something like that. Reason is, this forum is very obviously disproportionately pro-Microsoft in such a degree that does not represent the average consumer metrics.
in other words, I think its possible that every single Luma phone owner has an account here because to be frank there arent that many out in the world
And I think you are just mad that Microsoft is about to outsell Rift by a lot. It's ok to admit defeat and move on.
ok well here is what I think shows bias
'Oculus? yeah VR sucks its going to fail miserably' 'MS? well I am not really into VR but props to them'
'How can they do it?' 'because they have one of the best R&D in the world as evidence by Luma'
'I think we should wait to see if its as good as an HTC or a google cardboard' 'well obviously its going to be as good as an HTC that is obvious'
doesnt even remotely touch on what I said. in fact i dont even understand how its related to anything I said. Luma or Lumia.
Care to explain to me the connection between what I said and what you linked? I dont get it. Lumia is barely even relevant in the industry how the fuck do you ignore that?
I know you don't understand because you're embarrassing yourself by lumping the Lumia (developed and designed by another company that was purchased by Microsoft) in with Microsoft R&D.
doesnt matter.
its the same company making technology market based decisions and do we know for sure because we looked it up before me making this statment that the VR headset was developed by the R&D team? The first table size Surface came from Microsoft R&D as well and I have never even seen one in real life
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
something like that. Reason is, this forum is very obviously disproportionately pro-Microsoft in such a degree that does not represent the average consumer metrics.
in other words, I think its possible that every single Luma phone owner has an account here because to be frank there arent that many out in the world
And I think you are just mad that Microsoft is about to outsell Rift by a lot. It's ok to admit defeat and move on.
ok well here is what I think shows bias
'Oculus? yeah VR sucks its going to fail miserably' 'MS? well I am not really into VR but props to them'
'How can they do it?' 'because they have one of the best R&D in the world as evidence by Luma'
'I think we should wait to see if its as good as an HTC or a google cardboard' 'well obviously its going to be as good as an HTC that is obvious'
doesnt even remotely touch on what I said. in fact i dont even understand how its related to anything I said. Luma or Lumia.
Care to explain to me the connection between what I said and what you linked? I dont get it. Lumia is barely even relevant in the industry how the fuck do you ignore that?
I know you don't understand because you're embarrassing yourself by lumping the Lumia (developed and designed by another company that was purchased by Microsoft) in with Microsoft R&D.
doesnt matter.
its the same company making technology market based decisions and do we know for sure because we looked it up before me making this statment that the VR headset was developed by the R&D team? The first table size Surface came from Microsoft R&D as well and I have never even seen one in real life
Just walk into a microsoft store.
The thing is, what you would consider a failure from microsoft isn't. Surface began as this crazy, unlikely consumer tech, that has now morphed into a consumer staple and a fast growing tablet and desktop hybrid.
Kinect definitely sold well, and flopped eventually as a gaming accessory, but the technology is being rolled into so many products from the VR set to Hololens and beyond, and it's a solid piece of technology. I've seen kinect in use anywhere from 3D modeling to Driverless Cars.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is the best in all things they do, but to say that this headset won't be a commercial success because the ZUNE failed.. is taking out all of the massive successes that Microsoft has had.
The VR set is poised to be the leading PC VR set based on several important rules. Affordability. Ease of Use. System Requirements. Technological Superiority.
something like that. Reason is, this forum is very obviously disproportionately pro-Microsoft in such a degree that does not represent the average consumer metrics.
in other words, I think its possible that every single Luma phone owner has an account here because to be frank there arent that many out in the world
And I think you are just mad that Microsoft is about to outsell Rift by a lot. It's ok to admit defeat and move on.
ok well here is what I think shows bias
'Oculus? yeah VR sucks its going to fail miserably' 'MS? well I am not really into VR but props to them'
'How can they do it?' 'because they have one of the best R&D in the world as evidence by Luma'
'I think we should wait to see if its as good as an HTC or a google cardboard' 'well obviously its going to be as good as an HTC that is obvious'
doesnt even remotely touch on what I said. in fact i dont even understand how its related to anything I said. Luma or Lumia.
Care to explain to me the connection between what I said and what you linked? I dont get it. Lumia is barely even relevant in the industry how the fuck do you ignore that?
