal knockoffs.
Apple invented the iPhone and iPad. Consider that convo done.
IMO, yes in many cases Apple is a follower, same as many companies. But I don't care too much for that when it's a good product or service. That's the reason most of my devices and services I use are from MS and Apple.
Also you said that MS makes literal knockoffs, but Apple too. Nobody is perfect.
1. Microsoft bought Kinect which was already developed by Primesense for Nintendo.
2. What Microsoft knockoffs does Apple develop?
1. MS didn't bought Kinect. They develop and created it using PrimeSense technology.
2. English is not my main language, so the definition I saw for knockoff is "a copy or imitation of someone or something popular". Maybe FaceID could match that definition, and even the Apple TV, since they are trying to make it a gaming console as the Xbox, with a game subscription service as GamePass. Also Apple have other devices and services that could considered knockoffs of other companies. At the end, is that really important? I'm very happy with my Apple and MS devices and services, and really don't care if they are a knockoff of other companies. You should try to enjoy your devices, instead of looking if others are knockoff.
A knockoff is a copy of another item, made with the intentions of stealing marketshare from it's inventors. It's what companies like Samsung do. Samsung makes knockoffs of market leaders in every category they enter.
Calling a feature a "knockoff" is a stretch and (of course) only applies to Apple. Where a knockoff iPhone is a phone modeled after iPhone with all the same features except very little details like megapixel count, screw size and privacy. Kinect is a gaming camera and FaceID is a biometric sensor for iPhone. They're literally TWO different things. Calling FaceID a Kinect knockoff is freaking strange.
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
In all fairness, I don't think there is really anything Microsoft is doing that is particularly ground breaking here. Most major tech companies are doing a lot of internal research with AR/VR and Hololens is barely more than a tech demo. It's not something everyone is using. Azure is another cloud service like AWS and Google's Cloud Platform. Even iCloud does much of the same, but it's for Apple's customers only.
Also is interesting that Apple acquired PixelSense to create FaceID, the same company that help MS create Kinect, Windows Hello and the technology behind Hololens. So I suppose MS innovation was good enough for Apple to copy it.
That was PrimeSense and Apple had to engineer the technology into that tiny little notch. If they simply "copied" it there would be a huge Kinect attached to the top of iPhone and they would have done it without acquiring PrimeSense to create something NEW.
Notice how different and how much smaller this is by comparison.
Plus acquiring a company is not the same as copying. Copying an invention is copying, not acquiring a company to re-purpose it's patents, tech and talent into something new. I always find it funny how the rules change when criticizing Apple.
I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. But it's clear that the innovation MS developed with Kinect and Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy (or as you said, knockoff). So in this case, among other examples, Apple copied MS. And I don't criticize Apple for copying MS. I have a Surface Pro, and I have experienced the benefits of Windows Hello, and I love to have the same system in my iPhone. At the same time, I miss the same experience in my MBP, while MS already have Windows Hello in all of their devices.
You're replying to the person who knows more about Kinect than anyone on this entire forum. I've followed Primesense in real time for over a decade.
Since you wanna be a dic* about it let me educate you.
MS BOUGHT Primesense after seeing the Zcam
Since Microsoft did not buy Primsense I think you need to follow Primesense in better than "real time" in future.
If that's the case then my point is even more solidified! Then Apple bought NOTHING and got NOTHING from Microsoft!
Thanks!
Danvm already addressed this angle. What appears to have happened is: Microsoft utilised the technology, Apple saw what Microsoft was doing, wanted a piece of it, so bought the company.
If you don't think there's an element of copying or following in there, then take your glasses back to the opticians, the rose tint is affecting your reality.
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
In all fairness, I don't think there is really anything Microsoft is doing that is particularly ground breaking here. Most major tech companies are doing a lot of internal research with AR/VR and Hololens is barely more than a tech demo. It's not something everyone is using. Azure is another cloud service like AWS and Google's Cloud Platform. Even iCloud does much of the same, but it's for Apple's customers only.
Also is interesting that Apple acquired PixelSense to create FaceID, the same company that help MS create Kinect, Windows Hello and the technology behind Hololens. So I suppose MS innovation was good enough for Apple to copy it.
That was PrimeSense and Apple had to engineer the technology into that tiny little notch. If they simply "copied" it there would be a huge Kinect attached to the top of iPhone and they would have done it without acquiring PrimeSense to create something NEW.
Notice how different and how much smaller this is by comparison.
