Microsoft Plans VR Simulation of Everything?

Ian Lamont writes "Microsoft recently updated ESP, a virtual reality modeling platform that until now has primarily been used to model aircraft and flight simulations. Microsoft has plans to expand it to other industries such as real estate and urban planning, but one of the most interesting possibilities could be what one observer refers to as a 'simulation of everything,' based on Virtual Earth and perhaps even user-generated content. Indeed, Microsoft's research chief has been promoting the idea of commerce applications and other tools built on top of what he calls the 'Spatial Web', a blend of 3D, video, and location-aware technologies. He gave an example of a shopkeeper creating 3D models of his store's interior and goods with Photosynth and then uploading the results into a large 3D model of local shopping district. Customers could 'visit' the area, browse products, and order them for real-world delivery."

Comments

I've never understood this sort of thing

[fiordhraoi]

Is it really easier or more desirable to "virtually browse" store shelves than to browse a web page? It seems to me to be a clunky, uninspired way to interact in a digital environment.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[lxs]

Did you really think that Microsoft Bob could be killed that easily?

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[TheRealMindChild]

It is, but lets be honest. The point of these "virtual world" interfaces is so that an unfamiliar person can use skills they already know to use the computer. When a 65 year old lady tries to use a computer for the first time, it can be strange and overwhelming. If she was able to see and interact with the system in a paradigm that she is already knows how to deal with, the anxiety and reluctance will come way down.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Onaga]

Maybe. For people with arachnophobia, researchers were able to help them by having them virtually approach a large spider and eventually "touch" it. link

Another example I can think of is shopping for curtains or rugs. It would be nice to be able to jump into a virtual room with whatever curtains you are thinking of to see how it would look.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me to be a clunky, uninspired way to interact in a digital environment.

Only because the input devices are limited and limiting. A mouse and a keyboard are a terrible way to browse 3D environments, FPS notwithstanding.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[hey!]

Well, yeah. A lot of early attempts to make user interfaces better were based on modeling a literal desktop with things like file cabinets underneath and rolodexes and phones on top. They had limited short term success. In the long term the one that was successful was a "desktop" on which you put "windows" (stretchy ones at that) through which you viewed infinitely expandable sheets of paper. So go figure. You want computers to make things that are hard to do in the real world easy, and usually this means changing the rules.

However, one BIG application of VR that has only really begun to get developed is enhancing users' interactions with the real world. GPS units are a good example of this. You take them out into the world to see where you are. The ability to call up a Google street view on an Android phone is more than a curiosity. It tells you other things, like what street number you are at; it makes it possible to see around the corner without actually going around the corner.

I think form factor has been the limiting factor in this obvious application of VR. For example, really good heads up projection glasses would make it possible to superimpose information and models on real world objects. You could outline the parts of a copy machine and animate the process of clearing a paper jam at "C".

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Anonymous Coward]

So you want to make sure the carpet matches the curtains?

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[popeye44]

While I agree that it might not be so in a Store for say groceries.

When I was shopping a house being able to virtually see many models ruled quite a few out and saved us time visiting new neighborhoods only to be disappointed.

I also think it's probably going to be good for certain types of shopping. Certainly Street view "google" and Bird's eye "from ms" has made it easier for me to learn my new neighborhoods and to locate businesses that are in those industrial type areas.

I believe it's all a matter of depth as well. Probably one of my biggest bitches with net shopping are shitty photos and lack of size relation. It's hard to picture in your mind the size of something in a 4inch photo. Let me see how it sits next to X type item or device. Let me re-arrange or take photo A to photo B and automatically place it how it would be placed if I bought both. All these things VR may be able to do.

So yes current web shopping is ok and quick for most things. But I think VR could help a lot of items.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[fiordhraoi]

Input isn't necessarily a factor though.

Imagine, for a moment, we had true direct neural interface control of a full-3D "camera" and say a keyboard's worth of virtual "keys." (I'm using this as an example, because it is theoretically within our short-term technological capabilities, as opposed to having to make a program that understands everything we "think" and then interprets those commands).

I could use this technology to create a duplicate of the real world where I walk down an aisle and browse goods, see them on shelves, etc. Or I could use it to create a more streamlined version, where I display options and selections in a way that is impossible in physical space, allowing me to sort, select, filter, and save selections in a way I cannot in real life. Certainly, there are niche applications where being able to look at an item is valuable - someone a couple comments over mentioned curtains. But that doesn't necessarily have to be integrated into a "walk around the store" environment. Those features should appear integrated into a more streamlined process. There are quite a few websites that give you a "3D view" of products nowadays. Assuming VR technology becomes commonplace, I'm sure such things will exist in any digital marketplace.

I think the thing to remember is that simulating reality is useful in instances where we want to train people to interact with reality. VR for better flight sims, combat training, medical procedures, and so on could be incredibly valuable once we have the I/O and realism to reasonably simulate them. But shopping is an area that benefits more from shucking the trappings of reality than it does from emulating them. Why spend thirty seconds scanning the shelves for the item you want, when you can instead just input the name or category and have the available options presented to you?

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Ravon Rodriguez]

You apparently slashdotted this Youtube video. Bravo.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[ConceptJunkie]

We went through all this with VRML in the late 90s. It was a joke then, and it's a joke now, even if the current technology won't look so utterly hideous (remember how VRML looked like state-of-the-art 3D from around 1991?).

Nevertheless, like many of Microsoft's ideas which sometimes seem pointless, it's worth pursuing because you never know what it might inspire, or what bizarre idea might take root and become the next Killer App. If anyone knew what would be the New Big Thing, they'd already be building it.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Anonymous Coward]

But, by the time this technology is ready for use by "65 year old ladies", the target audience will be mostly computer literate. The ones that would find this useful will be...er...gone.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[BornAgainSlakr]

Not at all. Metaphors only go so far and then you start running into the limitations of the hardware used to interface with the visuals.

For instance, making a virtual store sounds good and might seem familiar to your hypothetical 65 year-old. However, this person did not grow up using a keyboard and mouse to walk through stores. So, the metaphor breaks down very quickly when you have to start implementing controls for navigation through this world. Ultimately, the experience will be more inefficient and frustrating than if the person just went to a real store.

Further, you are only modeling one aspect of the experience: walking through the store. You are not using a "walk out front door, get in car, put key in ignition, drive to store" metaphor to model how to get to that virtual store.

If this hypothetical person is able to start his/her computer, start a web browser, and navigate to the virtual store page, then it is very likely that he/she is also able to understand how to use a web page like Amazon to find products to buy. Therefore, the effort to model the virtual world is moot unless all you want is eye candy that makes the whole experience incredibly inefficient.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[brunes69]

I for one would love to "superimpose models on real world objects.".

I can think of many times I would rather be looking at a model than what I am actually looking at...

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[jmyers]

Computers are not reality and people to not relate to them that way. New users will relate a computer to a book where you have a table of contents and an index more that they will relate to some VR interface that tries to look like a real store.

A huge benefit of shopping one line is the ability to search and find exactly what you want. Store owners hate this, they want you to browse through tons of crap and impulsively buy stuff you see.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[ivucica]

Hm, although I would personally never use this, I can imagine some people actually being happy to use MS Bob. But, I never saw it in action, and who knows what kind of bugs it had, so that may be why it's hated so much.

Looks pretty friendly and "tutorialy" to me ... and people mostly like tutorials.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[divisionbyzero]

I totally agree. It's almost as if people forget that some of the efficiency attained by using computers is attained via abstraction. It's the same problem with "3D" desktop/web UIs. The desktop level of abstraction is exactly right for the kind of work most of us do with computers. Now, if there were a type of work that could be made more efficient via a 3D UI, then go for it, but that seems to be a very small percentage of work being done with a computer.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[hey!]

That only shows the importance of agile methods. One aims for the success that is within immediate reach, and so over time increases the range of one's grasp.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[theJML]

Or the Upholstery.... http://www.xkcd.com/508/

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[maxume]

Abstractions leak. All of them.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[hedwards]

I think I messed around with it a bit, and it wasn't really that bad. The main problem with it was that it was more like one of those middle aged adventure games, like some of the later Sierra ones. Click on the item to do that task, I get the feeling that people were somewhat disinterested in solving the puzzle every time they wanted to open a program.

The only reason I'm not sure about trying is, that I might have been using an MS adventure game. :/

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Gilmoure]

I don't get interior design.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[interploy]

One can only hope it's old ladies shopping. When I read "simulations of everything" and "user-generated content" I immediately thought of the time I first discovered "Furry Island" in Second Life. The horror...

