Slashdot Mirror
What Kinect Could Be, But Probably Won't
An opinion piece at CNN looks at Microsoft's Xbox Kinect, praising the system's capabilities not for gaming, but for what it does to the video viewing experience. "The idea of being able to ditch your table full of remote controls and just use your hands and voice to interact with the TV is compelling. It's much nicer than QWERTY keyboards, which are a terrible idea in the living room. It's also better than Wii-like remote controls, or even using an iPad or smartphone as your TV remote, a feature that cable companies are increasingly rolling out." The problem, as they see it, is Microsoft's inability to actually bring this into common usage for regular television viewing. "It seems like the company is tied too much to the Xbox's substantial gaming revenue to split the Xbox TV stuff off as a separate product — even though there's a huge population of non-gamers who probably have no interest in buying an Xbox." Perhaps this is something that can be addressed by others when the Kinect SDK is released.
...that Microsoft comes up with something very cool on its own (i.e., without buying someone else's product and rebranding it), they have this frustrating tendency to screw it up with unimaginative business practices. In this instance, I give it at most two years before someone comes out with a similar product that will immediately charge to the lead in the market. At that point, Microsoft will try to catch up and that's what they'll be doing all the way up to the point where they discontinue the product. Their reliance on product limitations as a business practice may have helped them in the early years, but it's been a long time since it's been of any benefit.
I'm not a fan of Microsoft (though they make THE best keyboard with their Natural Ergonomic 4000), but I can only think that this is seriously frustrating for people who work there.
Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!
How would the Kinect be used as a TV remote replacment? Swipe left for down channel, right for next? Up for volume up and down for volume down? Ok now I want to jump from channel 34 to 21, what swipe gesture would I use for that? How about channel info? Will there be Kinect gesture classes in our children's school years? I hear people talking about the Kinect like its the second coming but other then specific problems that could be addresed by it for the most part its the child like idea of of having a Minority Report interface that has people excited.
Let the XBox be in a tablet format.
That would be a powerful combination. Winning!!
Not to be a party-pooper, because different interfaces should be explored, of course, but for day to day usage I could, on principle, not justify using a TV remote that draws 12 watts.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
I think that there is a reason that this guy is writing opinion pieces for CNN, rather than actual strategies:
Microsoft's "unwillingness" to split off some sort of 'xbox TV' thing: So, the kinect is a ~$100-$120 device(and Microsoft is apparently not making a loss; but not trying to mar a launch by gouging). On top of that, it needs a host device to run the body-detection stuff. So, you might be able to do an 'xbox TV' for a bit less than a base-model xbox SKU+Kinect, by going with a weaker CPU and no GPU; but such a device would still cost much more than a universal remote and not so much less than the base model xbox that it could really differentiate itself.
"Table full of remotes": Y'know why you have so many remotes? Because you have a zillion sucky little set-top-boxes that require more fiddling than joe user is willing to devote to the problem to get working together nicely. Guess what problem your 'xbox TV', no matter how magical the input experience, won't solve? Oh, yeah, that one. Consumer video is a mess, with endless fast-replaced devices, minimal control standardization(and what standardization there is, as with HDMI CEC or Cablecard, is either a few rounds short of fully baked or a failure by design), and some fairly entrenched players who have absolutely no intention of being shoved out of the way so that you can use the box you want to, rather than Scientific Atlanta's latest sick effort. That is the hard part.
It's several different holidays rolled into one, due to the tendency of religions to steal from each other. The rabbit and eggs are old pagan fertility symbols, and the name itsself is a corrupted name of a pagan goddess. Christians incorporated them - it's not clear if they simply co-opted an existing festival, or if they came up with their own at around the same date and over time the two merged together.
In commercials you always see how some ordinary thing is so very difficult and cubersome to do. You know... "Vacuuming under the sofa is so hard and the vacuum cleaner doesn't fit there well and you have to (*gasp*) kneel down and it still won't be perfectly clean... But if you buy Super Cleaner (TM) RIGHT NOW you'll...". At that point, every regular person should go "Excuse me? I've vacuumed under the sofa and it's not that difficult, really". The commercials are trying to create a need that doesn't exists because there is a product that has been designed to fulfill that need. This sounds similar.