Plus acquiring a company is not the same as copying. Copying an invention is copying, not acquiring a company to re-purpose it's patents, tech and talent into something new. I always find it funny how the rules change when criticizing Apple.
I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. But it's clear that the innovation MS developed with Kinect and Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy (or as you said, knockoff). So in this case, among other examples, Apple copied MS. And I don't criticize Apple for copying MS. I have a Surface Pro, and I have experienced the benefits of Windows Hello, and I love to have the same system in my iPhone. At the same time, I miss the same experience in my MBP, while MS already have Windows Hello in all of their devices.
Yes because Apple "copied" the Kinect to develop FaceID.
Yes, in some measure. It's not an egregious copy job, but they certainly seem to have taken some inspiration.
Not even sure how that's possible since Apple actually developed FaceID.
You don't understand how it's possible for one company to copy another in "actually" developing a product? I'm not sure we're speaking the same language then. What do you think the word "actually" is doing there to make it an impossibility for Apple to be copying another product when developing their own version of it?
Microsoft actually developed the Zune, is it impossible that they copied the iPod?
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
In all fairness, I don't think there is really anything Microsoft is doing that is particularly ground breaking here. Most major tech companies are doing a lot of internal research with AR/VR and Hololens is barely more than a tech demo. It's not something everyone is using. Azure is another cloud service like AWS and Google's Cloud Platform. Even iCloud does much of the same, but it's for Apple's customers only.
Also is interesting that Apple acquired PixelSense to create FaceID, the same company that help MS create Kinect, Windows Hello and the technology behind Hololens. So I suppose MS innovation was good enough for Apple to copy it.
That was PrimeSense and Apple had to engineer the technology into that tiny little notch. If they simply "copied" it there would be a huge Kinect attached to the top of iPhone and they would have done it without acquiring PrimeSense to create something NEW.
Notice how different and how much smaller this is by comparison.
Plus acquiring a company is not the same as copying. Copying an invention is copying, not acquiring a company to re-purpose it's patents, tech and talent into something new. I always find it funny how the rules change when criticizing Apple.
I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. But it's clear that the innovation MS developed with Kinect and Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy (or as you said, knockoff). So in this case, among other examples, Apple copied MS. And I don't criticize Apple for copying MS. I have a Surface Pro, and I have experienced the benefits of Windows Hello, and I love to have the same system in my iPhone. At the same time, I miss the same experience in my MBP, while MS already have Windows Hello in all of their devices.
You're replying to the person who knows more about Kinect than anyone on this entire forum. I've followed Primesense in real time for over a decade.
Since you wanna be a dic* about it let me educate you.
MS BOUGHT Primesense after seeing the Zcam
Since Microsoft did not buy Primsense I think you need to follow Primesense in better than "real time" in future.
If that's the case then my point is even more solidified! Then Apple bought NOTHING and got NOTHING from Microsoft!
Thanks!
Danvm already addressed this angle. What appears to have happened is: Microsoft utilised the technology, Apple saw what Microsoft was doing, wanted a piece of it, so bought the company.
If you don't think there's an element of copying or following in there, then take your glasses back to the opticians, the rose tint is affecting your reality.
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
In all fairness, I don't think there is really anything Microsoft is doing that is particularly ground breaking here. Most major tech companies are doing a lot of internal research with AR/VR and Hololens is barely more than a tech demo. It's not something everyone is using. Azure is another cloud service like AWS and Google's Cloud Platform. Even iCloud does much of the same, but it's for Apple's customers only.
Also is interesting that Apple acquired PixelSense to create FaceID, the same company that help MS create Kinect, Windows Hello and the technology behind Hololens. So I suppose MS innovation was good enough for Apple to copy it.
That was PrimeSense and Apple had to engineer the technology into that tiny little notch. If they simply "copied" it there would be a huge Kinect attached to the top of iPhone and they would have done it without acquiring PrimeSense to create something NEW.
Notice how different and how much smaller this is by comparison.
Plus acquiring a company is not the same as copying. Copying an invention is copying, not acquiring a company to re-purpose it's patents, tech and talent into something new. I always find it funny how the rules change when criticizing Apple.
I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. But it's clear that the innovation MS developed with Kinect and Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy (or as you said, knockoff). So in this case, among other examples, Apple copied MS. And I don't criticize Apple for copying MS. I have a Surface Pro, and I have experienced the benefits of Windows Hello, and I love to have the same system in my iPhone. At the same time, I miss the same experience in my MBP, while MS already have Windows Hello in all of their devices.