I know you don't understand because you're embarrassing yourself by lumping the Lumia (developed and designed by another company that was purchased by Microsoft) in with Microsoft R&D.
doesnt matter.
its the same company making technology market based decisions and do we know for sure because we looked it up before me making this statment that the VR headset was developed by the R&D team? The first table size Surface came from Microsoft R&D as well and I have never even seen one in real life
Just walk into a microsoft store.
The thing is, what you would consider a failure from microsoft isn't. Surface began as this crazy, unlikely consumer tech, that has now morphed into a consumer staple and a fast growing tablet and desktop hybrid.
Kinect definitely sold well, and flopped eventually as a gaming accessory, but the technology is being rolled into so many products from the VR set to Hololens and beyond, and it's a solid piece of technology. I've seen kinect in use anywhere from 3D modeling to Driverless Cars.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is the best in all things they do, but to say that this headset won't be a commercial success because the ZUNE failed.. is taking out all of the massive successes that Microsoft has had.
The VR set is poised to be the leading PC VR set based on several important rules. Affordability. Ease of Use. System Requirements. Technological Superiority.
this whole thing started because of the exchange below
'how do they do that?' 'because Microsoft has one of the best R&D on the planet'
the problem I have with that is: 1. if that was evidence of great consumer products then they would have a much larger exposure to the consumer market then they do primarly in the following categories A. Smart Phones B. other cool stuff. If the consumer product lines benifited so greatly from an outstanding and amazing R&D department then evidence of that would show itself in the market place because MS would have better phones then the ones they selected and they would have gotten it to the market faster.
2. Microsofts exposure to the consumer market in the various hardware areas that they are currently is is.........TERRIBLE...for a company of its size and prevalance in the technology market.
3. is the VR headset DIRECTLY a product of the R&D department and did people here know that before looking it up?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Just going to put this out there, but I don't think MS foray into VR/AR is going to have gaming as it's lynchpin. VR gaming sucks (and looks like it will for a while). They really seem to want to push the social and creative side of things and any "gaming" will be on the casual side with a side glance towards the xbox. I'm just basing this off of what MS has showed in the last couple years and how they're been talking about it.
Google/Samsung are all about the mobile VR experience
MS looks to be heading in the social/creative direction
Apple just wants to remove ports
OcRift/Vive are looking towards the hardcore gamer demographic and seem to have the most hurdles and challenges to overcome in appealing to that audience. I know Facebook wants to go the social route, but they'll have to figure out why someone needs an OcRift for that purpose instead of the Google/Samsung mobile solution - basically do I need an OcRift for facebook VR or can I just use an app on my phone? I have a feeling the mobile side will win on this front as that's where facebook's audience is, they're not building gaming PC's to use facebook.
Sony wants to sell more playstations, they don't really care how, if it takes a VR headset, they'll sell you a headset.
something like that. Reason is, this forum is very obviously disproportionately pro-Microsoft in such a degree that does not represent the average consumer metrics.
in other words, I think its possible that every single Luma phone owner has an account here because to be frank there arent that many out in the world
And I think you are just mad that Microsoft is about to outsell Rift by a lot. It's ok to admit defeat and move on.
ok well here is what I think shows bias
'Oculus? yeah VR sucks its going to fail miserably' 'MS? well I am not really into VR but props to them'
'How can they do it?' 'because they have one of the best R&D in the world as evidence by Luma'
'I think we should wait to see if its as good as an HTC or a google cardboard' 'well obviously its going to be as good as an HTC that is obvious'
doesnt even remotely touch on what I said. in fact i dont even understand how its related to anything I said. Luma or Lumia.
Care to explain to me the connection between what I said and what you linked? I dont get it. Lumia is barely even relevant in the industry how the fuck do you ignore that?
I know you don't understand because you're embarrassing yourself by lumping the Lumia (developed and designed by another company that was purchased by Microsoft) in with Microsoft R&D.
doesnt matter.
its the same company making technology market based decisions and do we know for sure because we looked it up before me making this statment that the VR headset was developed by the R&D team? The first table size Surface came from Microsoft R&D as well and I have never even seen one in real life
Just walk into a microsoft store.
The thing is, what you would consider a failure from microsoft isn't. Surface began as this crazy, unlikely consumer tech, that has now morphed into a consumer staple and a fast growing tablet and desktop hybrid.