The reason why it's difficult to come up with a replacement for a remote is that there isn't any real need for that. Are the remotes really that hard to use? You pick one up. lay on the sofa and can do anything with a small finger gesture. I don't understand why they're trying to create need for a replacement with those very artificial sounding arguments. "It's hard to pick up the right remote"? Oh please...
If it was such an interesting feature, TV manufacturers could just licence the tech from PrimeSense, the company behind Kinect, and built it straight into TVs...
Nobox: Only simple products.
The article says a qwerty keyboard in the living room is a bad idea, without explaining why. So, why?
Thanks.
All you need is two people who wanna watch TV, for the matter let's say a husband and his wife, and all they have is one TV that has no remote - both can control it by merely moving their hands, and lord knows Mr. Something doesn't want to watch that reality show that Mrs. Something really likes. Five minutes later, and they're using they hands to kill each other, not control the TV.
Not to talk about when they reach out their hand to grab a tissue from the table, but the TV mistakes it for a shutdown command.
Here's one idea you'll soon forget but read about nine years from now in a "list of the 2010s dumbest ideas" on the Internet.
Especially if it will respond with Majel Barret's voice.
Kinect uses a camera. If you want to use gestures to turn the TV on the camera has to be on all the time. For me thats a little bit creepy. I know kinect just turns the image it gets into a model, but what if the suppliers of the equipment sell the data it collects to advertisers? How much time do you actually spend in front of the TV? Do you listen to music? What music? When you rent a DVD how many people are actually watching? Is that more than the DVD was licensed to be viewed by?
And so on.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The problem, as they see it, is Microsoft's inability to actually bring this into common usage for regular television viewing. "It seems like the company is tied too much to the Xbox's substantial gaming revenue to split the Xbox TV stuff off as a separate product â" even though there's a huge population of non-gamers who probably have no interest in buying an Xbox.
Sales as a separate product would be incremental and would not hurt Xbox or Kinect sales to gamers. However developing and supporting an interface between Kinect and all the world's TVs and cable boxes would be ... difficult ... and not worth any incremental revenue.
The market for universal remotes is not an attractive one.
"What the Kinect Could Be, But Probably Won't" -- Been there done that -- TFA should be called, "What Kinect & LIRC hackers have realized is really lame way to control a TV or computer."
The article says a qwerty keyboard in the living room is a bad idea, without explaining why. So, why?
Thanks.
Because Dvorak is so much nicer.
On a serious note, I don't see keyboards going away any time soon (or ever). I can type almost as fast as I think and 8 times as fast as I can get my voice recognition software to recognize.
What I am seeing more of is Computers. Everywhere. In portable phone & tablet form factors, as mp3 players, as game consoles, set-top boxes and routers... Even in the dash of some cars.
Once we realize that TVs are just big computer screens, and a general purpose "desktop" computer can perform all the tasks that we currently use the set-top boxes for, it won't seem too strange to just use your keyboard in the living room. Google TV already does this... For typing in a search or composing text/emails, nothing beats a keyboard. If I'm near my computer, I use it to send text messages.
Hell, I even have a wireless USB keyboard hooked up to my XBox360 -- It's much quicker/nicer than the overpriced controller mounted keyboard.
We'll always need a pointing device -- I prefer a Wacom pen-tablet/mouse pad, but I could see a Kinect filling this role. In fact, I've used my Kinect to control the mouse pointer, but the CPU usage is ridiculous when you consider how little my Wacom uses and how much more precise it is.
As for Kinect controlling the TV -- Well, I've done that. It wasn't that hard. I've been using LIRC to control my TV with Linux for quite some time. Linking LIRC to a gesture recognizer (libFreenect + OpenCV) was a piece of cake, but not really worth it. The Kinect is far less efficient and precise than either my truly universal remote (which I use to control both the TV & computer with via LIRC), or a simple keyboard / mouse combo. Seriously though -- WAY too much CPU consumption when you consider how little an IR remote, keyboard or mouse/pen tablet consumes...