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Jorophose]

Further, you are only modeling one aspect of the experience: walking through the store. You are not using a "walk out front door, get in car, put key in ignition, drive to store" metaphor to model how to get to that virtual store.

Hey, that actually sounds like fun.

Animal Crossing slashed with a GTA-esque driving sim, and you drive to destinations as in that Simpsons donut-CD game (virtual springfield??). Bundle it with a steering wheel... Or the Wii Wheel and a WiiMote! Too bad Nintendo might not like you doing that, but assuming the Wii is decentralised by design it should be easy to develop for the Wii instead.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[hedwards]

That's a solid point, realty is one area, but also education would benefit a lot from it. One loses a lot in the translation from 3d to 2d. Imagine being able to show a class roughly what the differences between a tropical, sub tropical and temperate rainforests are by looking around a bit.

But for most purposes the ability to spin a 3d object around to see what it looks like from the point of view that's interesting to the end user is both easier and more useful.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if they put real people in as online avatars for store clerks, it might actually be usefull...

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of ways this is useful. For example, the shopkeeper doesn't even have to do anything. Someone(I'm guessing google, but MS could do it as well) walks in with a camera and asks the shopkeep to take some pictures so the shop can be constructed virtually online.

Said pictures are run through product recognition software, so we have a good idea of each product in the store.

Then, when you search for X brand of cereal within 3 blocks of your apartment(you lazy arse) up pops the image from the shop.

There are infinite possibilities for something like this. You all need to stop being so small minded.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[lxs]

The one thing I liked in the video was "Onward!" instead of the boring old "Continue" on one of the buttons of the letter writing wizard. I think that would be a definite interface improvement.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[hairyfeet]

You know that damned search puppy in XP and that PITA Clippy in Office? Now imagine if you had to deal with them EVERYTIME you needed to do anything on your PC. Sure it might keep the little ones entertained for awhile and some of the old folks might think it is cute but pretty soon you'd be look for the button to "kill" it just like killing that damned search puppy. One of the first things folks ask when they bring an XP machine in to me is "Can you kill that damned puppy?"

While I think VR has its uses(science and medicine,possibly CAD if done right) I just don't think the interface has gotten to the point where it can be anything more than a novelty to Joe average. I can just imagine my dad trying to shop with VR: "God Dammit! Where the hell am I! I just wanted to buy the new Clint Eastwood DVD and now I can't find a damned thing! Son come fix this stupid thing!". As it is now 3d is good for FPS and MMORPGs, but I don't see how with current interfaces it could top the ease of use of a plain old fashioned webpage.

And please don't say that "minority report" style gesture system, because not only would using that for any length of time make your arms want to fall off, but I can just picture users like my mom and dad wiping stuff out all over the place doing gestures like drunken mimes trying to get the thing to work. It really wouldn't be pretty.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones that would find this useful will be...er...gone.

Or to put it another way, as this is Microsoft we are talking about:

The 20 year olds that would find this useful will be 65 years old by the time this technology is ready!

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[lysergic.acid]

absolutely. i think this is another idea sorta like Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. basically, it's a gimmick that was likely thought up by marketing execs during a board meeting rather than a useful technology born of real innovation by engineers or developers.

you can usually tell when this is the case because the product/service will be designed primarily around serving the commercial interests of the businesses selling/offering it rather than the consumers who are supposed to purchase/use it. so with BD/HD-DVD you have a new media format that provides only marginal improvements in image/sound quality to consumers, but is crammed full of "features" (like DRM, region codes, and online ads) that are only there to serve movie studios and other content producers. HD media really just seems like it was created mainly to get people to purchase the same titles again rather than to confer any real benefit to the consumer.

likewise, a 3D shopping mall doesn't seem to serve any practical purpose to consumers. it might make sense to businesses as a way to attract consumers using a "Virtual Reality" store, but aside from the novelty (which will wear off eventually) there's really no reason for consumers to use a virtual store rather than a normal e-commerce site. this is the kind of technology we can use less of. what we can use more of are places like the old Bell Labs, where true research takes precedence over immediate profits and marketing gimmicks.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Kz]

this might be the only xkcd strip that i really, _really_ don't get.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Anonymous Coward]

When a 65 year old lady tries to use a computer for the first time, it can be strange and overwhelming. If she was able to see and interact with the system in a paradigm that she is already knows how to deal with, the anxiety and reluctance will come way down.

OK, but let's be even more honest: Why some tortured analog of a physical store? I'll bet she also knows how to shop for and order stuff from a catalog...

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[corky842]

I think that's the point. Read the alt text.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll never forget my first days on the company intranet back in 1996. "What we want is a virtual desk, with paper and cabinets and books that people can click on" etc etc. I thought this kind of thinking was killed stone dead.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[ConceptJunkie]

it makes it possible to see around the corner without actually going around the corner.

Plus it really helps CTU to guide Jack Bauer to where the bad guys are... in realtime. As unrealistic as that show occasionally is, I think it embodies a way of thinking that will probably be commonplace by virtue of technology we'll have in 10 or 20 years.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[ShieldW0lf]

When this thing crashes and burns, perhaps it will provide some insight into the nature of the relationship between lies, damn lies and statistics.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[jonbryce]

It would be useful for looking at products once you find them on the web page, but yes, pushing your virtual trolley round one of these to pick up your shopping is taking things too far.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure she feels exactly the same way.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[davester666]

Hey, maybe this 'thing' can simulate a Window's operating system that both works well and doesn't need the CPU that Intel will release in 6 months to be snappy(tm)...

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[TerranFury]

I can imagine some people actually being happy to use MS Bob

My parents, who are older, actually quite liked MSBob, back when it used to work.

The thing is, using a "normal" GUI involves mixing metaphors. We slashdot readers are so used to these metaphors that we don't think twice about them. But for people who didn't grow up with them, the sorts of metaphors used in, say, Thunderbird's GUI just don't make sense. (You don't want to know how many times I've had to explain how to attach a file to an email. I've even written it down for them.) But they could figure out MSBob.

Part of the issue, though, is reading comprehension. Using a computer is an exercise in (1) reading, (2) understanding what's written on the screen, and (3) acting accordingly. Older people seem to be so worried about #3 that they assume that #1 and #2 are out of their league so they don't even try.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if it's funny or sad that Slashdot has collectively marked this comment "Insightful." Oh well. Back to looking at hot models.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[mpeskett]

I see less reason to use a virtual store than either a real store or a normal online store.

Online you have the advantage that everything's more or less at your fingertips and can be found fairly quickly via a search box (assuming a reasonable interface). In a real store you can browse rather than having to know exactly what you want, because you can see the actual thing you're buying there in front of you.

Combine the 2 into a sim-store and you lose both sets of advantages - finding stuff means wandering around a virtual store, and you only get to see a representation of it. Fuck that.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Tron, I hate this online job as a store clerk! And these virtual clothes suck, they look so '70s with these stupid luminous bands. And don't you think the store boss MCP looks like Steve Ballmer? I mean, he threw a virtual chair at a virtual customer who wouldn't buy a LightCycle. And all the other virtual clerks have an Indian accent! What's up with that?"

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Ihmhi]

Not everyone in the world my age (22) is computer literate or even able to use a computer as it traditionally functions.

I think a person with no arms might like being able to communicate via computer and use it without having to type or breath into a tube to get stuff done.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[dangitman]

For instance, making a virtual store sounds good and might seem familiar to your hypothetical 65 year-old. However, this person did not grow up using a keyboard and mouse to walk through stores. So, the metaphor breaks down very quickly when you have to start implementing controls for navigation through this world.

Also, the 65-year old grew up with things like typewriters and card catalogs. Both abstractions that are very similar to modern computers and e-commerce sites. They did not grow up with interactive computer games or virtual environments (well, unless they were super-nerdy). Therefore, the standard online shopping site like Amazon is going to be a lot more familiar that some VR simulation.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[gemada]

I for one would love to "superimpose models on real world objects.".

I can think of many times I would rather be looking at a model than what I am actually looking at...

VR is the only way most slashdotters are going to "superimpose" models on their "objects".

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[ShieldW0lf]

I think a person with no arms might like being able to communicate via computer and use it without having to type or breath into a tube to get stuff done.

Cut his legs off and call him Matt.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[xactuary]

"It seems to me to be a clunky, uninspired way to interact in a digital environment."

