By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Squilliam on 19 March 2010
Edit Thread
steverhcp02 said:
Squilliam said:

I understand where you're coming from. If you're dealing with medicine you're coming from a very conservative point of view. You deal with peoples lives and the first rule of medicine is first do no harm. I can understand someone from your perspective wanting to see pure and absolute proof that it benefits a majority of people who use it. The difference here is the consumer angle. Consumers don't just buy things because in absolute terms its better than what they have at present, theres a whole range of reasons hell even novelty is a big one.

Could you look at things from a new perspective? The world is changing and the way people interface with technology is changing. The flat screen LCD/Plasma TVs are large screen TVs which are quickly replacing the old CRT style televisions in peoples homes. In consumer terms its a revolution and within another 5 years you'd likely find that the vast majority of people have migrated away from CRT after over 60 years of use.

There are two key elements to what Natal would bring as a TV interface. The first is allowing the TV to act as more than a conduit for televised content. The remote is a good weapon but its usefulness is limited to essentially changing the channel. With an interface like Natal you can use the TV to get different sources of content through the internet or through data stored on a home server. You can use it for voice over I.P. , Video conferencing etc in a way that is simple and easy enough for everyone to use. Natal can act as a compliment to capabilities an HDTV already possesses.

The second is the remote itself. My Bravia remote has 53 buttons. The interface is bursting at the seams with buttons. There are also now more than 100 channels so the average person has to remember the channel numbers for up to a couple dozen stations they wish to view. Further to that people can now watch TV in spaces where having a remote isn't practical, such as the kitchen and all these remotes are simply clutter and an annoyance people put up with. Not only are people confused by all the different buttons but navigation is moving beyond what is practical with the remote control. In this respect Natal is the automatic transmission of the TV world. Purists may have disdain for it, but eventually all TVs will shed the remote control as the interface.

So my remote cant navigate to different sources of content but a webcam can? How would videoconferencing be revolutionary? Is this not done already on all via built in webcams?

I can see saying "ESPN" might be convenient, but how many people watch 100 different channels that frequently? When people skim channels dont they use the interface via remote to scroll the guide? If i KNOW somethings on a certain channel i know what number that channel is, if i frequent a channel enough i dont need natal to find it for me.

Im not saying its cool, it is very much, but people are really lowering their bar for "revolutionary" I have yet to say Natal cant work, i have yet to say its bad, stupid or useless. I'm simply asking everyone one who has seen it behind closed doors who raves about it, yet never alaborates to maybe give us some meat and potatos. All of the ideas you and the other guy who insulted my life and education keep saying are cool niche things, not revolutions.

I can respect your skepticism and your point of view and I perfectly understand that you can see things the way you do. You hold a perfectly valid point of view.

Im not saying that Natal will be the revolution for TV / general purpose consumer interfaces, im saying that a revolution needs to happen and Natal could be or may not be the vector for it to happen.

For a large number of people the TV remote it is:

  • Slow to respond + latency to get and then use if not at hand.
  • Confusing
  • Clutter
  • Can only be used by one person at a time
  • Only useful in a seated position
  • Not good to be carried around and must be retrieved to be used
  • Difficult to use due to sight/arthritus issues (aging population)

Its a problem waiting for a solution essentially. Maybe Natal will solve all of the above, maybe it won't? But the remote is used because we haven't got a better interface to replace it with. S

Not everything is judged to the standard of a 20's or 30s something technically savvy individual with perfect sight and motor functions. I know a wide range of people who would benefit greatly from the Natal interface whether they are old, young, disabled, need glasses or simply lose the remote all the time. So Natal could revolutionise the way they use their TVs but only if it works. So if you believe that its going to work as advertised then in a way you're already believing in its revolutionary properties.



Tease.