People made the same argument amount about graphics cards... that the revenue from gaming was so large that the cards could never be "separated off" for for general purpose- or scientific- computing. But now general purpose computing on graphics processing units is an industry with its own conferences, journals and "off-the-shelf" vendors even though only a tiny fraction of graphics cards end up in such clusters. Now, I don't know about the feasibility of using a Kinect in the manner suggested, but revenue from gaming is not going to slow them up. If there is another "buck" to be made, it will be made.
Microphone in the kinect. Just speak "channel 34" or, even better, "CNN sports".
Any further questions?
I don't know what's the most ridiculous; The headline (since when is "what could be but probably won't" news?), the fact that these news start with "An opinion piece at CNN" (opinion /= news) or that the whole idea is so utterly stupid that I can't help but facepalm (which would probably entice Kinect to delete the channel or something).
Next up: Some guy on the street says cars could run on liquid gold soon but probably won't. In his opinion car manufacturers could produce cars running on gold for 5$ less than the average gas-guzzling car and thus eliminate the demand for oil.
First, a cabled keyboard that weighs at least four pounds doesn't seem like the best TV remote out there.
Second, what is this TV you speak of? Oh, you mean that tech from the twentieth century?
Seriously, a PC, and internet connection and a huge screen is becoming increasingly viable as a television replacement. Microsoft may have trouble putting Kinects on set-top boxes, but eventually, even the Cable companies and their vaunted "digital cable" will fall.
It's obvious that the miraculous "convergence" of TV and Internet people (especially financial people) have been talking about for over a decade is simply Kinect + Google TV.
It's also pretty obvious that monopolism and patents (monopolism) will prevent Microsoft and Google from allowing that. At least, Microsoft's desperate clutch on monopoly rather than value will prevent its Kinect from putting Google atop that converged platform, leaving MS doing the dirty work while Google's brand and revenues shoot up on it.
If only Google had bought Kinect to market it instead of Microsoft. Maybe it's not too late for Google to get "3D movie recognition" to the masses on a more open platform. Microsoft will fight that literally to its dying day.
--
make install -not war
Kinect is already available for programming against (see http://www.ideum.com/blog/category/kinect/)
come on fhqwhgads
I would love to see a hack that would allow people to use the Kinect with programs like 3dMax and other 3d programs. It would be awesome to be able to download or create a 3d model and then use the kinetic to animate the models and easily make your own animated movies.
Kinect is almost twice the price of a set-top computer such as Apple TV or Roku. Even if it came with a free set-top, it is too expensive for the set-top market. And an Xbox and Kinect cost more than an Apple TV and iPod touch, which also gives the user a device for apps while they watch, like looking up things on the Web or tweeting or voting on American Idol. And more people know how to use an iPod than Kinect.
What would be needed is a $99 set-top that has a built-in cheapo Kinect. Maybe just a webcam. That is also needed because the people who don't want to get an Xbox also don't want to plug in accessories. Plugging AC and HDMI into the TV is already pushing it.
And finally, wouldn't the Kinect be triggered accidentally by people moving around as they watch TV? Like waving around as they watch a sporting event? It's the same problem as voice activated TV, where the main problem is that most of the words the TV hears are not for it. Most of the movements the Kinect sees would not be for it. It might receive a command only once every 1.5 hours. Who wants to have a movie stop because they clapped their hands?
So ultimately, Kinect is for games. Gesture control of a TV will likely require not just some Kinect software, but a new Kinect designed specifically for set-tops, not game consoles. It would have to be cheaper, easier to set-up, and smart enough to know when it is not being talked to.
The problem is, even if they could work all that out and do a Kinect TV for $99, Microsoft won't build it because they think of a giant noisy Xbox as their set-top and they don't want to cannibalize.
The real headache of integrating a system so that it can control home entertainment systems is the tremendous number of systems with which one must integrate..and the ongoing maintenance of that integration. Every new Blu-ray player, tv set, cable box, etc. means at the very least a sanity check on remote settings and at the very most a whole effort around producing a set of new commands. Multiply that by every vendor of note, and then add the update feature. Even Logitech had to buy another company to get this right; it's a HUGE pain in the ass.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Am I the only one that whenever I hear of Kinect-controlled TVs thinks of the Sub-Eartha Radio on the Heart of Gold, where you had to remain perfectly motionless in order to remain listening to the same station?