Kinect definitely sold well, and flopped eventually as a gaming accessory, but the technology is being rolled into so many products from the VR set to Hololens and beyond, and it's a solid piece of technology. I've seen kinect in use anywhere from 3D modeling to Driverless Cars.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is the best in all things they do, but to say that this headset won't be a commercial success because the ZUNE failed.. is taking out all of the massive successes that Microsoft has had.
The VR set is poised to be the leading PC VR set based on several important rules. Affordability. Ease of Use. System Requirements. Technological Superiority.
this whole thing started because of the exchange below
'how do they do that?' 'because Microsoft has one of the best R&D on the planet'
the problem I have with that is: 1. if that was evidence of great consumer products then they would have a much larger exposure to the consumer market then they do primarly in the following categories A. Smart Phones B. other cool stuff. If the consumer product lines benifited so greatly from an outstanding and amazing R&D department then evidence of that would show itself in the market place because MS would have better phones then the ones they selected and they would have gotten it to the market faster.
2. Microsofts exposure to the consumer market in the various hardware areas that they are currently is is.........TERRIBLE...for a company of its size and prevalance in the technology market.
3. is the VR headset DIRECTLY a product of the R&D department and did people here know that before looking it up?
They have saturated the consumer market with quite a lot of products. But why are we singling out Microsoft? http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/htc-mobile-sale/ HTC as I said, has been failing at their smartphone business too, and they were once one of the top smartphone makers in the industry.
But that really has no bearing on this VR set. 1) Samsung sells a lot of smartphones, shows signs of decreasing tablet sales and no growth 2) Microsoft sells a lot of surface tablet/PC's and has a steady 10 percent growth rate but fails at their nokia made smartphones.
Microsoft didn't fail in the mobile market, they just didn't make money on their phones.
2 - Microsoft is selling their Xbox hardware is beating Sonys PS4 hardware month over month in sales. Thats a stark turnaround from this time a year ago. This isn't terrible at all, and Microsoft has been profitable for a long time now in all of these avenues.
3 ------------- THIS is the only important pertinent fact here, and lets be clear about one thing.
This VR set is a product of their R&D via HOLOLENS.
If you want to question how this VR set is supposed to do roomscale, how it's supposed to know positioning, all you have to do is watch a Hololens video. It's already in a working state for everyone to see. Hololens needs to know where you are in the room, how close you are to the holograms, what side you're looking at it from, and where you placed an object in a room so that it stays there.
This is a simple extension to Hololens. And it's a damn encouraging one too, because if they can make this set for 300, I can only imagine the consumer hololens version to be probably what the Rift or Vive sells for right now -- and I would happily buy it for that.
interesting. I wonder how they are doing it with just one USB port. thanks for the info
Because Microsoft has one of the best tech R&D facilities in the world.
yeah thats not good enough given their presence in the market place for consumer products.
I suspect its simply not as good as say an HTC. I am not saying that is a bad thing I am just saying its likely more like a Sony
The have a top tiered console that has beat out everything the last 4 months straight with a much more powerful one coming soon. Sold over 84 million 360's and currently have a comfortable market share with the Surface and Surface Pro. Now are offering up an affordable and practical VR solution for the masses. I would say they are doing fine in the consumer products market. The future looks bright indeed.
I agree Microsoft does pretty good with what they do.
I have a Microsoft Lumia 950XL, it may not be a the popular choice. But I enjoy it more so than my old Samsung. It syncs everything up with my PC account. Once they get their messaging from PC to phone redone (they had it setup nicely, but someone decided to tie it into Skype, not sure I agree with it, but they must have some reason for it) that will be pretty sweet. I may not have all the nifty apps everyone else does, but I do love my 950XL.
I'm not a big fan of Xbox, but I will admit they have a pretty nice console. More of a Nintendo fan, since I love Zelda.
Personally I can only see this VR being good for them and the consumers. It is affordable and Microsoft is pretty good with what they do make.
i think many here have direct ties or indirect ties to Microsoft. that is what I think.
Yes I am some guru with Microsoft. I mean I must be working for them from my stay at home dad job.