We're talking about Microsoft here, so what's your point?

Hasn't Google already done this?

[elrous0]

Between Google's Street View and their failed Lively, it would seem like MS is once again following the old "imitate, don't innovate" philosophy here. And even Google abandoned Lively when they realized that (like VRML and its many other predecessors) it wasn't of much use in practical application.

Re:Hasn't Google already done this?

[b4dc0d3r]

I won't search for a citation, but MS definition of "invent" is to create something new, while "innovate" is to use something in a new way. As an example, IE was innovation because it used web browsers in a new way (to crush opposing web browser companies and lock users and developers alike to the windows platform).

Re:Hasn't Google already done this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think, though, Microsoft was the first with their Virtual Sky simulation.

Re:Hasn't Google already done this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Between Google's Street View and their failed Lively, it would seem like MS is once again following the old "imitate, don't innovate" philosophy here...

My 55 year old eyes aren't handling the little type on the screen. I really thought it said 'irritate, don't innovate'

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of all the por... uhh, possibilities!

Hmm, sounds familiar...

[jornak]

Second Life, anyone?

Re:Hmm, sounds familiar...

[CarpetShark]

If it's as buggy as second life, Microsoft will have outdone themselves. Especially if the scope is "a simulation of everything".

Re:Hmm, sounds familiar...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Second Life has a Linux client that's every bit as "full featured" i.e. buggy, as the Windows version!

And the codeword for the project is...

[Lorens]

the Matrix

Re:And the codeword for the project is...

[Shakrai]

the Matrix

I hope they find a way to power it that doesn't violate thermodynamics ;)

Re:And the codeword for the project is...

[sdpuppy]

Don't worry - first they'll have to develop workable fusion power (which is another 40 years in the future) before they start hooking bodies up to the source.

By that time, It'll be year of the Linux desktop and Microsoft will be no more.

:-)

Re:And the codeword for the project is...

[TypoNAM]

Neo: If you're blue screened in the matrix, you die here?
Morpheus: The body cannot live without the mind

Re:And the codeword for the project is...

[Mystra_x64]

I'd prefer The World

Re:And the codeword for the project is...

[KozmoKramer]

"Neo: If you're blue screened in the matrix, you die here? Morpheus: The body cannot live without the mind"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX8yrOAjfKM True dat!

Re:And the codeword for the project is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some guy screws up a piece of code, millions die.

Damn this "open source".

hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get a BSoD does it give you a lethal injection?

Re:hmm

[sveard]

Blue Syringe of Death

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAH and me with no mod points

vista

[Threni]

They could simulate copying files from a dvd onto a hard drive using Vista, then run the same simulation on Ubuntu, and try to discover why the former is an order of magnitude slower.

I've just had a nightmare

[Chrisq]

What if we are not real, but running in a meta-Microsoft simulation?

Re:I've just had a nightmare

[mbone]

Then when they call it the Blue Screen of Death, they aren't kidding.

Re:I've just had a nightmare

[Coraon]

awww, test subject T4417-C, you were doing so well you bought into the simulation so well...ok guys time to terminate this test subject.

Re:I've just had a nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be worse. Could be Apple.

Re:I've just had a nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

oh no...we're doomed!!!

As someone who has never used Second Life

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I'm not the target market, but this seems stupid beyond belief.

Some shopkeeper is going to use photosynth instead of simply setting up a catalog for online commerce?

People are having so much trouble shopping they have to have the real world modeled?

Things are laid out in isles and shelfs because that is a good way to use space in the physical world, not because people need to shop that way.
   

Re:As someone who has never used Second Life

[foniksonik]

You mean it's a solution in search of a problem.

Re:As someone who has never used Second Life

[fprintf]

How many novel ideas that finally took hold were initially bandied about as "unnecessary" and a "solution in search of a problem". As with any forward thinking company, you create ideas, test market them, further develop the ones that seem to gain interest, do it some more, and if you are lucky 1 in 5 will be successful. Fortunately for Microsoft, they seem to have deeper pockets than most and can take this ideation further along, beyond the simple 'let's try it out with a few of my friends' that casual business development takes, so we end up with articles (and responses) like this suggesting the uselessness of an idea.

If I think about all the ideas that I have dismissed as "not possible", I'd be Bill Gates or Sergey Brin kind of money. Unfortunately I am not so persistent to pursue my ideas, nor creative to find just the right kind of way to implement the ideas, and I'd think most people aren't.

Anyway, it might be an idea whose time has come. Or perhaps someone else will come along with a minor tweak that makes it take off when the idea comes up yet again in a few years. I can't blame Microsoft, Google or any other company pursuing VR for trying though. It is how they are going to make money in the future I'd bet... though I won't bet because I know I won't pick the right one and don't have enough money to spread across all the different potential VR solutions. :-)

Re:As someone who has never used Second Life

[Ravon Rodriguez]

Exactly. Shopping in Second Life, an actual 3D world, usually consists of tens or hundreds of items placed upon the walls, one on top the other, usually using pictures. Even in shops where the actual item is shown, they are usually placed at ground level along the walls, not along aisles. If Second Life shopkeepers have found this the most convenient way to do things, then I imagine it won't be much improved upon by Microsoft.

Re:As someone who has never used Second Life

[JasterBobaMereel]

Most of the ideas that have been dismissed as useless .... are useless and came to nothing

A very few were dismissed by some people ... and not by others .. and also failed

Fewer still actually succeeded and some people at least thought it was worthwhile even in the early stages

Currently Augmented reality (rather than full VR) looks promising and is what Google, Apple and others are invesigating.....

Re:As someone who has never used Second Life

[Anonymous Coward]

There is stuff that most people still avoid buying online. Example? Clothes, shoes, cars, houses. 2D pictures just dont cut it with them. If you could get a GUARANTEED model of these with every single detail included, or even try the clothes on your realistically rendered avatar, you might change your mind.

Re:As someone who has never used Second Life

[Anonymous Coward]

ideation?

Re:As someone who has never used Second Life

[JustinOpinion]

You are right that many successful ideas seem stupid at first. On the other hand, the vast majority of stupid-sounding ideas are, in fact, stupid and ultimately unsuccessful.

I think we all support the notion of researching new ideas, and trying out different approaches. If Microsoft wants to spend R&D dollars on these ideas, that's great. The annoying part is when companies issue hyperbole-filled press releases about how these ideas will "revolutionize the world" and so forth. In those cases, it is totally appropriate for others to point out how these ideas are not-novel/inefficient/stupid/etc.

If the new idea can't withstand some healthy skepticism and criticism, I doubt it's really of that much value.

Re:As someone who has never used Second Life

[hedwards]

Wrong, in most cases the models will be made by the manufacturers, just like today hardware manufacturers are generally the source of objects for use with autocad.

But with that being said, this would cause serious headaches for eBay and people that produce one of a kind objects unless somebody invents a 3d scanner to go with.

Re:As someone who has never used Second Life

[Anonymous Coward]

look at http://www.xstreetsl.com/ this is how ppl shop in Sl nowadays

Re:As someone who has never used Second Life

[pnevin]

Microsoft has just worked out how to finally outsource shop assistants to the third world.

Re:As someone who has never used Second Life

[InsertCleverUsername]

Nobody loves criticizing others' ideas as much as I do, but this whole thread is unnecessarily negative. I haven't read the article, but I have used Photosynth and I can see some appealing uses --maybe not shopping, but there are definitely some cool things that could be done. Like the "digital convergence" hype, it'll probably take a decade to reach viability and creep into general use.

I had a friend many years ago, working for an undisclosed company in Redmond, who I told about the Internet and all the cool, timely news and information you would be able to find there some day. He looked at me incredulously and said "that's stupid! Who's going to enter all that information?"

Could you imagine Google Maps, online FPS games, and video conferencing back when you were browsing BBS systems on a 300 baud modem? Isn't it more interesting to consider the possibilities rather than quickly dismissing ideas because you lack the imagination to see their potential?

Why be limited?

[Thyamine]

I can see the benefit of recreating your store in a virtual setting so people can browse you items in a more real way, but if you can only afford a small store in RL, would you limit yourself in the same way virtually? You have the potential to make yourself look much bigger, or offer more than you can hold in your brick and mortar location.

The best physics engine ever...

[spydabyte]

How many atoms would it require to construct silicon chips to simulate every atom on the earth? In the universe?

Re:The best physics engine ever...