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Since when are QWERTY keyboards a terrible idea in the living room?
I picked up a Logitech diNovo Edge wireless keyboard a few years ago, and I very much prefer it to any remote control I've come across. Its volume slider alone is a more sophisticated, responsive, and precise approach to the three-button, louder/quieter/mute approach every remote has. Same with the horizontal and vertical scrolling touchpad. Searching for specific media? Keying in precisely what you're searching for will almost always be faster than browsing.
When it comes to remotes, there is no standardized button layout. Great, so I have to memorize new positions for each and every new device, even though the functions are the same! Even better, frequently remotes will have prominently-placed buttons that simply do not do anything, since you don't have the corresponding device, service, or configuration. Even the button layout is awkward: you can probably change the channel and adjust the volume without looking, but many other functions will require you to look at the device. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that remote control design is intentionally inefficient, as it would increase the time spent browsing.
I can imagine voice command being more efficient for some functions, but I cannot imagine a Kinect being a quicker and/or more convenient way to access so much functionality, unless the precision increases by an order of magnitude or two -- precise enough to use finger-entry on a virtual, QWERTY keyboard, basically.
Microsoft didn't develop the depth imaging technology used in the kinect. The company that did (http://www.primesense.com/) is in a much better position to market the technology to television manufacturers, etc. In fact, they already are (http://www.primesense.com/?p=563).
You'll never be able to watch that Top Gun disk ...
... bzzzt disk ejected.
"EJECT EJECT EJECT"
And you'll never be able to finish Casablanca: ... player loops back to scene 1
"Play it again"
And no police action dramas. ..
"Police! Stop!" click
And Ah-nold will just endlessly loop ...
"I'll be back" loops to previous scene
And forget about "Spaceballs" ... wrong password - device locked!
"password is 1 2 3 4 5"
And all those westerns ...
... paused
Hold it right there
And all your porn will be reduced to 20 seconds .. 2x
.. 4x
.. 8x
.. 16x
.. 32x
.. 64x .
.. plaid .
Faster!
Faster!
Faster!
Faster!
Faster!
Faster!
Faster!
I like and own several MS hardware items, and they usually work better/well when compared to similar priced items. BUT having followed the path of this device I feel that it is in the wrongs hands, I don't think that it is part of MS focus and so it will get marginalised, and even forgotten once they need another game feature to trump the others. The only hope that I see for it is to have a 3rd party develop uses for it.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
I got the impression that the opinionator was looking for a microsoft box, just one that wasn't an xbox. Even in that case, I would be shocked if MS bit.
"Media center PC"(in the generic sense, whether MS, Myth, whatever, based), is sort of a niche category and has stubbornly remained so. I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of Kinect SDK integration eventually; but such an offering would end up being more expensive than the xbox equivalent, and rather more complex to use.
Some hypothetical TV-only box, produced by Microsoft, seems to be an even weaker case. Judging by the roku appliances, apple TVs, and assorted networked media streamer widgets, you apparently can't get a network-connected STB device with reasonable codec support and some general purpose processing power to the shelf for under $80 or so. $100-$150 for the ones with a nicer CPU, or an onboard disk, or other premium features. A base model xbox is $199. Since the Kinect alone is ~$100, any sort of TV-only Kinect device isn't going to come in at much under $180. And, for Microsoft, such a device would mean a completely different development branch, no cross-compatibility with even casual xbox games, no opportunity to upsell you on full games, etc. Producing such a thing would just be stupid.
Someone should just hack one together. Why even bring the kinect into it? The motion tracking PhD project that was on here a the other week (wasn't it released open source?), or one of the packages that people in comments claimed rendered it no big deal, plus a usb webcam and an atom powered computer with a IR interface should render this possible for a determined hacker. Shouldn't it? At least as far as channel + / -, Volume + / -, and input increment goes.
Sounds like a nice bag of hacker-points just waiting to be claimed. Probably get you a whole basket of page views on your blog.
-- "Oh. This guy again."