FOWA 2009: Microsoft Surface 'proof of concept' actually pointless
Summary: The young whipper-snapper I spoke to, a computer science-studying university student at Nottingham Trent University, showed me a demonstration of the Surface table. I had seen it before and while I was initially impressed with the technology, we seemed to hit a defining moment when we both realised that the device was utterly useless.
The young whipper-snapper I spoke to, a computer science-studying university student at Nottingham Trent University, showed me a demonstration of the Surface table. I had seen it before and while I was initially impressed with the technology, we seemed to hit a defining moment when we both realised that the device was utterly useless.
The device itself is quite impressive, to the point where you gaze upon its innards and see the projector and the vast amount of cabling. But to be fair it is fairly simplistic for what I thought was a breakthrough device. For a camera, a few cables, a projector lamp and perhaps a few little bits and bobs here and there - as well as the outer casing which I believe was perspex - this device cannot justifiably cost $15,000.
This Microsoft intern, the student, like me yet nothing like me, seemed to be pushing his way desperately through the one-on-one talk we were having. He was showing me the feedback from the table and using interactive objects, which are essentially ordinary objects with a barcode on the underside. While I can see this as an interesting way to input data from an object to the device, it still has flaws and doesn't work every time. It stumbles on things it doesn't know or see properly
After a few interesting (and pushing) questions from myself, he threw in the educational factor on the defence. By claiming that schools can use the Surface device as a tool to engage with students, make and build applications and learn in the process, the Surface device is a perfect piece of kit for schools.
Wrong. As the same with universities and other educational establishments, if they can make it cheaper, then they will do. One of the games involved rearranging tiles with letters on to create a word. Local education authorities are not going to shell out the vast proportion of their IT budget on a single, damned glorified table which they could access the same learning process from using cut out card and pens.
When I told him this fact, he looked baffled and thrown away for a short time. His mind switched over to "PR Mode" and carried on discussing other points about the device. Nevertheless, after numerous blows to his ego and his knowledge and understanding, I saw in his eyes that he gave in to the journalistic pressure of an educational equal.
Not only did he admit that it was a mere proof of concept device, he couldn't honestly pick a genuine use for the Surface table. Regardless of this, a number of hotels and big corporations in the US have bought one for their receptions and waiting areas. But it is not for the small businesses, the educational sector where it is the taxpayer's money going into these "investments" or anyone else for that matter.
I could see the tears well up in this young gentleman's eyes as he realised the Iron Curtain of Microsoft falling down around him. I did, however, try and recover from crippling this young man's ego by telling him "the technology was impressive". But that's all I could really say without lying to him.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Grats on being closed minded
point argument is fair but doesn't negate the
number of possible uses of the surface device,
which frankly are only limited by imagination,
something that seems to be questionable for
you.
How do you define genuine uses? That sentence
in itself is unintelligible. It seems you wrote
this article more to express your dislike of an
individual than an assessment of the
technology.
Well, you didn't even try to name one possible use...
Hand-waving, pure and simple. And followed by a personal attack, too...
[i]How do you define genuine uses?[/i]
Something that fulfils a genuine need for the end-user, that could not be done just as well at a considerably reduced price using something else.
By all means, feel free to name as many such uses as you can imagine...
Honestly...
For example, I'd love to have this at a mall where I could easily pick the stores I want to shop at and it prints out a special color coded map that I could use to find these stores. You just can't do that with the existing mall map displays or map brochures. The benefit would be that I'd be a lot more like to use said mall.
But really the intern should have replied that it's the technology that it's important, not the device itself. A $15,000 50 pound device is just not all that compelling. But if they can take the technology, put it in a 10" tablet at $600, well that completely changes the equation.
Research isn't about building usable products (or at least it shouldn't be, that's what product teams are for), it should be able discovering what might be doable. I think this intern didn't get that message. That should have been the message you left him with, rather than that the Surface has no educational use. That's simply not all that interesting of a take away.
Zac is notorious for his accurate predictions
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...
Wow... was that an American bash?
It's not a mass-production ready device, ya wank
You logic is the same closed minded garbage that says there should not be pure research.
RE: FOWA 2009: Microsoft Surface 'proof of concept' actually pointless
he he he!
[/i]
a white board and an erasable marker would do the same thing for $10.
Unless you load Linux on it, nobody is going to creeate any relevant app for it.
Nobody writing relevant apps for Surface?
Mmm.. Then I wonder what I am doing all day. And my collegues. And people at a lot of other companies out there who spend their day writing usefull and well used Surface Apps.
And no: they didn't install Linux.
Can you explain why you made this remark and what you meant with it?
$15, 000 is a bit expensive for Pac-Man, ya think?
I can think of a few uses
Pay your bill at a restaurant. If they can get the top to be fairly scratch and spill proof (not sure how big of an "if" that is). Lay your credit card (or cards) on the table and it pays the bill for you, and lets you divide up the check. No more giving your credit card to a waiter/waitress. This is important, because a lot of card theft happens when the waitstaff swipe your card through a pocket card reader before using it to pay your bill.
Also, transfering files between devices like cell phones. Lay them both on the table, and they are instantly connected. No more messing with bluetooth.
Architecture - Buy one for your firm. Have customers come in and sit around the table. Show them all of the designs electronically. If there is close but not perfect, update it on the fly by moving things around with your hand. Get imput from multiple people at the same time with ease.
Clothing design - Same as architecture, but with clothes. Show designs, update on the fly.
Graphics design, music composition, the list goes on.
You're also missing the point though. Now, they're mostly just fiddling with the technology, as Microsoft always does. Wait until they release the Surface technology in their new, super secret tablet. I have a Dell touchscreen tablet now. The workflow is awesome. This technology will only make it better.
P0RN
Just sit back and watch what they do.
(Not that I would use their product...)
How?
RE: FOWA 2009: Microsoft Surface 'proof of concept' actually pointless
On the consumer level in the future if they could make it smaller, it could be wall mounted & used for home automation.
I initially thought it was just wasn't practical, but it can be for the business sector in some applications that I did not think of when first announced.
RE: FOWA 2009: Microsoft Surface 'proof of concept' actually pointless
At $15,000 per unit?
The device costs [i][b]$15,000[/b][/i], and individual Linux developers tend to write code for devices that they actually [i]have[/i].
It only costs that right now because it's proof of concept.
I remember our office way back, having a 16,000 dollar S-100 bus computer that you couldn't sell for a dollar now. The price argument is indeed just a red herring.
Or better methods of doing "touch" might make it obsolete?
Put it this way: do you think it might be possible to scale the iPhone panel up to Surface proportions for less than $15,000 [i]right now[/i]? Also: do you think that "touch" has more potential at the "pocket sized" end of the scale, or at the "furniture sized" end? Obviously, a technology that works at both ends of the scale would have the advantage there.
Surface is NOT touch
Besides that, the technology used in Surface allows for massive multi-touch applications (all applications on Surface should support up to at least 52 contacts at the same time: 4 people with 10 fingers each and a dozen physical objects on the table). Again, this is something the current touch systems aren't capable of doing.
Comparing apples and pears here.