Slashdot Mirror
Kinect For Windows Releasing On February 1
clinko writes "Microsoft has announced that the new Kinect for Windows hardware and accompanying software will be available on February 1st, 2012 in 12 countries, at a suggested retail price of US $249 ($149 for edu). Microsoft has chosen a hardware-only business model for Kinect for Windows; they will not be charging for the SDK or the runtime. These will be available free to developers and end-users respectively."
I can get a Xbox 360 with a Kinect for $200. So, why should I pay more for just the hardware? Wasn't the hardware just on sale for Christmas for like $99?
Or you could, you know, read the article. The directly address why the windows version costs $100 more than the Xbox version, and after reading the entire article, I think it is both justified and reasonable. While I have little expectation that you are going to read this reply, given that I use words, like the article, I am going to summarize the important parts with regards to your statement.
The Kinect for Xbox was subsidized by Live subscriptions and game sales, with the PC version they are going to focus on the hardware and allow people to innovate with their hardware for free. Instead of paying for licenses to develop or for support, etc - you pay the entire cost at purchase, and you will get support for the product without expense.
While you can complain and gripe about the extra hundred dollars, I would implore you to maybe stop and think about what you are getting for the price. Why don't we ask around and see how much other companies are charging for a single device that includes video and audio functionality as well as speech to text translation and motion capture. At $250 this device is a steal. Yeah, times are tough, money isn't raining from the skies, but with all the iMorons blowing through apple products like a new york heroin addict in the hills of Afghanistan, well, skip an update on your phone one month.
I believe that the Kinect is going to do more to revolutionize computer interaction, gaming and functionality more than any invention since the second button on a mouse. They could price this at 500 dollars and I'd put down money that every retailer would blow through their inventory. At 250 dollars, not only will they put one on every computer inside of 2 and a half years, but they are laying down a foundation for young engineers, scientists, hackers and hobbyists to create a community with vast potential.
While this site often condemns the 'greed' of corporations such as MS, Sony, Google, etc - I think this is a case where I feel proud to have put my money towards innovation.
-edit- surely enough, such subsidized sales are illegal in a lot of countries, including holland. But in practice it's seen all over, like inkjet printers etc. and everyone seems to accept this kind of trading.
The Kinect has a user base of 18 million units world wide, let's assume only half of those are USB units, that's 9 million units. Instead of Microsoft allowing home users to use their XBox Kinect with Windows Metro apps, home users will be forced to buy a new Kinect to use it with Windows apps (commercial apps anyways, they can use apps made with the beta SDK).
With this move Microsoft has reduced the PC user base of Kinect to 0, eliminating a huge audience for developers. The reason given was that the XBox Kinect was subsidized by game sales, but if using that defence, why not just subsidize this Kinect through the new app store Windows 8 will have? This would let home users use their existing Kinect and keep Microsoft's bottom line doing well in the long term. This is just a very dumb move overall.
Foreword to pro-M$ trolls, I did RTFA and I know about the "near" feature of this new Kinect, but it still doesn't justify this move.
Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
If a user shakes their fist rock-paper-scissors style at their screen, it opens the browser to their favourite porn site in private mode.
Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
Why Kinect for Windows? Why not Kinect for PC? If, as the summary says, Microsoft has chosen a hardware-only business model, then there's no reason they should tie it to a single OS.
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
It's probably not worth your time. The people complaining will be the PC gaming zealots that hate this device because it originated from the console.
The same people who will gladly blow the best part of $1000 on the latest and greatest graphics card at release.
As you say, what you get for your money, particularly relative to the cost of many other PC gaming components, this is a steal regardless.
Really, this was one of the most impressive things about Kinect from the outset, not that the technology itself was pretty impressive, but that Microsoft had managed to do such impressive tech cheaply, when previously such technology would've cost over 4x as much to put together yourself.
Waving my arms in the air? I just don't care...
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
My experience of the Kinect? It's a very clever piece of hardware and very attractively priced - even in its PC incarnation. There's no end of things that can be done with it. I do suspect that this is what replaces the TV remote control. The only thing we know for sure that it's rubbish at is controlling video games.
Outside of exercise software (where it's good, once you accept its limitations) it makes for a horrible game controller. Despite the craze for alternative control schemes during the current console generation, I don't think anything will be displacing the twinstick controller and the mouse/keyboard combination as the dominant game input methods any time soon.
not to feed the troll, but you apparently haven't bothered opening your windows and looking outside :) congratulations on finding someone who agrees with you on the internet, btw :) to think you found an article where someone trashes something you dislike, and you wave it up in the air like a victory flag.
According to the Guinness book of world records, more people like the kinect than hate it, but in your defense, they were probably too busy having fun to spend any time online responding to flamebait. I'm out, flap your armfat once in a while buddy, use your anger for something healthy.
Realtime true 3D video (moving PoV to any point in space) is the absolute best use I've seen for Kinect. For those who've not seen it, clicky
Screw Stereographic effects; I want to pan and see that Na'vi's ass! *Ahem*
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
http://nyko.com/products/product-detail/?name=Zoom
It works - mostly. You need to reboot the xbox after installing it.
YMMV though.
Well, that's not really what a Kinect is.
Basically, you are comparing a web camera to a combination of: web camera, infrared based depth sensor with a CMOS camera, and a multi-array microphone. That's a whole lot more data than your average webcam provides. Especially the depth sensor really makes a significant difference; the distinguishing ability to determine points in 3D space has spawned a number of rather interesting possibilities. Heck, I even saw some guy on youtube use his Kinect to create 3D maps of his environment (along with textures). Try achieving that with eviacam.
Now, we could also throw in all the software features from eviacam and pit them against Kinect's abilities to detect human beings, their joints, and track their every movement in 3D space.
Mind you, I am not really a big fan of Kinect either (I don't even own one, never have), but you are basically not really making a fair comparison there.
FYI: the Kinect costs are estimated around $20. Subsidizing? Not really. Gorging? Yes.
Do you have a source for that? The teardowns I read suggested lowest cost estimates were $50~ish just for the components, that's not including software (i.e. any licensing costs), hardware assembly, packaging, shipping, the retailer's cut, etc. It would surprise me if MS were losing money on Kinect sales but I don't think they're pocketing vast sums either.
No, clearly you don't understand. MS is paying for all the positive reviews. And all the users who claim to like the product, they're all being paid as well. The 900+ reviews on Amazon with an average score of 4.5/5? All bought and paid for. And every negative review is 100% genuine, not sour grapes and definitely not paid for by competitors. Now, give GP back his shiny tinfoil hat and let's... slowly... back... away...
LOL. I think you are talking about the PS3, not 360. Lets see:
Piece of junk webcam....check ....I forget, which was is laughed and compared to looking like a sex toy...oh yeah....check
Last place console...check
Bad tech...check
Gamers trashing it
Yep, I think it's clear you got your 360 and PS3 mixed up.
It's amazing that you can even begin to think the move is better tech than a kinect. The kinect isn't just a camera. It projects and IR grid into the room, and then uses stereo cameras to detect the projection depth of the grid. With this it can actually build an accurate depth map of the room and identify complete 3 dimensional object. It can then use this to accurately reconstruct skeletal structure of players.
Compare this to the Move. I actually find that hardware hillarious. They basically took system hardware that was many times more powerful than the Wii, had the advantage of learning from the Wii's mistakes, and had several years of R&D advantage over the Wii. And what did they come up with? A system that's barely more capable than the Wii, with contollers that look stupid. Compared to Move, the Kinect hardware is brilliant and elegant.