Yes because Apple "copied" the Kinect to develop FaceID. Not even sure how that's possible since Apple actually developed FaceID.
It looks like Hololens is useful enough for Toyora and MB USA to be in a production environment. And like I posted before, I don't think that something has to be commonly used to be considered innovative, don't you think?
I think you're missing the point. Lots of companies have been developing AR/VR solutions. Hololens is Microsoft's implementation. While it's good to see Microsoft in the game with this sort of thing, you haven't exactly made the case about what is so innovative about their approach. Very few use it. It's more of an interesting conversation piece than anything else. That's to say there is anything wrong with it, it's just not that unique, innovative or interesting really.
Also, why does it matter that few people use it? What relation does it have with innovation? For example, the Xbox Adaptive Controller is used by very few gamers. But at the end, there is a lot of innovation behind it, and it impacts a very special group of people. Would you ignore the innovations in this controller because few people use it? Xbox Adaptive Controller | Xbox
Yes, I'm aware that Kinect can do authentication. However, let's be clear, there are various levels of sophistication and security with facial recognition type systems. On one end, we had the original Android Face Unlock which just used basic face recognition algorithms... and of course, could be fooled with a simple photograph. Windows Hello is indeed a step above that as it relies in infrared cameras and is more difficult to spoof.. though it can still be spoofed with a picture. Example... https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/21/16804992/microsoft-windows-10-windows-hello-bypass-security Then, there is FaceID which does true 3D imaging and even checks for eye contact, etc. This too can eventually be spoofed with a mannequin and face recognition training, but as you can see, it's much more difficult to spoof. Everything is relative.
Finally, I still don't see how Microsoft using off the shelf technology and then Apple acquiring the company that created that technology is an example of Apple copying MS. Neither company developed that specific tech. Microsoft just used what existed elsewhere. Apple integrated that one component into a much more sophisticated piece of technology. As such, I have difficulty seeing how your opinion is justified here.
The same article you posted explains that the spoof bug was fixed in an update. And like I posted before, it's hard make a 1:1 comparison on which one is harder to break. If you ask me, both offer enough security for most users.
Second, I didn't say I didn't say that acquiring a company is copying. My point is that Windows Hello was so good that Apple had to acquire the same company to create a Windows Hello / Kinect copy. It's obvious that Apple couldn't make an exactly copy what MS already did, considering there has to be a lot of patents. Looks like in this case, Apple was the follower while MS was the pioneer / innovator.
Yes, I agree that any implementation of a cloud service will require some level of innovation and distinction from alternatives. As someone who uses Azure professionally, I agree that it is a good service and it is something that has effectively saved Microsoft as a company. However, I wouldn't say Microsoft is a pioneer in this space either. They are a follower in this market to Google and even Amazon. There's nothing really wrong with that, but it does illustrate how they continue to be a follower rather than a leader in such spaces. Microsoft's biggest hook in this space is AAD as enterprises insist on being dependent on AD. Azure Active Directory alone is the hook they needed to drive the rest of their cloud based services and business. Good move Microsoft!
Based in your definition, Apple is a follower because we already had in the market smartphones, smart speakers, smartwatchs, gaming, music and movie services, headphones and tablets, right? But like you said, "there's nothing really wrong with that, but it does illustrate how they continue to be a follower rather than a leader in such spaces."
BTW, my post had no mention of Azure as cloud service or AAD. My previous post mention two specific services that are very innovative. Go back to my previous message, so you can read about them.
Based in your definition, Apple is a follower because we already had in the market smartphones, smart speakers, smartwatchs, gaming, music and movie services, headphones and tablets, right?
Don't forget the iPod Watch from 2010. Also who did Apple have to copy to create iTunes, AirPods, Airpods Max etc. MS makes literal knockoffs.
Apple invented the iPhone and iPad. Consider that convo done.
IMO, yes in many cases Apple is a follower, same as many companies. But I don't care too much for that when it's a good product or service. That's the reason most of my devices and services I use are from MS and Apple.
Also you said that MS makes literal knockoffs, but Apple too. Nobody is perfect.
1. Microsoft bought Kinect which was already developed by Primesense for Nintendo.
2. What Microsoft knockoffs does Apple develop?
1. MS didn't bought Kinect. They develop and created it using PrimeSense technology.
2. English is not my main language, so the definition I saw for knockoff is "a copy or imitation of someone or something popular". Maybe FaceID could match that definition, and even the Apple TV, since they are trying to make it a gaming console as the Xbox, with a game subscription service as GamePass. Also Apple have other devices and services that could considered knockoffs of other companies. At the end, is that really important? I'm very happy with my Apple and MS devices and services, and really don't care if they are a knockoff of other companies. You should try to enjoy your devices, instead of looking if others are knockoff.