[maxume]

It may be simpler to just replicate the planet/universe.

Distinguishing real from VR

[russotto]

You'll know you're in Microsoft's virtual world instead of the real world because 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA and 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA will be smoking craters.

The "chair" flag flying over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC is a tip-off too.

Simulations of simulations?

[kvezach]

In order to be a simulation of everything, it has to contain a simulation of itself, too; and then it has to contain a simulation of a simulation of itself... infinite descent! Only Microsoft would think they could manage that in finite space :-)

Re:Simulations of simulations?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, they've already done all the computational legwork, so why not just have the simulation inside the simulation be effectively a symlink to the actual simulation? (I know symlink isn't the word, but whatever...)

What was that whooshing noise?

Re:Simulations of simulations?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would also have to simulate me buttfucking my couch. Why my couch has a butt, well, for most of the same reasons we all have butts.

Re:Simulations of simulations?

[Anonymous Coward]

In 640KB, actually!

Re:Simulations of simulations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the simulation must be a perfect mirror? why not simulate something smaller?

In the same train of tought, why simulate in real time? simulating at a slower pace would need less computational power.

Don't take me very seriusly, I know this isn't feasible with curent technology.

Re:Simulations of simulations?

[Anonymous Coward]

The simulation of itself, like everything else, is only a simulation. Thus as recursion gets deeper and deeper, the simulation becomes worse and worse. The recursion will be finite as, eventually, there will be nothing left to simulate.

Re:Simulations of simulations?

[Anonymous Coward]

two mirrors facing each other can do it.

Re:Simulations of simulations?

[Missing_dc]

Yeahhhh, thats a side effect of the virtualization kool-aide.

Tasty stuff, but the potentials always seem bigger than projected.

Even their manual and training for this subject feel light and fluffy compared to other offerings by them.

Re:Simulations of simulations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. I wonder -- could they create a simulation of all worlds that don't simulate themselves?

Re:Simulations of simulations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if it is first simulation, it's not the same simulation ;)

Re:Simulations of simulations?

[Anonymous Coward]

the solution probably involves lazy evaluation and tail recursion.

Systems managers rejoice!

[GMonkeyLouie]

Everyone else seems to be pretty skeptical of the usefulness of "Virtual World" technology, but I think it could revolutionize consulting.

I could show people competing alternatives for recommendations on how to restructure their physical operations, like "in scenario one we have your checkout lanes over here, just past the cheeses... contrast that with scenario two, where we have them flanked by bakery counters...".

Also, has anyone considered how excellent this could be for porn?

Re:Systems managers rejoice!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Also, has anyone considered how excellent this could be for porn?

You don't know "Second Life", don't you?

Re:Systems managers rejoice!

[UnknowingFool]

Using this technology to layout a store isn't a bad idea especially if the modeling was used for simulating of how people shop. However, it's being sold as being an alternate to the physical store where web visitors shop like they would in the real store. That is a crappy idea cause people who visit an online store don't want to have the same hassle as they would in the real store. They want a different experience.

Re:Systems managers rejoice!

[tehcyder]

Also, has anyone considered how excellent this could be for porn?

What, on slashdot? Surely not.

Re:Systems managers rejoice!

[jonbryce]

Such a program already exists.

Re:Systems managers rejoice!

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, has anyone considered how excellent this could be for porn?

Now you're talking. Oh Baby.

-Steve

Re:Systems managers rejoice!

[dangitman]

I could show people competing alternatives for recommendations on how to restructure their physical operations, like "in scenario one we have your checkout lanes over here, just past the cheeses... contrast that with scenario two, where we have them flanked by bakery counters...".

Uhhh, they already do that in fields like architecture, interior design, industrial design, and yes - shopfitting. But that's "visualization" - it's completely different to what the article is talking about - which is simulated and fabricated virtual worlds. In other words, not using a simulation to design a physical store - but making a simulation that is the store, and replaces the physical one (as well as the conventional online one).

I can see a big boom...

[zeronode]

In the pron industry....

It would have to be in VR

[Jack9]

They might actually sell a secure OS in VR

A blast from the past.

[mbone]

He gave an example of a shopkeeper creating 3D models of his store's interior and goods with Photosynth and then uploading the results into a large 3D model of local shopping district. Customers could 'visit' the area, browse products, and order them for real-world delivery."

With all due respect, this sounds very 1996. Why on Earth would anyone want to shop that way ?

Re:A blast from the past.

[GMonkeyLouie]

I would shop that way in New York. I very much dislike being in a city where it's so far from place to place, so very very dirty, and unsafe.

Hell, going to New York in VR might be the most pleasurable trip I've ever taken there. I wouldn't get mugged like last time, frozen bloody solid like the time before, or lost on the metro system like the time before that.

Re:A blast from the past.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least 1998-99. I had the opportunity to work on a project related to this guy:
  http://www.unrealty.net/vsmm99/
Vito and his company were responsible for creating the virtual Notre Dame walk-thru using Unreal's gaming engine that some of you may remember from late last century. The project that I worked on was... a virtual store project. As some of the earlier posters have pointed out, there are diminishing returns for some reality modes, regardless of their resolution/precision.

Re:A blast from the past.

[Locklin]

Maybe there will even be virtual crowds, virtual lines at the checkout, and maybe even virtual parking issues! This sounds like yet another "innovative" way of taking something real, and moving it to a digital space as similar as possible (problems and all). Kind of like PDF "papers" and those soft-phones which have dialling pad on them.

Re:A blast from the past.

[DerekLyons]

Ordering a book or video card works well with 2D representations, or even just a text description. But that doesn't mean that 3D isn't useful for other things.

As a woodworker, it would be very nice to see an accurate 3D representation of a board I was buying over the net or to be able to actually 'walk around' larger tools to get a sense of their layout. Or to see, in 3D, the pattern created by a router bit. Etc... Etc...

Re:A blast from the past.

[mbone]

And, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood botnets, virtual pickpockets !

Re:A blast from the past.

[maxume]

So you look like an easy target, don't know how to properly dress yourself and can't navigate?

I would like to recommend that you try the VR.

Not a useful interface

[Isvara]

I thought we learned in the 90s that virtual representations of physicals things, be they stores, libraries -- whatever, are simply not the most useful way to access information. I don't want to go wandering around virtual stores to find the things I want to buy. What I want is something that lets me specify the thing I want, and tells me the cheapest place to buy it -- Google Products already does that quite well.

Re:Not a useful interface

[tehcyder]

I thought we learned in the 90s that virtual representations of physicals things, be they stores, libraries -- whatever, are simply not the most useful way to access information. I don't want to go wandering around virtual stores to find the things I want to buy. What I want is something that lets me specify the thing I want, and tells me the cheapest place to buy it -- Google Products already does that quite well.

You're forgetting that a lot of people like shopping and there's no reason why you couldn't make a virtual shop as interesting as a real one.

I personally much prefer buying books from a bricks and mortar book shop than Amazon,as I enjoy wandering around and finding things I wouldn't have thought of buying on my own.

Re:Not a useful interface

[mbone]

Virtual browsing ? Sure. And, I am willing to grant that visual GUIs for doing this could be dramatically improved. But...

Browsing a virtual store mimicking a physical store ? I am sure it would be a useful shoplifters training tool, but I am not sure who else would want it.

Re:Not a useful interface

[kabocox]

I thought we learned in the 90s that virtual representations of physicals things, be they stores, libraries -- whatever, are simply not the most useful way to access information. I don't want to go wandering around virtual stores to find the things I want to buy. What I want is something that lets me specify the thing I want, and tells me the cheapest place to buy it -- Google Products already does that quite well.

For what most of us buy on the web or are willing to wait to have shipped to us, that's mostly true. There are many other areas where other methods of shopping would be much more useful. I've always wanted to store grocery lists at walmart and have them pull the items ready for me to pick up when I get off work. Heck, with walmart I've always wanted to link all my store receipts together through a my walmart page and at a glance or very little paging through screens just pull up out lists of what I purchased, when, and for what prices. I'd also like longer descriptions than what's on the store receipts and 6 views of nearly every product boxed and unboxed with the ability to zoom in/out and around. (Walmart could just require their various vendors to provide that info for their various products and just dump it straight into their backend. Think of it as requiring "useful" views of products.)

