Microsoft's "Pseudo-Transparent" and Fold-Up PCs 94
waderoush writes "At the CHI 2009 conference, which wrapped up yesterday in Boston, Microsoft researchers showed off two radical prototypes that push the boundaries of user interfaces. One was a 'pseudo-transparent' iPhone-like device called nanoTouch, which has a trackpad on the back rather than a traditional touch screen and gives visual feedback in the form of a simulated image of the user's finger (the effect is like looking straight through the device). The other was a folding dual-screen device called Codex that can switch automatically between landscape, portrait, collaborative, or competitive modes depending on its 'posture' or orientation. If Microsoft doesn't build such devices itself, 'somebody else will, so it's really important to understand what the issues are,' said researcher Ken Hinckley."
Patents (Score:1, Insightful)
In other words, even if they don't have the inclination to develop products in this area, they'd like a slice of the pie if someone tries to later.
Re:Gorilla Arm for the 21st Century (Score:5, Insightful)
If this had an apple logo on it you'd be standing in line to buy one.
Will OEM's Bite???? (Score:1, Insightful)
Microsoft has a long history of aggressively promoting some scheme and then watching it fail and screwing the OEM's all at the same time.
Tablet PC's come to mind as a very expensive failure for OEM's. Another failure, PlaysForSure was a not-so-recent major FU to hardware manufacturers, branding businesses.
Why, when they've been repeatedly burned by Microsoft, will they invest in these non-new failures?
Re:Gorilla Arm for the 21st Century (Score:1, Insightful)
If this had an apple logo on it you'd be standing in line to buy one.
It's not very kind of you to assume he must be a mindless Apple fanboy because he offers constructive criticism. That is, I've seen no positive sign that this must be true of him and that there are no alternative explanations for why he feels the way he does. Despite that, the "Apple vs. Microsoft" tone of your comment did make me think of something.
This is actually innovative, in that it's something new despite the summary comment that "if we didn't build this, someone else will." So here we have an example of genuine innovation from Microsoft. I wonder if they realize that the only reason why they can do this is because there is no monopoly maintaining a stranglehold on small, portable PCs and smartphones. For comparison, just imagine trying to market a completely new, commercial, closed-source operating system and having to compete with Microsoft and Windows. I mention closed-source there so that this is a comparsion and not a contrast.
I wonder if the irony of one of the most successful monopolists having room to innovate because there is no sole monopoly in this new (to them) market is lost on the folks at Microsoft.
Re:Link to vid (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the vid [google.com] so you don't have to search for it. (Wish folks would link to a vid in TFS). Looks like Microsoft is actually starting to get serious about research, but I still don't know if this is all that compelling to be a breakthrough worth the effort of such a large corporation - they should be working on something bigger like Google or Apple, and coming out with major innovations every year or two (my opinion) But, I suppose it's a start. Best of luck to them, I think innovation is great and every company should do more of it.
I'm deliberately speaking in very general terms here. Incremental improvements are also a good thing, and in fact I would expect large behemoth corporations to try to "play it safe" by doing it this way instead of trying too many radically new things that might be a complete flop. It's really the smaller, more "nimble" corporations that seem to be more willing to go for the breakthroughs and radically new ideas, even though for them the success of such things can mean the difference between liquidity and bankruptcy.
The other comment by EvanED in this thread is spot on. I do not like Microsoft and I have plenty of solid reasons to criticise them. Having said that, their research division is one thing they got right. The kind of autonomy afforded them, combined with the immense cash reserves of a company like MS, has indeed produced some useful things. I only wish that the design and functionality of the operating system were similarly de-coupled from marketing, at least to a greater degree than the current arrangement.
Re:Gorilla Arm for the 21st Century (Score:3, Insightful)
Circle back to the previous paragraph where I mentioned the problems of using this device with one hand. Opposable thumbs allow humans to manipulate small keyboards and touchscreens efficiently with one hand while the device sits firmly in the palm. Which is an important aspect of small device operation.
The nanoTouch requires a less secure hold. One that would make one-handed operation difficult and may lead to the device getting dropped with alarming regularity.
Regular touchscreens can still provide the needed dexterity with two hands. Humans are quite adept at using the index finger in a precise manner and without nearly as much obstruction as the use of the thumb.
Re:Gorilla Arm for the 21st Century (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not very kind of you to assume he must be a mindless Apple fanboy because he offers constructive criticism.
It doesn't mean he's an Apple fanboy, it's that he's clearly an anti-Microsoft fanboy. The "Microsoft is never innovative and always copies somebody else" argument is a slashdot catechism which literally means he'd be happier if it came from another company (maybe not any other company, but another company). Apple is the only other company he explicitly called out by name as being innovative (he also mentioned Siftables, which I might humbly suggest are also difficult to operate one-handed on a subway in its current form). Then he creates a strawman assertion attributed to Microsoft and snarks at it. It's entirely laid out before us that he'd be happier with it being Apple than Microsoft. Which is fine, but there's no pretending it isn't happening.
Aside from that, it is a little ridiculous that Microsoft won't produce these because Microsoft isn't innovative seems to imply that these things...made by Microsoft...are innovative. The innovation already happened here, and thus the problem is bugfixes/polish, mass-producing, and marketing these things; or there is no innovation, in which case Microsoft shouldn't have a problem producing them. It's self-contradictory, or at least missing a step -- maybe it's really that Microsoft is innovative but is too risk-averse to give the go-ahead to innovative products.
The other criticisms are of varying quality -- one-handed subway use is fair criticism, the opposable thumbs one might be valid but I think it's worth investigating whether it just presupposes some things about UI design from experience with touch UI designed for thumbs, but the DS with accelerometers argument is a red herring because it's missing the obvious hinge sensors (which the article explicitly mentions).
That's not at all to say that I think these things are going to come to pass. I worry about whether it's really more intuitive to touch something from behind than to just pull out a pen (which is definitely less fun than direct-touch), especially with a simulated finger that may not behave quite like my own and very probably doesn't look much like my fingers. And as for the dual-screen thing, I just don't think that's the optimal direction to go in. I mean, the collaborative/competitive aspect could be cool, but I'd hope the direction we steer would allow two independent devices to operate kind of like that. I guess what I'm saying is I'd like it to work more like the Siftables the GP mentioned. See, I'm not completely down on him :).
Re:Gorilla Arm for the 21st Century (Score:3, Insightful)
NanoTouch? Can Microsoft at least come up with their OWN names for this thing? Why not iPhoneWannabe if they're going to be that blatant?