A knockoff is a copy of another item, made with the intentions of stealing marketshare from it's inventors. It's what companies like Samsung do. Samsung makes knockoffs of market leaders in every category they enter.
Calling a feature a "knockoff" is a stretch and (of course) only applies to Apple. Where a knockoff iPhone is a phone modeled after iPhone with all the same features except very little details like megapixel count, screw size and privacy. Kinect is a gaming camera and FaceID is a biometric sensor for iPhone. They're literally TWO different things. Calling FaceID a Kinect knockoff is freaking strange.
Again, I didn't say that Apple copied Kinect. I have been clear that the Kinect technology passed to Windows Hello, and we see a copy in Face ID.
Now, you gave in interesting example on iPhone knockoffs. You said that a knockoff is modeled after the iPhone with all the same features, except little details. So if apply that to the iPad and Surface, we could said that the iPad is a Surface Pro knockoff, and here is why. We have the Surface Pro 4 released in 2015 with a 12.3" screen (iPad Pro 12.9 was released in 2017) with Windows Hello (Face ID was released in the iPad in 2018), a keyboard + trackpad (Magic Keyboard was released in 2020) and the Pen for drawing and note taking (2 months before the Apple pencil was released). The Surface Pro also had multitasking in tablet mode since v1 in 2013 (Split View was part of iOS 9 in 2015) and support for multiples user profiles (Apple had this blocked only for schools in iOS 9 for 2016).
Maybe you didn't noticed that the iPad Pro 12.9" was a knockoff, since Apple added those feature while years passed by. But at the end, the iPad Pro we have in 2020 is what MS had in the Surface Pro 4 in 2015. So here you have your Apple knockoff, at least based in your definition and iPhone knockoff example. But I could be wrong...
Maybe this is important for you, but not for me. Personally I think that the iPad is the best tablet in the market, while the Surface Pro is the best 2-in-1 available. At the end, each of these devices have good and bad things, neither is perfect. I ask you again, does it really matters that the iPad is a Surface knockoff or viceversa?
BTW, this could also apply to the Apple TV, now that Apple is making it a gaming console as the Xbox with a copy of GamePass with Apple Arcade.
This would also be a death blow to AMD right? I can't imagine they have the funds to design an ARM CPU that is competitive with Intel/Microsoft/Apple's.
This would also be a death blow to AMD right? I can't imagine they have the funds to design an ARM CPU that is competitive with Intel/Microsoft/Apple's.
Depends if it's any good. Microsoft's homegrown hardware hasn't set the world on fire in the past.
I doubt Microsoft will build something you’d expect from the Pro products. They could be competitive to the AX or M, even that will took years to come.
LOL... no. Face ID > Windows Hello > Android Face Unlock. Technically, all three of these technologies perform the same generic function. How they perform that function and how secure they are is very different. Using your logic, if you feel that Face ID is a copy of Windows Hello, then you must agree that Windows Hello is a copy of Android Face Unlock.... which is a copy of face recognition from iPhoto from many years ago... lol.
Like I posted before, I haven't seen a 1:1 comparison of Face ID vs Windows Hello to show who is better. IMO, both are very secure, and neither is perfect, like you mentioned in your previous comment. And you have the wrong order. Remember that MS already had the Windows Hello technology in the Kinect, so it was ahead of both Android and Apple. And I don't see how Apple Photo app is part of this conversation, since it is not used as an authentication system.
Okay, I will attempt to tie this information in for you with a bit of historical context. There are common algorithms for facial recognition that are open sourced such as the Viola-Jones algorithm. This is nothing new. Apple even included this in their iPhoto program many years ago. Apple later incorporated this feature in to their OS as well. However, Apple never used it for biometric authentication. Why? Because the false positive rate is estimated to be 0.2% or 1 in 500. That's probably fine for categorizing photos, but not so much for security. Yet, that didn't stop Android from using the exact same method for security with their Face Unlock feature they added to Android in 2011.
Moving up the line, a good fingerprint scanner like Touch ID has a false positive rate of 1 in 50,000. This is deemed acceptable by financial institutions for biometric security.
Next in line would be Windows Hello. Microsoft rates their false positives rate as 1 in 100,000. Their tech is apparently similar to Face Unlock accept it attempts to do iris scans, etc. Yes, security is good with Windows Hello, but it's not considered to be the best either.