There are times that I've wanted a virtual map of a store. I don't really want to hunt items. I want to have my list and have them give me a map and show me where the heck that they've placed every item on my list in their store. If virtual store browsing was actually quicker than real world store browsing, it might be useful. Let's be honest, in 1996 that wasn't really possible. Now a days with web enabled cell phones, DSL and cable broadband, it is more likely to atleast be possible of getting it to load and browse quickly.

Let's be honest Google Earth takes awhile to load and run even if you do it at work on a fast machine. How long do you think it would take you to click on say 3-4 stores on your way home, load their virtual store and quickly look through their inventory? Ideally, you'd want to quickly scan through every thing just to see if anything catches your eye, but you'd really want to spend say less than 2 minutes at each store doing your browsing. If anything registers in your head, you ain't going to buy it through the virtual store, you are going to stop on the way home and pick up the few items actually where they are. The easiest way that I could see most stores doing this is to some how have some of their instore security cameras web enabled so folks can just look in the shop. You wouldn't want all your cameras web enabled, but you'd want a camera pointed down each of your major sellers and one showing generally how busy the inside of the store is, and another showing how free the parking currently is. Oh, and that whole pack deal needs to cost a store less than say 4-5K to do per store.

Re:Not a useful interface

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we learned in the 90s that virtual representations of physicals things, be they stores, libraries -- whatever, are simply not the most useful way to access information. I don't want to go wandering around virtual stores to find the things I want to buy.

I don't know... it rather depends on what you're trying to buy. I mean, if you need a new piece of hardware for a computer, sure, then you'll know exactly what you want, and a website is always going to beat a brick-and-mortar store when it comes to selection, comparing prices or features, and so on.

But what about other things? What about things that you don't need as much as want? What if you just want to *browse*?

Clothes may be an example; maybe not the best one, since buying clothes online without being able to try them on is dangerous at best, but it's an example of where the brick-and-mortar way of presenting things shines. Or what about books? If I want a specific book, then yes, going to amazon or whatever and ordering it is much more easy and convenient than going to my local bookseller, but sometimes, I'm not looking for anything specific. And while amazon does recommend things and all that, it just doesn't come close to actually going to a store, taking books into your hands, looking at them and all that.

Amazon overwhelms you with selection - for browsing rather than targeted searching, millions of books are too much. A good bookseller at least, on the other hand, will have a smaller, more refined selection: as so often, perfection is not reached when there's nothing left to add (amazon) but when there's nothing left to take away.

And of course, amazon also doesn't allow you to actually experience the books and get a feeling for them. It's less important than with clothes, but still.

So don't discount the brick-and-mortar model too quickly. Not that THIS particular MS idea will lead anywhere, of course - it really seems to combine the worst of two worlds -, but actual physical stores have their uses.

this idea was invented by shampoo

[Anonymous Coward]

didn't it sound like his one...

I know the Matrix initially comes to mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I think that a more fitting reference would be to Mega Man Battle Network. Think about it; instead of surfing the 'net in a simple browser, you have some virtual representation of yourself running around some maze-like Internet gathering info and deleting viruses. Throw in some gross misrepresentation of how data actually works and it basically sounds like what they're trying to imitate.

That's easy

[Shakrai]

How many atoms would it require to construct silicon chips to simulate every atom on the earth? In the universe?

42

Re:That's easy

[ajlitt]

or a piece of fairy cake.

Virtual reality for the stupid

[gubachwa]

http://plif.courageunfettered.com/archive/wc019.gif

I've been dreaming about this for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously can't wait to play GTA:8 - my neighborhood. Without getting in trouble this time.

Yes,

[sveard]

But does it simulate linux?

(these posts almost write themselves, so easy!)

Re:Yes,

[Jamie's Nightmare]

Whoa.... this technology is intended for shopping, not torture.

How do they plan to power this project?

[erroneus]

...I wonder... where would they get the power for this enormous project? Hrmmm?

Re:How do they plan to power this project?

[jimmypw]

C#

If it can run an EPOS system surely it must ba able to run the simulated world.

happening already

[RMH101]

Look at this http://www.retail-week.com/Fashion/2008/11/mallplacecom_virtual_mall_launches_with_affiliate_offer.html sub-dot-com-boom concept. The first comment below it is mine, by the way. Terrible, terrible idea and I'd put money on it being dead by Q3 next year.*

* Hopefully this isn't a "less space than a Nomad" comment

1980s mistakes

[Tom]

Welcome to the 21st century. Right now, we are doing an "80s revival". No, that doesn't mean the clothes or music, for this one, we are reviving 1980s faults, errors and misconceptions.

Today: The misguided idea that 3D, VR or other "close to reality" interfaces are by default good interfaces. Let's ignore the past 20 years of research! Be happy! There is no uncanny valley. We don't have other options that might offer better interfaces than a simulation of reality does. No, let's assume that rocket cars, 50s music and VR are what we want.

Seriously, this is so stupid, it hurts. When I'm online I don't want to "browse". That was 20 years ago. Even "searching" is on its way out. I don't want a cheap 3D copy of your shop, I want something adapted to the medium I'm using. I want search, overviews and recommendations. I want to narrow down my view and sort according to arbitrary criteria of my own, not browse through the collection in whatever order you put it up in your shop.

It appears TFA misses completly why people do online shopping at all. Newsflash: It is very rarely because you don't want to walk or drive to the shop. In fact, I've been in a physical shop multiple times and went online there in order to research and sometimes even buy the article I was holding in my hands online. More information, price comparisons, and many more things.

Re:1980s mistakes

[UnknowingFool]

Seriously, this is so stupid, it hurts. When I'm online I don't want to "browse". That was 20 years ago. Even "searching" is on its way out. I don't want a cheap 3D copy of your shop, I want something adapted to the medium I'm using. I want search, overviews and recommendations. I want to narrow down my view and sort according to arbitrary criteria of my own, not browse through the collection in whatever order you put it up in your shop.

I would suppose that depends on your comfort level with web technology. Most people here on slashdot are very comfortable with technology. I do agree with you that the total 3D shop is an outdated concept, but I think that if implemented correctly, some 3D modeling of the product would probably help sales. There have been a few times when I would have liked to see the back of electronics for wiring considerations. But like you most of my online shopping is also researching.

Re:1980s mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

If a webstore can't be bothered to take a picture of the back of something, what makes you think they'll bother to model it in 3D? Newegg is pretty good about giving you lots of views of stuff, a model would offer very little improvement.

Re:1980s mistakes

[itsdapead]

There have been a few times when I would have liked to see the back of electronics for wiring considerations.

Or, less gimmicky but infinitely more useful, what I usually do is go to the manufacturer's website from where you can often download the complete user's manual, and not only find out what's round the back but helpful details like "Ethernet port (models R931/B and R931/S only)" without crossing your fingers and hoping that BuyMore.com have put the right picture with the right product.

Not only is that better than VR, its better than standing in a meatspace shop fumbling around the back of a monitor to try and discover, by touch, whether it has a VGA or a DVI port without setting off the alarm...

Re:1980s mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. In fact, there have been times when I walked into a large department store and wished (and wished and wished) that I could have some way to search the store for the exact item I want so I didn't need to look through two stories of lawnmowers, children's clothes, and Perry Como Christmas CDs to find it. I suspect a VR store would suffer the same problems and fate as a real store.

My wife, OTOH, does nothing but browse. But in that instance she is comparing one item in the store to another by look, feel, and price and getting a feel for what is 'in style' at the moment.

Yeah, I don't get it either.

Re:1980s mistakes

[FrostDust]

It's not that often, but I notice many websites have a faux-3D model of something, basically a dozen photos from different angles, and you "rotate" it, basically viewing the next jpg 45 degrees over. Motorola.com does that for their phones, for example. It's not special 3D code either; it's done with today's technology.

Re:1980s mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

It becomes no less frustrating to see if your pair of shoes will fit, however - a 3D rendering of the products alone does not require me to waste my time with the UI pacing the aisles of a virtual store looking for where the shopkeep thought it would make sense to hide the cables that go along with the product I am considering.

I remain unimpressed, although playing Doom-hacks and picking off geeky "I know more than you because I'm wearing this employee badge" cretins would probably amuse me for the first 20 or so visits.

Re:1980s mistakes

[Tom]

Oh, totally. Having a 3D model to turn and zoom as I like would be much better for online shopping than a picture or two.

But that's a totally different animal. And I'd still want my 3D preview embedded in an interface that was designed for this specific medium. Like, say, an online-shop.