Seriously do you even think sometimes before you type something out? Or do you just spout things off and hope something sticks somewhere?
something like that. Reason is, this forum is very obviously disproportionately pro-Microsoft in such a degree that does not represent the average consumer metrics.
in other words, I think its possible that every single Luma phone owner has an account here because to be frank there arent that many out in the world
And I think you are just mad that Microsoft is about to outsell Rift by a lot. It's ok to admit defeat and move on.
ok well here is what I think shows bias
'Oculus? yeah VR sucks its going to fail miserably' 'MS? well I am not really into VR but props to them'
'How can they do it?' 'because they have one of the best R&D in the world as evidence by Luma'
'I think we should wait to see if its as good as an HTC or a google cardboard' 'well obviously its going to be as good as an HTC that is obvious'
Just to prove it to you. My last post in another thread about VR.
"To be honest, I couldn't care less about VR either way. As I have bad eyesight and I don't need some headset strapped 2-3 inches with a chance to make it all the worse. Perhaps when all is said and done and they can say with 100% truth that it won't hurt my eyes or make them worse than they are getting on their own, then I'll try it. Being told I was going to go blind one day at the age of 16 and I'm now 36 (and my eyes have already gotten a lot worse in the past 20 years. Come to think of it it was at 16 I was told that, so edit), I don't care to speed that along any faster.
Only thing I care about is the white knights of it using best guessing and estimates as fact and saying this proves all of you wrong. When in fact it has proven nothing except that some companies love to guess at stuff (and still have to lower their estimates) and that some companies are trying to guess 10 years out as to how much VR will make..when they can't even keep their financial guesses for a year.
It might be best to wait till the actual companies release sales numbers and financial gains/losses to start predicting things. Just my opinion of course."
we should count the posts and put the count in a spreadsheet.
how many negitive counts for VR when Oculus is refered to vs how many negitive counts for VR when Sony or Microsoft is refered to.
I think we all know what the results would be
I think many people either pro VR, against VR or Neutral to VR always thought the pricing was a sticking point. Sony and now Microsoft are providing options that are in the realm of mass consumer consumption. If that is the case and people start to show even more of an interest other tech heads and early adopters we may just see the types of software developed that is very much needed to make it a successful technology.
When I purchased my first developer kit, Oculus said their consumer version when released was going to retail for about $300
They fucked up big time and they need to get their MSRP down quick
something like that. Reason is, this forum is very obviously disproportionately pro-Microsoft in such a degree that does not represent the average consumer metrics.
in other words, I think its possible that every single Luma phone owner has an account here because to be frank there arent that many out in the world
And I think you are just mad that Microsoft is about to outsell Rift by a lot. It's ok to admit defeat and move on.
ok well here is what I think shows bias
'Oculus? yeah VR sucks its going to fail miserably' 'MS? well I am not really into VR but props to them'
'How can they do it?' 'because they have one of the best R&D in the world as evidence by Luma'
'I think we should wait to see if its as good as an HTC or a google cardboard' 'well obviously its going to be as good as an HTC that is obvious'
doesnt even remotely touch on what I said. in fact i dont even understand how its related to anything I said. Luma or Lumia.
Care to explain to me the connection between what I said and what you linked? I dont get it. Lumia is barely even relevant in the industry how the fuck do you ignore that?
I know you don't understand because you're embarrassing yourself by lumping the Lumia (developed and designed by another company that was purchased by Microsoft) in with Microsoft R&D.
doesnt matter.
its the same company making technology market based decisions and do we know for sure because we looked it up before me making this statment that the VR headset was developed by the R&D team? The first table size Surface came from Microsoft R&D as well and I have never even seen one in real life
Just walk into a microsoft store.
The thing is, what you would consider a failure from microsoft isn't. Surface began as this crazy, unlikely consumer tech, that has now morphed into a consumer staple and a fast growing tablet and desktop hybrid.
Kinect definitely sold well, and flopped eventually as a gaming accessory, but the technology is being rolled into so many products from the VR set to Hololens and beyond, and it's a solid piece of technology. I've seen kinect in use anywhere from 3D modeling to Driverless Cars.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is the best in all things they do, but to say that this headset won't be a commercial success because the ZUNE failed.. is taking out all of the massive successes that Microsoft has had.
