pretty much.

As for the comment on Sony about the 3D glassless screen not so accurate. The guy speak about the Tech Sony was working at! it could be different to the one used by Microsoft.

Because  he uses lot of conditional for Kinect, actually seems he doesn't test the device, just speak about the own research of Sony and what he could have read about Kinect online.

What's with the hating on the guy. He says Kinect is superior, but the PSEye can fake it well enough to give people an equivalent experience:

""Kinect can sense the distance to an object whereas the [PlayStation] Eye ... we have to do vision algorithms to get that," he explained. "So something like Kung Fu Live, so that does background subtraction, so Kinect again gets that for free whereas with the Eye we have to do some algorithms. It's always more robust when you get it in the hardware but the reality is we can still do a lot of these features with just the Eye and if the users are happy with both then we're equivalent in that sense."

Different paths to a similar end is what he's saying from the camera perspective.

I think on the whole controller vs controllerless thing he's right about the precision of motion detection, which gives Move more scope to pick up and respond to subtle variations in movements and give different outputs depending on the desired sensitivity in the game. So in that regard it's better to have more information and not use it. It's a bit like the difference between the amount of information the Wii has to work with between Wiimote and Wiimotion plus.

Stupid frickin' slow responding browser making me click twice.

well im sure hes right lol.

Clearly, Sony knows more about Kinect and Wiimote than MS and Nintendo themselves.

Give them 5 years and they'll come out with Kinect (plus-ish).

Yes, we'll see, and the piece was obviously overstating possible problems with the tech. Anyway the point was that most other IR devices are led-based, but not laser based. As such the emitter uses a relatively big window of frequencies and the receiver picks them all and locks on the modulation: for an object to be "black" it would have to absorb all of them. Kinect uses a laser, so it's easier that a given material can be very "black" on its narrow frequency spread.

To give a few numbers, if NIR LEDs are similar to the visible light ones, they will have a wavelength width of about 30nm. To have a comparison, in the visible range that would shift you from orange to yellow or from green to blue-green: in other words it's a quite big change, and it's typical for dyes used in clothes to have a much narrower color selection. On the other hand a NIR diode laser has a spread of less than 1nm - in the visible spectrum you would probably not distinguish the colors - and while I have no expertise on spectroscopy of denim (here's a sentence I never expected to write :) ) it is thus more likely to be severely blocked.

All I seem to hear from Sony at the moment is why this tech is rubbish or why they thought it would not work yet here we are with Kinect working pretty well. I still think Kinect will suprise people once we get some out of the box thinking, the gaming forums are to stuck on the past seeing Kinect and motion controls in general as a threat.

In five years, the technology will probably be more mature, and so Sony will be looking at it again.

Its not magic how they work.. engineers all over the world know how they work.