Re:1980s mistakes

[PJ1216]

Online shopping has yet to really come up with a decent equivalent of "window browsing." Sometimes you just want to look at everything. You don't want to pick a category. You don't want to see everything related to the item you just looked at. You just want to window shop. Hell, window shopping is a past time for some people. There are entire streets filled with stores that are almost tourist attractions where the only thing you do is just walk around and look at shit. Sometimes people don't know what they want and just want to look around. I have to admit though. I'd be creeped out if I went into a virtual Amazon.com. That place would be huuuuuuuuuge.

Re:1980s mistakes

[UnknowingFool]

True it's a good approximation but sometimes these faux 3D models lack things like zoom abilities. Suppose something said it was Firewire capable without further details. The problem is that Firewire 400 uses a different cable than Firewire 800. Zooming in on the actual port might tell you which one it uses.

Re:1980s mistakes

[corsec67]

And then you discover that the model used to make the 3d display on the webpage is different from the production model.

This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

"He gave an example of a shopkeeper creating 3D models of his store's interior and goods with Photosynth and then uploading the results into a large 3D model of local shopping district."

What "shopkeeper" is going to take the time or invest the money in a developer who would take the time to do all this? What exactly does MS think would be the economic incentive for doing this? Just how much do they think it would increase business for Mr Shopkeeper?

MS can be pretty stupid.

Re:This is stupid

[mbone]

What "shopkeeper" is going to take the time or invest the money in a developer who would take the time to do all this

Ooo, I know ! I know !

Shoe Circus!

And, they can sell the new Microsoft line of clothes !

gah.

[apodyopsis]

gaah. this is the sort of drivel that managers beat over and looks good in slideshows.

this smacks of first life... http://www.getafirstlife.com/

at the end of the day I can see the appeal of virtual models of real events, for example
1. police officers using stereoscopic cameras to build a very, very detailed model of the crime scene that can be explored later on or shown to a jury
2. virtual walk through of museums, natural wonders or education exhibits

but shopping and other mundane aspects of life? the obvious comment is that it will waste power, take longer and never be as satisfying as the real thing.

that said, if you can build me a holodeck then I am pretty sure I will never leave it, nothing could be as important as the simulated Monica Belluci and her simulated identical sisters.

Competition.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now VRML has a serious competitor! Oh, wait...

Do they really mean everything?

[sunderland56]

Once they get to a Virtual Reality sex simulator, they might have a viable product.....

Re:Do they really mean everything?

[cgfsd]

Ya, but could you imagine getting into the simulation, things are going great, you are getting excited, and then, crash, BSOD.

Talk about a virtual blue balls.

Re:Do they really mean everything?

[DigitalSorceress]

I was thinking something similar: That at first, it would be like Second life without the CyberSex. Then it would either fail, or the furries would invade and turn it into another Second Life.

VR simulation of everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder if they'll be able to simulate a good OS?

evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

from the ok-readers-why-is-this-one-evil dept.

It is evil because as soon as they virtualize reality, they will no longer work well with reality, and we will be stuck having to live in a reality owned by Microsoft. Wait a sec, maybe that has already happened.

The new twist: Photosynth

[dazedNconfuzed]

Yes, all the snide comments about VR being so '90s, been there done that didn't work, and rehashing of all the gung-ho fanboy rhetoric aside, there IS something new to this.

Photosynth.

A major problem with VR was having to construct everything manually. You want a shelf full of products? start drawing lots of polygons by hand - and that's a lot of polygons. Yes, there were some tools to help, but it still came down to a largely handcrafted virtual world - most of which turned out pretty lame.

Enter Photosynth.

Now said shopkeeper can spend 10 minutes wandering thru his store with a video camera running, take a gazillion frames of lots of angles of view, and let Photosynth stitch it all together into a fully-formed, fully-illustrated 3D model. Behold: a detailed, realistic 3D walk-thru rendering of the entire store in about an hour, mostly generated automatically.

And before anyone complains that it's slow, hard to use, etc. - it's little different from "first person shooters", which provide a familiar 3D interactive walkthru experience. Difference is, this one is the real world - without all that tedious hand-measuring hand-coding of agonizing detail of reality.

'bout time someone did this. Made sense to me long before I saw Photosynth turn pictures into 3D models, M$ just did it before I got to it (funny how deep pockets helps that...).

Re:The new twist: Photosynth

[Tom]

Behold: a detailed, realistic 3D walk-thru rendering of the entire store

Which is good for what, exactly?

If you want interaction, you're back at coding it. And the "virtual shop" you just created does more to limit options, than to help them. Why the fuck should I care which aisle the product is in?

Re:The new twist: Photosynth

[jvkjvk]

Umm. Sure. So Photosynth is new.

A major problem with VR was having to construct everything manually.

This may be true, but is beside the point.

I don't know many people who would rather "browse" around a virtual store than search for the products they want in a faster and more efficient manner, say by typing the item or category into a search box.

And before anyone complains that it's slow, hard to use, etc. - it's little different from "first person shooters", which provide a familiar 3D interactive walkthru experience. Difference is, this one is the real world - without all that tedious hand-measuring hand-coding of agonizing detail of reality.

Yes, well so what? I'm not entirely sure there *is* a target market for such "stores".

Imagine Word, for example, where you "walked" your avatar down to the "Printer" and fed it your job to print. Oh, that is Innovative! You could probably even do it with Photosynth! Woo hoo.

Doesn't make it even remotely a good idea.

The question to ask is are virtual stores using photosynth a good idea, not ooh shiny new technology must be good for every application!

Re:The new twist: Photosynth

[kabocox]

This tech will really take off when a store owner can train a min. wage worker to walk through their store in the morning in about 10-15 minutes and have an app auto update the model, the store inventory list, a list of everything known that was sold yesterday, and a list of everything missing in the the store that wasn't sold.

For bonus points, it would scan through yesterdays security recordings for everyone passing in front of the "missing items" and auto report shop lifted items with a list of subjects to the local police department. If you even want to help the police even more, you could have the system match up every person with check/credit sales receipts for names for the people as well.

Re:The new twist: Photosynth

[konohitowa]

Ah, but you see, there will be simulated RFID tags on everything and a clerk at the exit that compares the contents of your shopping bag with your receipt. Additionally, there will be at least one overly zealous store employee to chase you down in the virtual parking lot before you get to your car simulation. He will have the ability to hold you down with enough force to suffocate you before the police arrive.

Re:The new twist: Photosynth

[Your.Master]

I GUARANTEE my parents (particularly my mother) would far, far prefer walking through a virtual store than searching for an item even if they already know the exact name and spelling to stick in the search field, or going through a list of categories.

I don't understand it, but it's absolutely the case. These are people who hear descriptions of Microsoft Bob and say "that's BRILLIANT". I have no difficulty at all imagining them walking through a virtual store to verify a product exists, and then driving there to buy it in person.

Speaking of driving there, that strikes me as a far better use. Combine Google Streeview with a virtual world of sufficient detail, and you could show a virtual drivethrough from your door to the door of said shop, with some time-dilation effect for the long parts. People like my dad could watch that once and forever know exactly how to get to a place hundreds of miles away.

That doesn't mean this is an OMG be-all and end-all technology, or that people like my parents exist in sufficient numbers to make this a really successful idea. But some market undoubtedly exists.

Re:The new twist: Photosynth

[dangitman]

Now said shopkeeper can spend 10 minutes wandering thru his store with a video camera running, take a gazillion frames of lots of angles of view, and let Photosynth stitch it all together into a fully-formed, fully-illustrated 3D model. Behold: a detailed, realistic 3D walk-thru rendering of the entire store in about an hour, mostly generated automatically.

But why would a shopkeeper want to do that? He'd want his virtual store to be better than his real-world one. His real-world store is limited because of physical constraints. A virtual store is not. So, it comes back to design and plenty of time hand-crafting, designing and coding things. Because if he doesn't make his virtual store super-fabulous and spiffy, his competitors will - and he'll be stuck with a facsimile of his dowdy physical store.

I like Microsoft

[slapout]

At least their dev section. Management is a different story. But I just can't help but seeing "MS VR" and thinking 360 degrees of blue screen.
 

What if everything already is a simulation

[Anonymous Coward]

What if we are all just part of a "world" simulation run on the computer of a hormone crazed teenage kid... It would explain alot.

creators provide non-simulated reality/everything

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a blast. no gadgets required. see you there?

Red Dwarf VR

[Technopaladin]

one step closer to BTL addicts.

