By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - "Microsofts creative destruction" + Microsofts response.

DM235 on 08 February 2010
selnor said:
DM235 said:
Twistedpixel said:

Another point worth addressing is Dick’s assertion that Xbox is “at best an equal contender in the game console business.” Fact is, Xbox 360 was the first high-definition console. It was the first to digitally deliver games, music, TV shows and movies in 1080p high definition. The first to bring Facebook and Twitter to the living room. And with Project Natal for Xbox 360 launching this year, it will be the first to deliver controller-free experiences that anyone can enjoy—a magical experience for everyone that Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, and Time magazine each named one of the top inventions of 2009.

 

Some minor errors in the statement above.  Marvel: Ultimate Alliance was 1920x1080 on the PS3 (released on Nov 17, 2006), while the XBox 360's first 1920x1080 game was NBA Street Home Court (released February 19, 2007).  So even though 1080p was available on the 360 in October 2006, about one month before the PS3, this resolution was only available by upscaling current games. 

People have had PCs hooked up to their living room TVs before 2006, and even the PS3 with its internet browser brought Twitter and Facebook to the living room before the 360.

PS2's EyeToy had controller free gaming in 2003, 7 years before Natal.

You mistake the comment. Notice he says it's the first to 'Digitally' deliver games, music, TV shows AND movies in 1080p. 360 was first to do 1080p for all of these together. So no errors.

Internet browser for PS3 is nothing like Facebook for 360. 360 Facebook works perfectly with a controller. PS3 facebook is like combing your hair with a lawnmower.

Eyetoy is not controller free entertainment. If it was the wand would not exist. Eyetoy cannot be used for realtime movement in 3d. It's all predetermined paths with Eyetoy. It's clever but flawed tech for stuff that Natal is able to do. So yes Natal is TRUE controller free gaming. 

To me, that statement would imply that they would have been first in each of those categories, and not the first to offer that bundle.  However I admint that it can be open to interpretation.

Whether Facebook works "perfectly" with a controller is not the point.  The PS3 brought Twitter and Facebook to the living room (along with YouTube, web mail and the rest of the internet) before the 360.  And the PS3 lets you use a keyboard, which is better than a controller for inputting text.

The wand/arc is just another evolution in controllers, as is Natal.  If Natal does it better/differently, that's great.  But it's not the first.  They EyeToy has it beaten by 7 years.  Take a look at EyeToy games like Anitgrav or Sega SuperStars.



Around the Network
DM235 on 08 February 2010
ruff_romeo said:
DM235 said:
Twistedpixel said:

Another point worth addressing is Dick’s assertion that Xbox is “at best an equal contender in the game console business.” Fact is, Xbox 360 was the first high-definition console. It was the first to digitally deliver games, music, TV shows and movies in 1080p high definition. The first to bring Facebook and Twitter to the living room. And with Project Natal for Xbox 360 launching this year, it will be the first to deliver controller-free experiences that anyone can enjoy—a magical experience for everyone that Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, and Time magazine each named one of the top inventions of 2009.

 

Some minor errors in the statement above.  Marvel: Ultimate Alliance was 1920x1080 on the PS3 (released on Nov 17, 2006), while the XBox 360's first 1920x1080 game was NBA Street Home Court (released February 19, 2007).  So even though 1080p was available on the 360 in October 2006, about one month before the PS3, this resolution was only available by upscaling current games. 

People have had PCs hooked up to their living room TVs before 2006, and even the PS3 with its internet browser brought Twitter and Facebook to the living room before the 360.

PS2's EyeToy had controller free gaming in 2003, 7 years before Natal.

running Twitter, Facebook, or any other services via a browser will never count as a dedicated service nor a service to gloat about. I'm sorry it just doesnt work that way. When the iPhone was first released, it was never really praised for its integrated Safari browser, it was praised for the APP store and the apps that was available to the public. NOBODY uses Facebook via the Safari browser, its all done straight through the app. As far as I'm concerned accessing an online service via a browser, isnt something to state, "yeah we were the console to have it first." Yeah tell the world its got a browser, but its given to access any online content, so its not the same thing as a dedicated app. Almost everything has an integrated browser, even dated phones, I didnt hear any of them get praised for accessing an online social service via its browser? No I didnt think so! It just doesnt make any sense whatsoever to say we have Facebook and Twitter, when its all done via the browser! Here's an example, SKY on the Xbox 360 isnt the same as SKY via the browser on the PS3 or the Wii or the PC or the Mac or the public phone booths with browsers.

Everything today is pretty much application orientated, all the new phones, tablets, etc are pushing apps! Using a browser isnt what you call a dedicated service.

With regards to the EyeToy comment, ridiculous as it sounds, the EyeToy isn't the same thing as Project Natal, it doesnt even come in the same vicinity as project Natal. I tell you what the EyeToy is equivalent to, is the Xbox 360 Live Vision Camera. You cant compare the Live camera to Project Natal, like you can only be insane to compare the unsophisticated tech that the Eyetoy possesses! Just because you can dance around in front of the camera, without a controller, doesnt mean its the same as Natal, doesnt make any sense, lol. Great for 7 years ago, good starting point, but not even close to the same thing that Natal offers, its that simple!


