Burned by Kinect's Fizzle, Microsoft Is Taking Its Time With HoloLens

"If a consumer bought it today, they would have 12 things to do with it," said Alex Kipman, creator of the augmented reality glasses.

[Herbalistic]

Kinect died out soon as the casual crowd moved on to tablets and smart phones. I doubt Hololens is going to take off within gaming due to price and lack of appealing software.I'm sure the device could find successful in other areas outside of gaming though.

[2cents]

I agree.
I'm a day one purchaser... But for Maya modeling, not gaming.

[kazuma56]

Kinect died because Microsoft launched the xbox one without any ambitious kinect2 games to show the way and promote it . Maybe they naively thinks cotrolling xbox one with kinect will be enough? They completly failed the launch, that's the reality, it has nothing to do with casuals moving on smartphones. I'm a hardcore gamer and i really liked to have a good time with family and friends on kinect games. A smartphone game will never replace a kinect game. It's completly different.

it's a shame the way they abandoned Kinect 2 so quickly. Phil Spencer has completely destroyed one of the most interesting features of the Xbox One. Even the new interface denied Kinect (gestures gone)

[troylazlow]

you could say the same thing about VR, Time will tell on both I suppose

[rainslacker]

I think until it gets to a mainstream consumer price it will have neither strong developer support, or enough people lined up to buy it to make that developer support worthwhile.

MS taking their time is a given, since the tech costs too much for the mainstream consumer. Even the most die-hard Xbox fan would have trouble justify buying one with limited support, and with a price tag at least twice as much as the console, and to date, they are the only ones who have really hyped it up to epic proportions.

it's an interesting tech, and has loads of potential, but that potential won't come as fast as VR will, because VR is an extension of what we already know presented in a different way, whereas AR with halolens requires new game play designs to take full advantage of. Things like the minecraft demo, while cool, still doesn't make the price worth it, and while MC is popular, I doubt it's going to push hardware sales alone.

Lots of work to be done for Halolens for the future, and if MS is dedicated to it for the long haul...unlike Google with Google glass...then it could one day be a game changer.

[Zeref]

That is the purpose of this device in the first place. They repeatedly said that It's focus is not gaming. It's business first gaming second maybe third.
This is not an answer to oculus or psvr

[Godmars290]

Kinect failed because it was rushed out and presented to the public before it was ready. Before MS knew how to present it much less with conformation that it worked.

In that regard they've all ready messed up: Hololens has already been shown off.

[Dark_Crow]

It was shown once.
And it was interesting.

I do hope they advance the tech to the point you dont have to wear a helmet or huge visor.

[Godmars290]

Its been shown two or three times. Under conditions where its performance was enhanced.

Nothing close to overly staged Kinect events, the Star Wars demo where it was clear everything was prerecorded much less anything like Milo, but Hololens was still demoed at a point where nothing has been finalized.

But the worst of it is fan overreaction to this hype.

[zackdollars]

It would have been far better if MS spent Kinect money on the Xbox One hardware (better CPU/GPU). Kinect almost killed Xbox One.

[dcbronco]

Kinect has nothing to do with the GPU Microsoft chose. The CPU in Xbox One is the same as the one in PS4. Its actually running at a faster clock speed so CPU is eliminated from your equation. The parts for Kinect 2 were actually less than the $100 extra Xbox One cost at launch so Kinect actually added more money to add a better GPU.

Microsoft chose the GPU they did as well as DDR3 memory for cost purposes over the lifespan of the generation. Because of DDR4 RAM is much cheaper for Microsoft than it is for Sony. HBM will bring cost down for GDDR5 eventually, but that won't be for years. By the time it does new consoles will launch and HBM will be cheaper, DDR5 will be dead.

For the GPU Microsoft chose a older, cheaper part because they knew they could make up most of the difference through engineering. For the 50% more power the PS4 GPU has it doesn't show in the games. Despite all of the "complaining", the minor differences are all the 50% got Sony. And a year from now both consoles will be less powerful than $300 mainstream PCs. When AMD launches its Zen based APUs in 2017 a basic everyday notebook will have three times the power of these consoles.

[donthate]

That isn't entirely correct. MS choose the current design, because of a key decision years back to have 8GB of RAM.

Back then nobody knew what 8GB GDDR5 modules would cost, or even be available. So MS had to decide if more RAM was more important or higher bandwidth.

That was the same decision MS did with the Xbox 360, which they chose lower bandwidth and higher amount of 512 MB unified memory which worked out for them.

Sony on the other hand bet on 4 GB of GDDR5 RAM on PS4, and it just so happens they were able to get 8 GB modules at a reasonable price in large enough quantities so they won out on that bet.