Hope they watched their Red Dwarf, read their Gibson and played their Shadowrun.
Otherwise we are in for a bumpy ride.

How about a 3D Version of Microsoft Bob?

[Prototerm]

It's such a great idea, I'm sure it will be even more popular than the first Microsoft Bob! /sarcasm

does not scale

[Speare]

After discussing the implementation of Virtual Reality systems with many, many non-programmers, I have come to the conclusion that the fastest way to truly grok the difference between a million and a billion is to watch a computer try to render something complicated. Because we've been living in a 2D world, and 2D graphics performance has been making steady gains over everyone's computer-using lifetime, just don't understand how problems can scale or fail to scale. Put another way, the advances in 2D have tracked with Moore's Law, but 3D is a completely different exponent. Until you really give a computer a problem that scales faster than 2D, many people just assume computers will handle any level of complexity. Watching a computer choke on something their own mind comprehends easily is the humbling moment.

Re:does not scale

[Animats]

Put another way, the advances in 2D have tracked with Moore's Law, but 3D is a completely different exponent.

Nah. There's only so much detail you can see. Rendering a really big world is work-bounded by level of detail processing. It's nowhere near O(N^3). If you get to use fog or obstacles to hide distant areas, there's an constant upper bound on the work required, so it's O(1). That's how most older video games do it. Without fog, if you preprocess the model to have low-rez versions of objects for distant display, it's O(log N), which is manageable.

Re:does not scale

[maxume]

What about the difference between 1 and 1,000?

Re:does not scale

[Anonymous Coward]

since when does the mind comprehend 3D? I was of the impression that neuronal networks (artificial or not) only can handle linear relationships and everything you think you can imagine in 3D is actually just model-building. There even was a guy who showed how to get your own brain's linear approximation stuff horribly overloaded by using a set of colored cubes that rotate and translate.

So I'd say, seeing one's own mind fooling oneself into thinking we can handle 3D is a humbling moment.

Missing the point

[RemoWilliams84]

I think everyone is missing the point. People like to see virtual simulations of places they can't afford/find time to go. Just like 3-d versions of the super bowl stadium, olympic stadium, tourist locations, etc. The point is, build these virtual communities of say Rodeo Drive and when people visit to just look around, hit them with some marketing from the stores. Whether they shop that way, decide to go look at the stores website, or actually visit the place it is just a marketing scheme. Not a way to replace what we already have.

Save your time and effort, MS.

[BForrester]

The answer is "42"

Probably not enough

[RoverDaddy]

You make a good point, compared to 90's efforts like @mart (an offshoot of Alpha World) which crashed and burned. However, I question whether Photosynth will scale to the massive extent needed. Just consider what you said: "take a gazillion frames from lots of angles of view". The shopkeeper will have to scan the store, the shelves, and maybe each individual item on each shelf to create a compelling experience. I don't think a 'google street view' equivalent of the inside of a store is going to cut it. Unless we're talking about an art gallery with two or three pieces on pedestals, I think this amounts to hours of effort and many TBs of data. Will Photosynth really be able to chew on all that data and create a massively complex 3D model? Could it possibly be cost effective to do so?

Bill and Jerry...

[ethicalBob]

So THAT'S what those Microsoft ads with Gates and Jerry Seinfeld were about; A Show about Nothing in a Simulation of Everything...

No wonder they made no sense...

Climate Change Simulator

[starglider29a]

Ok, so let's use ALL of this info together, wire it into a finite-element MATRIX (ignore that word) and simulate the entire ecosystem. See which changes effect what. End the debate, engineer any solution that actually could WORK.

This concept was the basis "A Farewell To Kings", my manuscript for the Turner Tomorrow Award Contest in 1991. In an obligatory Rush allusion, the massive computer network (pre-www./pre-google) was called Synergistic Resource for Information Exchange -- SYRINX :-D And yes, I quoted Rush constantly.
--
"Time after time we lose sight of the way
Our causes can't see their effects"

Does it include...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the simulation include a simulation of itself somewhere?

Wow... their plan...

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds just like this.

Ob. Hitchhikers

[itsdapead]

I'm sorry, but Mr Ballmer can't see you now - he's on an intergalactic cruise in his office.

Strange, I'd always thought that Microsoft were more Sirius Cybernetics Corporation to Apple/Google/Wikipedia's Megadodo Publications...

I suppose the Vogons have taken over by now.

We're screwed

[DaffyDuck101]

According to the great Nick Bostrom, one of three things is true:

1. The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small
2. Almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours
3. You are almost certainly in a simulation.

If they succeed, you can strike option 1 & 2. Good thing it's Microsoft, though :-)

Re:We're screwed

[Anonymous Coward]

That paper is one of the most useless things I've ever read. Its like someone took religion and just removed the mysticism from it and tried to make it sound scientific.

YOU STUPID NERDS

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello? William Gibson? Neuromancer? *Cyberspace*? Do any of you actually have working synapses? Can you not see this is a logical next step to that?

*grumbles*

Reality?

[suggsjc]

Wait, they are planning a simulation using "perhaps even user-generated content". Doesn't that sound a lot like a really expensive version of...reality?

yet another inaccurate summary

[Puffy Director Pants]

I think the summary is missing much of the point of the article, and so are some of the readers. There's actually quite a number of products like furniture and automobiles that benefit from examining on site, at least to me, and it seems to me the "photo-reality" being described is a lot closer to the experience of walking into a furniture store than browsing overstock.

Re:yet another inaccurate summary

[Puffy Director Pants]

Oops, clicked submit too soon.

Sure, there are products like books and movies that wouldn't benefit too much from 3d models, but the art studio described in the article? Seems right up their alley. Sure, you could just take a bunch of photos of your sculpture and let people browse them, but I think I'd want something a little more.

Swell!

[Cornwallis]

Mebbe they'll start simulating software that works properly.

Hitchhikers - we can save them some time!

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is ....

wait for it ...

42. Google confirms: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=the+answer+to+life+the+universe+and+everything+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Re:Hitchhikers - we can save them some time!

[itsdapead]

42. Google confirms: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=the+answer+to+life+the+universe+and+everything+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= [google.com]

OK smartass, where's the link to the question then? :-)

cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

I also want a full scale map of Hong Kong.

VR and generation gaps...

[blahplusplus]

... VR could work but IMHO we don't really have the horsepower nor the user interfaces to do anything that good with it yet. Also lets consider it takes a few generations of children raised in a technological society before everyone becomes comfortable and literate in technology which is still quite a ways away.

Flying penises?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how long will it take for this VR world to fill up with flying penises, casinos, and porno like Second Life? 8-) And furries. Don't forget the furries.

uh....

[Anonymous Coward]

The start of the Metaverse much?

Everything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Including the simulator? I feel dizzy.

But I've already downloaded Playstation Home

[Tony]

This is stupid. I've played with Playstation Home, and it's ridiculously stupid. And that's essentially what the whole "Virtual Store" is.

What I'd rather see is augmented reality, where I can stand on a street corner, and the buildings and shops have descriptions, ratings, comments from customers, and so on. I'd like to be able to look at an historic building and find out why it's historic. I'd like to have my GPS show directions overlaying the actual streets. I'd like to be able to find a decent damned Thai restaurant in Cleveland within walking distance, and have the path outlined for me so I don't get lost (not that I've ever been lost; I have been a fearsome confused for a while).

And so on.

I can already "browse" a virtual store. It's called a web page. It has the products, is searchable, and fairly easy to navigate, even for a large selection of products.

Price Comparisons

[HTH NE1]

He gave an example of a shopkeeper creating 3D models of his store's interior and goods with Photosynth and then uploading the results into a large 3D model of local shopping district. Customers could 'visit' the area, browse products, and order them for real-world delivery.

And have their IPs banned for taking screen captures of prices?

Stores like physical stores because they restrain the customer into seeing only their prices. If the stores are virtual, the customer could be browsing multiple stores and do price comparisons. Even the stores that price-match don't like to do it and will find any excuse not to.

What's not in a name?

[tgrigsby]

Okay, first things first: we have *got* to come up with a better name than "Spatial Web". That's got to be the worst product name I've heard since "Pumpkin" for a calendar component...

(Mark, is that you?)

I tend to disagree but know we are very visual....