Face ID has a false positive rate of 1 in 1,000,000. Is it perfect? Nope. But, it's currently the best biometric tech we have available.
Comments
1. Microsoft bought Kinect which was already developed by Primesense for Nintendo.
2. What Microsoft knockoffs does Apple develop?
If that's the case then my point is even more solidified! Then Apple bought NOTHING and got NOTHING from Microsoft!
Thanks!
Well, you had your opportunity to back up what you said and give your reasons for it.
What is clear now, is you really didn't have a valid counter to what I said at all, so my point stands.
If you don't think there's an element of copying or following in there, then take your glasses back to the opticians, the rose tint is affecting your reality.
2. English is not my main language, so the definition I saw for knockoff is "a copy or imitation of someone or something popular". Maybe FaceID could match that definition, and even the Apple TV, since they are trying to make it a gaming console as the Xbox, with a game subscription service as GamePass. Also Apple have other devices and services that could considered knockoffs of other companies. At the end, is that really important? I'm very happy with my Apple and MS devices and services, and really don't care if they are a knockoff of other companies. You should try to enjoy your devices, instead of looking if others are knockoff.
That was not me. I did mention that Apple has worked on battery tech before. That's it.
Yes because Apple "copied" the Kinect to develop FaceID. Not even sure how that's possible since Apple actually developed FaceID.
A knockoff is a copy of another item, made with the intentions of stealing marketshare from it's inventors. It's what companies like Samsung do. Samsung makes knockoffs of market leaders in every category they enter.
Calling a feature a "knockoff" is a stretch and (of course) only applies to Apple. Where a knockoff iPhone is a phone modeled after iPhone with all the same features except very little details like megapixel count, screw size and privacy. Kinect is a gaming camera and FaceID is a biometric sensor for iPhone. They're literally TWO different things. Calling FaceID a Kinect knockoff is freaking strange.
Apple has ZERO knockoff Microsoft products. No one bought an iPod thinking it was a Zune and no one buys an iPad thinking it's a Surface "iPad knockoff" as they say.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/jay-cutler-calls-microsoft-surface-tablets-knockoff-ipads/
You don't understand how it's possible for one company to copy another in "actually" developing a product? I'm not sure we're speaking the same language then. What do you think the word "actually" is doing there to make it an impossibility for Apple to be copying another product when developing their own version of it?
Microsoft actually developed the Zune, is it impossible that they copied the iPod?
Now, you gave in interesting example on iPhone knockoffs. You said that a knockoff is modeled after the iPhone with all the same features, except little details. So if apply that to the iPad and Surface, we could said that the iPad is a Surface Pro knockoff, and here is why. We have the Surface Pro 4 released in 2015 with a 12.3" screen (iPad Pro 12.9 was released in 2017) with Windows Hello (Face ID was released in the iPad in 2018), a keyboard + trackpad (Magic Keyboard was released in 2020) and the Pen for drawing and note taking (2 months before the Apple pencil was released). The Surface Pro also had multitasking in tablet mode since v1 in 2013 (Split View was part of iOS 9 in 2015) and support for multiples user profiles (Apple had this blocked only for schools in iOS 9 for 2016).
Maybe you didn't noticed that the iPad Pro 12.9" was a knockoff, since Apple added those feature while years passed by. But at the end, the iPad Pro we have in 2020 is what MS had in the Surface Pro 4 in 2015. So here you have your Apple knockoff, at least based in your definition and iPhone knockoff example. But I could be wrong...
Maybe this is important for you, but not for me. Personally I think that the iPad is the best tablet in the market, while the Surface Pro is the best 2-in-1 available. At the end, each of these devices have good and bad things, neither is perfect. I ask you again, does it really matters that the iPad is a Surface knockoff or viceversa?
BTW, this could also apply to the Apple TV, now that Apple is making it a gaming console as the Xbox with a copy of GamePass with Apple Arcade.
Moving up the line, a good fingerprint scanner like Touch ID has a false positive rate of 1 in 50,000. This is deemed acceptable by financial institutions for biometric security.
Next in line would be Windows Hello. Microsoft rates their false positives rate as 1 in 100,000. Their tech is apparently similar to Face Unlock accept it attempts to do iris scans, etc. Yes, security is good with Windows Hello, but it's not considered to be the best either.
Face ID has a false positive rate of 1 in 1,000,000. Is it perfect? Nope. But, it's currently the best biometric tech we have available.