What people don't realize is what would have happened if Sony's bet failed? You would have received a 4GB RAM PS4, which would severely hampered PS4's functionality considering more than 3 GB of RAM is used for system purposes today!

Think about that for a second!

[dcbronco]

It wasn't about what the price was as much as it was where prices were going. Everyone knew DDR4 was coming early in the lifecycle of the current generation and knew it would make DDR3 prices drop quickly. HBM was further on and expected to be very expensive. Microsoft decided correctly that they could make up most of the PS4 advantage from more expensive parts through engineering. They did, there is clearly no 50% advantage for PS4. Expensive HBM has kept GDDR5 the main memory option and HBM won't trickle down to the low end for a couple of years and since HBM is a break from GDDR makers need to keep revenue high enough to make a better successor than X. So while Sony has the higher cost memory and GPU they will only see major savings on the GPU. Microsoft will see big reductions in cost on a already cheaper GPU and will get the benefit of fast dropping DDR prices. Microsoft guessed right on both parts. Especially since we haven't seen what Xbox One will do with games made for DX12. Secret sauce arguments aside, even if One's API already has most of the DX12 advantages, it has never had any games actually running on the proper API for the console. Asynchronous compute brings huge efficiency to the GPU alone so there will be a boost. If that makes all of the 900p games hit 1000p it makes Microsoft's decisions on parts look that much smarter.

[Godmars290]

"What people don't realize is what would have happened if Sony's bet failed?"

The thing is MS's bet involving making Kinect an integrated part of the X1 failed to the point that you felt the need to make two posts trying to describe both how there wasn't any difference and it was only Sony's game to lose.

MS are the ones who flubbed, they're making up for it, stop trying to say that Sony's on equal footing.

[dcbronco]

Mars look above. Put reply in the wrong place.

[Zeref]

Exactly. I have yet to see a single that actually perform 50% better than the Xbox One version. And to add. Quantum Break is the most beautiful game we've seen this gen. How ironic that its on Xbox One. not to say it wouldn't perform better on PS4 but still ironic..

[dcbronco]

Hey Mars, I'm assuming you were referring to me since I'm the only one that posted twice so ill respond. First if you were, the line you quoted wasn't by me. Second I didn't read anywhere in that section of the conversation where anyone was trying to put Microsoft and Sony on the same footing when it comes to Kinect. But if someone was to think about it there actually is no difference whatsoever in their positioning on motion control.

Microsoft added Kinect for more money, yes that hurt them. But they simply removed it and now they are on equal footing on price. Is price what caused Sony to sell more consoles, no. What did? Who really knows. Sony has said they have no idea.

So based on the first post in the conversation you didn't even comprehend what was being talked about. The first poster said Microsoft should have taken money spent on Kinect and bought a better CPU and GPU. And I guess still charged $500. The reality is Kinect's cost had nothing to do with the components inside the console because the extra $100 bundle cost covered the price of Kinect with about $25 to spare. So your comment actually makes no sense in regard to the rest of the conversation. Microsoft's forced bundle is a different conversation. But on that mistake I can't argue with you.

[dcbronco]

Kinect fizzles because Microsoft needs to do what they have done with tablets. Most have forgotten or just never knew it was Microsoft who initiated the modern tablet era we are in now. They pushed it with their Project Origami videos. Then recently they saved it from being a race to the bottom, and away from Windows, with Surface Pro. There are ways of making Kinect useful to hardcore gamers. Microsoft just needs to take the lead on it. Or finance others to.

[Godmars290]

If anyone forgot what MS did for tablets its because other companies did it better. Apple and Android developers working on making something small and portable where MS had Surface as a counter-sized interface.

And from above no, didn't comment in the wrong place, just didn't bother to note who made the comment I quoted from. Donthate's comment which has no replay option.

To exemplify: "Microsoft added Kinect for more money, yes that hurt them."

No. Where Kinect was an add-on for the 360, it was meant to be an integral part of the X1. It would have had to be used just as the console required to be online at all times - with very limited exception - and MS dedicated a good part of the X1's OS and hardware into servicing that dependency. They had planned to make money off X1 owners via advertisers and other companies through that dependency. Which is why they did what they did before Kinect was proven.

Then the DRM backlash happened. Online had to be removed which made keeping Kinect integral pointless, but the built in dependency remained. At least until MS compensated but the effect, which includes their choice in hardware, remains.

Edit:
May as well be talking about MS sticking with DVD for the 360 only to compensate for that choice throughout that console's life.

[dcbronco]

Its obvious you don't know what project origami was. It wasn't a product, it was a concept of Microsoft's vision for tablets. Its what they wanted OEMs to do. And it worked. Tablets are everywhere now.