[hesaigo999ca]

It will work, although i don't agree with this model, we are visual at the core, and a 3d shop will work more then a webpage...fact is proven when you add a simulated interactive virtual shopkeeper
usually trying to decipher what gender to use based on past history from your browser, they will show the hot little mama shop keeper, and have her suggest things as you go... the mere thought that you are interacting with a great looking individual, even a virtual one, makes you want to buy more.

topicms.gif

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God for adblock plus...I cannot stand seeing that ridiculous gates image anymore.

The Matrix Runs on Windows - You Tube

[KozmoKramer]

For people who missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX8yrOAjfKM

Windows?

Been there, done that

[oren]

I have actually worked for a company that tried to do this (different technology and budget of course :-) with the predictable results.

It has a huge cool factor that make it seems like a great idea, but there are huge barriers against this becoming practical any time soon.

First and foremost, there is the content creation issue. Any idiot can pour text into a page. Adding a digital photo of your product next to it is just as easy these days. Slurping a list of items from a DB and dumping it as a list on a "storefront" page is again trivial.

In comparison, creating a 3D model of your item is a PITA (except if all you are selling is cereal boxes and soup cans but in that case, lets face it, what is the point?). Placing these 3D models in a virtual 3D store is again a PITA, since extending a shelf to contain a few more items will just embed it in your virtual wall.

And a store is the *easy* case, because we have actual 3D stores to build on. Think about a Blog, or a news site, or a social network site... we have precious little actual 3D real world basis to start with. Unless you consider that newspapers and post-it notes and ads stapled to a tree are all 2D for some obscure reason :-)

The second huge issue is navigation. Think about the zillion ways that Amazon links between different product pages, search results, lists etc. Now try to think about a 3D virtual store that gives you the same functionality.

Again stores are the *easy* case, because they have turned the art of product placement on shelves to a science you could build on. How would you even begin to arrange a blog or a social network site?

There might ways to achieve all this in a 3D simulated world. World of Warcraft and Second Life and similar projects are giving us valuable insights on these issues, and it may be that some day we'll hit on a good solution that will actually be practical. So as a research project, this is cool and all power to people who want to do that - be it a university or a company (even Microsoft :-)

But as something with real world impact, forget it. It is in the "will be viable in 10-20 years" phase and we all know how well these translate to the real world.

Dey Ripzorring Off Teh Lunix!!!11!!1

[Anonymous Coward]

Teh Lunix FOSSie Reserch n Devlopmnt ben wrkin on dis long time. Teh MiKKKr0$$$l0th jus b rippin dem off!!!

Is it?

[Moraelin]

Yes, but does it actually work that way? All attempts so far to make a computer have the aspect of real world, only ended up introducing more limitations and no advantages. And didn't really ease up anyone's anxiety either.

All the way back to MS Bob, which was already mentioned.

All the metaphors and interfaces that actually worked are actually the abstract ones. E.g., the mouse. It's the most useful and easily comprehended way to use a computer (I even got my 80 year old grandma using one pretty quickly), but it has no RL equivalent. E.g., the menus. They look nothing like a restaurant's menus or anything RL, but it's the one way to give commands to a computer that worked best so far.

Heck, don't even look at just the computer. Cars use a steering wheels and pedals, _not_ trying to simulate the experience of an old horse- or ox-drawn cart. Nobody had a problem adjusting to that. Radios had knobs, not trying to simulate paying the local minstrel to sing something for you. Modern telephones don't try to simulate the disk dial of old ones, nor the asking an operator to connect you to John Doe in Smallville.

If an interface is good for the device at hand, there is no need to gimp it by imitating some RL equivalent badly.

What does imitating RL bring there anyway? Let's say Amazon was organized like a book store and I wanted to find a SF book. How many books do they carry? Tens of thousands? Do you want me to walk _miles_ in a virtual store, reading the spines, until I find the one I want? What if it's larger goods, like, say, their electronics section. They take more space individually. Let's say... a mile worth of TV aisles alone?

The whole point of virtual stores is that they can carry a lot more choices -- including the stuff they don't actually have in stock at the moment, but can order for you -- than a local bricks-and-mortar store. Whereas a local bookstore would have some thousands of books, and a local computer shop might have dozens of mainboards, a virtual one can easily carry 10 to 100 times more. It's not like they pay rent by the square ft for it. Arrange that in 3D in a replica of a real shop, and you now have whole squares of kilometres for that person to virtually walk through. Why? How does it make it less intimidating to suddenly be lost in a store the size of Washington DC?

What if I don't know where their SF aisles are? Do I have to hunt down a virtual employee and ask him for directions? Then actually walk according to those directions? Or will he just beam me there, and now I'm lost and don't know which way to the cashier? What happened to just clicking on a menu?

It seems to me that the secret of Amazon was precisely that it _didn't_ try to copy RL. They tried to make it as easy and quick as possible to blow your money on something. They'll even offer some (hare brained) recommendations, so you can just click them and buy them quickly. You know, so you don't even have to do the 2-3 clicks to the section where those normally are.

Trying to make the user navigate a virtual maze of aisles seems to be a step in the exact opposite direction.

Matrix

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't there at least a few movies, books,etc. about what's wrong with a realistic simulation of everything?

WTF?! Cool idea but....

[ogdenk]

If they can't even get Combat Flight Simulator 3 to be remotely accurate how the hell do they expect to do an accurate PLANET?!

CFS3's flight model sucks ass, especially compared to IL2/Pacific Fighters. I want a REAL SIMULATOR, not an arcade game.

Steve Ballmer's on an intergalactic cruise...

[MadMidnightBomber]

in his office.

some flavor of microsoft virtualisation :P

[marchewa]

check the "matrix on windows" film on youtube.com that's VR from microsoft :P

Good for products but not for stores

[ChrisA90278]

What people keep forgetting is the shoppers really don't want a _store_. They want a _product_ and which store they buy from is secondary.

For example I wanted a Blu-ray disc. The worst user interface I could image would have be go to a few stores and visually hunt for what I wanted. Not I want to search for the product and have the search engine give me back a list of stores that offer it. Going from store to store is backwards.

But this would be very nice way to look at a product. Manufactures could use this. Some one who builds cars or boats could show off their product with a good quality VR. Used House Salesmen (aka "realestate agents) would use this too. But NOT retail stores

Trying to muscle in on those Linden Bucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Linden Labs has been touting there isn't a recession going on in second life. Someone over at M$ got the bright idea to get in on that action. Of course, M$ will fail because they won't let people run around with gigantic phalluses trying to hump anything that isn't nailed down (so to speak).

A glimpse into the future?

[ElboRuum]

Will the avatars of this virtual universe be equally as spherical as their users are likely to become?

Already implemented in Vista

[Gothmolly]

As in, its "virtually" as good as a Mac.
It's "virtually" better than XP.
It's "virtually" more secure.

42

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to get Life and the Universe, you need to get "Simulation of Everything Pro, 64-bit edition".

How about...

[ElboRuum]

See it's the web, right?! So we have 'Web', naturally. Then it's like next-gen stuff, so we go from 2.0 to 3.0. Now, since this is a 3D environment, we replace the decimal point with a D for marketing pizazz.

So we get Web 3D0. Wait. That's a recipe for disaster, isn't it?

They're going to simulate everything...

[Tetsujin]

And they'll call it... Everything2!

Two words for you....

[plazman30]

Harsh Realm....

Re:virtual shops (a stupid concept)

[King_TJ]

I'm thinking this virtual storefront idea would work even BETTER if they bring back the CueCat reader in a virtual form. Let people pull one out of their "inventory", swipe it across the bar-code of a virtual good they're interested in (using a mouse gesture), and let it take them to a relevant web page!

Simulate This

[polyomninym]

I'd love to see them simulate a resource efficient Vista install.

VR

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they could sim a bug-free, secure OS just to sample the experience.

"THE LAST ONE"

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs this when we have "THE LAST ONE" - the last software ever to be needed? :)

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/What-the-Ad--Big-Promises.aspx

http://www.tebbo.com/presshere/html/pw8102.htm

Instead

[cyclomedia]

I'd prefer a standard 3d-modelling platform (some kind of combo evolution of vrml and sketchup) that's easy to use and importantly, with a defined scale. That way you could browse online stores as you do now but if you want to see how that coffee table will look in your lounge you'd just click the "3d model" link and have it open in your easy cheesy 3d editor, which you already built your house in because, er, you're a geek or something.

Even if you weren't geeky enough to model your house you'd still be able to grab 2/3 items from various online stores and pull up a pint glass, for example, for scale - this'd be handy for visual laptop and netbook size comparison, for example.

as usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

sex & porn drive technology;-)