danvm

auxio said:

cloudguy said:

And please, no nonsense comparisons between the iPhone and Blackberry. Blackberry was only around for a few years and never had anything but a tiny market share of exclusively professional users back in the 2G/beginning of the 3G era. Wintel has been dominant since 1995 - with Windows 3.X and DOS similarly dominant before then - and Windows 10 alone right now has an install base of over 1 billion. 

So basically what you're saying is that momentum is the only thing carrying Wintel at this point.  I'd argue that momentum can be a fickle thing.  Sure they've had it for 25 years, but that's only because computers are complex and people don't like to learn new things as long as something works.  Kinda like people sticking with one car manufacturer because their known car brand gets them from point A to B.  And computers are far more complex than cars, so people certainly don't want to give up what they've spent time learning.

That all being said, there's the next generation, and they've grown up on phones, not computers.  Which is why Apple is leveraging their experience with phones into tablets and now computers.  Microsoft has no such leverage with that generation other than Xbox.  Android has leverage, but Chromebooks have a long way to go before they could be used in the variety of ways Macs can be.

As an example, I used to be one of only a handful of people at my company who chose to work on a Mac.  Over the last 10 years, as people from my era left and new people joined, the number of people using Macs has grown to outnumber the people using PCs.

Beats said:

crowley said:

Beats said:

crowley said:

Beats said:

danvm said:

Beats said:

danvm said:

techconc said:

KITA said:

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.

danvm said:

Beats said:

danvm said:

techconc said:

KITA said:

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.

danvm said:

Beats said:

danvm said:

Beats said:

danvm said:

techconc said:

danvm said:

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.  

Just read the links I already posted , and you'll see the innovation in the MS implementation.  Also MS created a chip, HPU, that controls head-tracking cameras, the inertial measurement unit (IMU), and the infrared camera. 
Second version of HoloLens HPU will incorporate AI coprocessor for implementing DNNs - Microsoft Research
IMO, that very innovative too, don't you think?

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.

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/

techconc said:

danvm said:

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.  

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.

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!

Beats said:

danvm said:

techconc said:

KITA said:

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.

anantksundaram said:

But, of course...

Can someone name one original idea from Microsoft?