Surface is exactly what its supposed to be. Maybe you've never heard of iPad Pro but it exist because Microsoft made Surface Pro as a reference machine to get OEMs to do better design for Enterprise applications. Again, that worked because now even Apple has a Pro line. Plus you definitely don't understand what Pro is because it fits the needs of the market its aim at. Dell, HP and Apple are all making large and light laptop replacement tablets.

Even with the Kinect resource allotment the One OS is smaller than the PS4 OS is now. But again you are missing the point of the initial comments. Money spent on Kinect as hardware had no influence on what was and wasn't spent on One hardware. Kinect was sold at a profit, One was also or broke even and was designed with price reduction over the lifetime of the generation in mind. They knew they could make up for a 50% less powerful GPU with smart engineering. Again, since there isn't a 50% difference in fps or resolution, mission accomplished.

Blu-ray? Really? Bluray and the Cell processor are two of the main reasons Sony is currently a much smaller company. Let's apply the other guys argument where it really fits though.

If Sony goes with a PowerPC or x86 CPU and stuck with DVD where would Sony be today. And Microsoft. If Sony had done that they would have saved the billion they spent on developing those two things. They could have kept their lead in gaming and launched with Xbox 360(bluray delayed PS3) at $400. They could have kept their deal with Samsung and would still be the leader in televisions. They wouldn't have spent an additional billion or so paying off movie studios for bluray support. They would still have a 100 billion dollar market cap. Ken Kutaragi would still be running PlayStation. They would still own their offices. Sony would have made ten billion or more in profits over the last ten years instead of losing over ten billion.

Plus bluray remains a niche product and has been surpassed by streaming. Which is exactly what I predicted.

[rainslacker]

Think the credit for the modern tablet should be given to Palm or Apple(pre-iDevice). They were out several years before MS announced a product. Nokia had a full tablet PC in the works before MS released, although MS beat them to market. Several years before MS entered the market, both Grid and AT&T both released tablet computers. This was all between 1994-2000.

Project Oragmi was more a laptop computer in a tablet style, and was released in 2006, beginning development in 2004. Apple's iPhone was released in 2007 and began development in 2004, two years before Oragami released. Apple knew about the collaboration between MS and a couple other companies, and they went the route of putting the tablet into a phone, which was more practical to more people, which is why they became so popular.

It could be possible you are thinking of the MS tablet PC, which was first demonstrated in 2001, which was the first tablet I'm aware of that ran a full OS kernel(Windows XP tablet edition). However, it was more a robust version of what was already available before it, but did allow multiple apps to run at the same time. It's not what I'd consider the precursor to modern tablet computing, rather a more capable PDA, which was flawed in execution for being what it was.

I believe in giving credit where it's due, but MS has had a rocky place in the mobile market from the beginning. They gained some success with Surface, and even some respect with Windows Phone, but they seem to be backing away from the hardware production of that, and their OS isn't desired for such purposes as Apple or Google despite being perfectly capable and a fine OS for the most part. They've come and gone in the mobile market, because they can't seem to be able to make it work for them, but most indicators seem to be pointing at them going more the route of being an OS provider for mobile rather than innovating in the areas of hardware....which is probably best for them since they excel at such things when looked at objectively.

[Godmars290]

"Its what they wanted OEMs to do. And it worked. Tablets are everywhere now."

Only MS is a second rate player in the tablet market. Like consoles, are sustained by revenue from elsewhere as they try and force their presence.

"But again you are missing the point of the initial comments. Kinect was sold at a profit,"

Kinect didn't work. Rather it never worked as advertised. Likewise talk all about how there's no real difference between the X1 and PS4 or how Kinect didn't effect performance, yet MS reduced Kinect's footprint on the system to free up resources. And still the X1 comes under fire for lower graphical performance.

"Blu-ray? Really? Bluray and the Cell processor are two of the main reasons Sony is currently a much smaller company."

The 7th console generation was a mess. Should have happened at least a year later than it did, but instead was rushed into. Sony was thinking physical media as HD became a thing, MS wanted digital. That's why HD-DVD vs BR happened. Its also why MS said the 360 didn't need an HD format, so they could get it out a year earlier, yet put out an HD-DVD add-on for the console then made several major changes to it in order to compensate for staying with DVD. Nevermind the failures in testing which caused issues.

[Zeref]

Exactly. Kinect is great technology. They just need to actually make good use of it.

[zerocarnage]

Kinect and PlayStation move, prooved that gamers just don't want to exercise, get off there butts and move, this is why I think vr will be nothing more than a posh extension of these, it offers more yes but really I can't see it as being ground breaking on any platform in terms of popularity, though it is ground breaking in a new era of gaming the price is astonishingly high. The novelty will where off and gameers will be back to controllers and mouses just like the whole PlayStation/Kinect fiasco..