Actually the iPhone's Safari browser was praised for not being crippled like most phone browsers.

And again, the point of the article is not how it was done, but who was first.

You are also a little quick to judge on how good Natal supposedly is, when it is not released yet.  And what does Natal offer other than dancing silly infront of a camera?



FaRmLaNd on 08 February 2010

I ask the question.

Why would microsoft want a dedicated browser on their 360?

Not only would it make their console more vulnerable to virus's, hackers etc (which would damage further their reputation for security) it would also limit the control they have over the xbox live service.

The whole point of them running the dedicated services is so they can control the platform, make deals with targeted companies, have better marketing choices when adding new web fuctionality etc and decide what is and isn't on their platform.

It may in someways inconvenience the user however for Microsoft its worth the sacrifice from a business perspective.



gamesadict on 08 February 2010
DM235 said:

And again, the point of the article is not how it was done, but who was first.

Huh, indeed.

And Dick Brass' article was a great read, but I had no idea about that kind of internal sabotages, that's messed up.



That's right, just one "d"

In b4 "it's addict"
-----------------------------------------------
Add me:


slowburn on 08 February 2010

Umm . . . if you are aware of any innovative tech that has been introduced or released in the last decade by Microsoft please list below:

Thats what I thought, you are only aware of the shiny picture that tells you what to think.



Fuck... I'm dead!

Around the Network
ChichiriMuyo on 09 February 2010
gamesadict said:
DM235 said:

And again, the point of the article is not how it was done, but who was first.

Huh, indeed.

And Dick Brass' article was a great read, but I had no idea about that kind of internal sabotages, that's messed up.

That's quite literally the nature of bureaucracies.  Government agencies do it to eachother all of the time, too.  Interservice rivalry has even led to missions being blown before (at least for the US and its multiple branches).  The nation's security is trivial compared to the prestige of the agency you work for, and the company's profit margin is trivial compared to the prominance of your division.



You do not have the right to never be offended.

WereKitten on 09 February 2010
JaggedSac said:
WereKitten said:

Indeed, they were the first to propose the concept of the async requests. And that led them to develop a rich showcase of never-possible-before web applications taking advantage of it, and wooing the world of web developers... oh, wait, that was gmail and Google maps :) But they updated their browser to optimize its use in complex JS... woops, in the JS race among v8/squirrelfish/tangerine IE is basically sitting on the bench :)

Seriously, AJAX is an example of what I meant when I said that they clearly have people coming up with great ideas, but they often seem unable to dogfood and bring them all the way through to the next steps.

Google/Apple/Mozilla were the real force in pushing AJAX and more generally heavy-duty webapps: they optimized the relative JS engines, designed APIs, proposed new open standards. Google and others created some amazing, rich content. Meanwhile the original XMLHttp object was left aging in the ghetto of ActiveX, probably because by then MS' focus was shifting to Silverlight and they were aiming their guns at Flash.

(Ironically today the future looks brighter for HTML5+JS+canvas/SVG+new file APIs+new persistence layer APIs than for Flash. I wonder how long will it take for IE to catch up, and how will the Windows Phone 7 devices cope with it...)

Either way, AJAX is a MS innovation that other companies took and enhanced.

And MS added the XMLHttpRequest object to its IE scripting library soon after the initial draft specification for a standard was made.  It wasn't left in ActiveX.  This is a MS innovation that was standardized.  How the standard was used afterwards has nothing to do with MS.

And you do realized that before GMail, there was Outlook Web Access right?  Only people needing offsite access to their coorporation's Exchange servers needed use it.  Much like most of MS's software, it was aimed at business usage and not the populous.

The timeline: MS added it to IE5 as an ActiveX call for the Outlook Web project, it was then implemented in Gecko as a native JS object in 2001-2002 with a similar interface and later in Opera and Safari. We're talking 1999 to 2004. Thus since 1999 MS had quite some time to develop amazing AJAX applications and to build around the concept. They didn't. Gmail and Google maps went public about 2004 (after adoption in Gecko and Safari of XMLHttpRequest had made it a de facto standard) and AJAX' sails really unfurled. Meanwhile MS had left IE rotting at version 6 and the XMLHttpRequest was still a wrapper around the ActiveX call. Only in 2006 the W3C has drafted a formal standard specification, and MS has added a native implementation in IE7+ alongside the ActiveX one.

My point was that it's not that important to just come up with something, you have to finalize it, incorporate it into your overall strategy and push it - that was the big deal with the ClearType example in the OP. Not that there's no creative spark, but that the spark is smothered by the company processes.

I can't for the life of me remember who first introduced smartphones with touch screens or who first experimented with multitouch on a mass device. We all know who made it a hit, who pushed it into the lives of people as a genuinely useful, integrated, and pleasant experience.

 

 



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman