[quote author=“Tommo_UK”][quote author=“daemon”]
But regardless of the viability of Microsoft’s investment strategy, you’re analysis of Microsoft leaves me doubtful of your capability to recognize anything of value that Microsoft develops, greatly reducing your reliabilty as an analyst in my opinion. It’s easy to say a company is dead, look at the amount of death announcements for Apple.

daemon, flame bait. Not rising to it. Cook your own sausages. History’s proven me right so far.

Come, come now fellas… Imho, you both have made valid points but I think you’re arguing over the relative terms that are “innovation” and “worth.”

While I am certainly not a Microsoft fan by any stretch of the imagination, I don’t think we should besmirch the contributions that they have given to the tech world (insert jokes here about blue screen of death, viruses and Zunes) or ignore the fact that they also continue to innovate, although they do (like all other companies, including our favorite one!) at times fail.

If I were Bill Gates (btw, if I were Steve Ballmer I’d have shot myself by now to put me out of the misery) I would be seething that no one seems to care a rat’s ass about Surface, which I think even Tommo can agree fits the bill of being innovative. They are going to sell a bunch of these things, but by the time the price point comes down to affordability (likely a curve akin to plasma TVs) there will be many competitors, so who knows how big a boost to their bottom line their biggest innovation in years will be.

And that, I think, is the heart of what Tommo is getting at. That Apple is not only adept at building the better mousetrap, they are also better at carving their niche and marketing said mousetrap, all the while making sure that there are lots of mice around so that you will want to use it. (Though they will only have one button.  )

I mean, how pissed off would you have been at the D5 conference if you were Bill Gates? You unveil this great new technology and Mossberg couldn’t care less, but Steve Jobs pulls a *phone* from his pocket and gets everyone DROOLING!... That in a nutshell is not only why Apple is so genius, it’s also why Microsoft fans can’t stand Apple.

MacGuffin

[quote author=“MacGuffin”]
I mean, how pissed off would you have been at the D5 conference if you were Bill Gates? You unveil this great new technology and Mossberg couldn’t care less, but Steve Jobs pulls a *phone* from his pocket and gets everyone DROOLING!... That in a nutshell is not only why Apple is so genius, it’s also why Microsoft fans can’t stand Apple.
MacGuffin

The problem with the Surface is that it uses VERY OLD technology to achieve what it does. It is SO typical Microsoft… It uses 3 cameras to scan the surface. To get it to recognize anything such as your camera or your credit card it has to have a Microsoft barcode on it.

It really isn’t innovative as it draws on work by many, many others dating back to the 60’s which is why it uses such impractical technology. it was only at the D5 conference to attempt to steal Apple’s thunder. Where it failed. The cost of the thing is at least 10,000 dollars, probably more, and it is hugely impractical.

Whereas Apple’s multi-touch technology is now in something like 2,000,000 iPhones and an unknown number of ipod touches. Not only do Apple develop and patent new and exciting things to play with they actually deliver them to the customer.

If you think about it Apple create the multitouch interface in a hand held device. Microsoft take a fucking table to achieve the same thing - and it still doesn’t make a phone call!

Could someone enlighten why Facebook is worth $10 billion?  I’ve trouble understanding why YouTube is worth $1.65 billion and now MSFT is valuing Facebook at $10 billion.

Because Microsoft want to mess with your head.

A lot of other people are asking the same question .

Microsoft tables a winner, again!

[quote author=“rattyuk”][quote author=“MacGuffin”]
I mean, how pissed off would you have been at the D5 conference if you were Bill Gates? You unveil this great new technology and Mossberg couldn’t care less, but Steve Jobs pulls a *phone* from his pocket and gets everyone DROOLING!... That in a nutshell is not only why Apple is so genius, it’s also why Microsoft fans can’t stand Apple.
MacGuffin

If you think about it Apple create the multitouch interface in a hand held device. Microsoft take a fucking table to achieve the same thing - and it still doesn’t make a phone call!

I think that just about sums it up

[quote author=“rattyuk”]
The problem with the Surface is that it uses VERY OLD technology to achieve what it does.

I disagree with you as to this being a “problem” so to speak, harkening back to the relative notion of “innovation” that sparked this thread.

If you take an old technology and do something new with it, I definitely think that’s innovative. Corn has been around forever and it took people 100 years to figure out they can make fuel for their cars out of it. Ethanol is certainly innovative (though, imho, much more impractical than Surface.)

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Surface using cameras, since it *works*. And there is no reason why it won’t become cheaper and better over time. (Unlike ethanol.)

Surface definitely can make inroads into businesses at more attractive price points and form factors. What we’ve seen thus far is merely a proof of concept—this device is imho quite forward-thinking and to reiterate, even though it might not make Microsoft a mint, I do think that if anyone but them had announced it, it would have been seen as a lot more “cool” and “innovative” than it has gotten credit for being.

MacGuffin

The problem with Microsoft Surface is that it takes four people to move it, there are registration issues between the back projection image and the multiple IR camera images used for touch; there are viewing angle issues with back projection screens; it takes a high powered processor running Vista to work it; if you actually use it for the normal uses of a table (such as putting your handbag on it in the store) it’s going to get confused, because a touch is a touch. (“Sir - please don’t put your hand on the table while I show you this product / while your friend choses from the menu” etc).

It’s just a subsidized demonstrator of the sort of applications that are possible with multitouch, wireless etc. in limited circumstances (hotel/casino/high end store/theme park). Like dynabook or the knowledge navigator, but naff . Some of the apps MS showed were quite nice. But like Knowledge Navigator (1987), it may not be be real even twenty years hence.

Apple’s already sold nearly two million iPhones (probably).

A lot of other people are asking the same question .

MSFT has the cash and needs the service to achieve its objectives. It’s worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

A lot of other people are asking the same question .

MSFT has the cash and needs the service to achieve its objectives. It’s worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

IMO, MSFT is running scared after being out-played for DCLK by GOOG, they were forced to pay-up for AQNT before someone else (YHOO?) bought them. They overpaid IMO, but the Facebook deal seems right up the same alley. They are very fearful of GOOG - if it gakes $500M to secure an “in” with Facebook and prevent GOOG from doing the same, MSFT is scared enough to pay it.

HAB

IMO, MSFT is running scared after being out-played for DCLK by GOOG, they were forced to pay-up for AQNT before someone else (YHOO?) bought them. They overpaid IMO, but the Facebook deal seems right up the same alley. They are very fearful of GOOG - if it gakes $500M to secure an “in” with Facebook and prevent GOOG from doing the same, MSFT is scared enough to pay it.

HAB

Umm, they only picked up 10%. Could not Google do an end run and pick up 11% - ? Not that it would be a good strategy, but me thinks that a 10% position is very manipulative. ???

[quote author=“MacGuffin”]
Surface definitely can make inroads into businesses at more attractive price points and form factors. What we’ve seen thus far is merely a proof of concept—this device is imho quite forward-thinking and to reiterate, even though it might not make Microsoft a mint, I do think that if anyone but them had announced it, it would have been seen as a lot more “cool” and “innovative” than it has gotten credit for being.
MacGuffin

No.

Experience shows that Microsoft pretty much over promise and under deliver on everything they do. Look at the hype surrounding the launch of Zune. Look at the list of promises when Longhorn was announced… Look at the delays… Look at the renaming… Look at what was actually delivered.

Get the picture?

Look at this weeks current Microsoft “Score”... Halo 3. Halo was going to be a Mac only game. Steve showed it at a Keynote. Then Microsoft walked in and bought the best Apple developer of all time.  Microsoft have now blown - I’m not totally sure - but around 6 billion in the xbox project and has yet to make a profit. I mean Halo 3 will be a very successful game but will it make more than the 1.5 billion M$ have had to put aside to repair xboxes?

At the time I thought the loss of Bungie was a mistake on Apple’s part. in fact I think in retrospect it was a fantastic sleight of hand by Steve Jobs. Making Microsoft waste huge amount of resources on games machines has given Apple the time to win over the hearts and minds of the consumer.

[quote author=“rattyuk”]
Experience shows that Microsoft pretty much over promise and under deliver on everything they do. Look at the hype surrounding the launch of Zune. Look at the list of promises when Longhorn was announced… Look at the delays… Look at the renaming… Look at what was actually delivered.

Get the picture?

I don’t deny any of that, ratty—and again I’m not necessarily saying that Microsoft will be abundantly successful with its Surface device, I’m just saying that the technology itself (whether MSFT’s version, or another co’s improvement) will prove to be increasingly pervasive. Not as much as speech recognition (I’m also long NUAN, fwiw) but I think touch-based computing will be in the second echelon of inroads made in the next 5-10 years. (Which of course we will have the iPhone to thank for much of its initial indoctrination.)

MacGuffin

[quote author=“MacGuffin”]
I don’t deny any of that, ratty—and again I’m not necessarily saying that Microsoft will be abundantly successful with its Surface device, I’m just saying that the technology itself (whether MSFT’s version, or another co’s improvement) will prove to be increasingly pervasive. Not as much as speech recognition (I’m also long NUAN, fwiw) but I think touch-based computing will be in the second echelon of inroads made in the next 5-10 years. (Which of course we will have the iPhone to thank for much of its initial indoctrination.)

MacGuffin

Kinda sorta. I think leaning over the coffee table is not where it is at - and I’m talking from a bad back point of view. I also think that trying to use the iMac in that format might also be hard too. If you have seen any of Jeff Han’s (sp?) demos he seems to be working on a table angle up which seems to do the trick - there are other demos where they are on a wall - but I think that might be hard to use too. Would be interested to see how multitouch works in a tablet device. Though we say multitouch at the moment this seems to be limited to just pinch and whatever the opposite of pinch is (expand?).