The VR set is poised to be the leading PC VR set based on several important rules. Affordability. Ease of Use. System Requirements. Technological Superiority.
this whole thing started because of the exchange below
'how do they do that?' 'because Microsoft has one of the best R&D on the planet'
the problem I have with that is: 1. if that was evidence of great consumer products then they would have a much larger exposure to the consumer market then they do primarly in the following categories A. Smart Phones B. other cool stuff. If the consumer product lines benifited so greatly from an outstanding and amazing R&D department then evidence of that would show itself in the market place because MS would have better phones then the ones they selected and they would have gotten it to the market faster.
2. Microsofts exposure to the consumer market in the various hardware areas that they are currently is is.........TERRIBLE...for a company of its size and prevalance in the technology market.
3. is the VR headset DIRECTLY a product of the R&D department and did people here know that before looking it up?
They have saturated the consumer market with quite a lot of products.....
just not accurate given how many consumer markets they have tried to get into and has basically failed at. Xbox is really the only prooven success. Surface tablets might become one but they still have a ways to go.
the bias in favor of Microsoft and in Sony on this site is painfully obvious
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
something like that. Reason is, this forum is very obviously disproportionately pro-Microsoft in such a degree that does not represent the average consumer metrics.
in other words, I think its possible that every single Luma phone owner has an account here because to be frank there arent that many out in the world
And I think you are just mad that Microsoft is about to outsell Rift by a lot. It's ok to admit defeat and move on.
ok well here is what I think shows bias
'Oculus? yeah VR sucks its going to fail miserably' 'MS? well I am not really into VR but props to them'
'How can they do it?' 'because they have one of the best R&D in the world as evidence by Luma'
'I think we should wait to see if its as good as an HTC or a google cardboard' 'well obviously its going to be as good as an HTC that is obvious'
doesnt even remotely touch on what I said. in fact i dont even understand how its related to anything I said. Luma or Lumia.
Care to explain to me the connection between what I said and what you linked? I dont get it. Lumia is barely even relevant in the industry how the fuck do you ignore that?
I know you don't understand because you're embarrassing yourself by lumping the Lumia (developed and designed by another company that was purchased by Microsoft) in with Microsoft R&D.
doesnt matter.
its the same company making technology market based decisions and do we know for sure because we looked it up before me making this statment that the VR headset was developed by the R&D team? The first table size Surface came from Microsoft R&D as well and I have never even seen one in real life
Just walk into a microsoft store.
The thing is, what you would consider a failure from microsoft isn't. Surface began as this crazy, unlikely consumer tech, that has now morphed into a consumer staple and a fast growing tablet and desktop hybrid.
Kinect definitely sold well, and flopped eventually as a gaming accessory, but the technology is being rolled into so many products from the VR set to Hololens and beyond, and it's a solid piece of technology. I've seen kinect in use anywhere from 3D modeling to Driverless Cars.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is the best in all things they do, but to say that this headset won't be a commercial success because the ZUNE failed.. is taking out all of the massive successes that Microsoft has had.
The VR set is poised to be the leading PC VR set based on several important rules. Affordability. Ease of Use. System Requirements. Technological Superiority.
this whole thing started because of the exchange below
'how do they do that?' 'because Microsoft has one of the best R&D on the planet'
the problem I have with that is: 1. if that was evidence of great consumer products then they would have a much larger exposure to the consumer market then they do primarly in the following categories A. Smart Phones B. other cool stuff. If the consumer product lines benifited so greatly from an outstanding and amazing R&D department then evidence of that would show itself in the market place because MS would have better phones then the ones they selected and they would have gotten it to the market faster.
2. Microsofts exposure to the consumer market in the various hardware areas that they are currently is is.........TERRIBLE...for a company of its size and prevalance in the technology market.
3. is the VR headset DIRECTLY a product of the R&D department and did people here know that before looking it up?
They have saturated the consumer market with quite a lot of products.....
just not accurate given how many consumer markets they have tried to get into and has basically failed at. Xbox is really the only prooven success. Surface tablets might become one but they still have a ways to go.
the bias in favor of Microsoft and in Sony on this site is painfully obvious
You disregarded the rest, which very much explained how microsoft does what they do. Like I said before, don't ask the questions if you're not going to take the time to understand the answers.
IBM and Microsoft file for the most patents. The Microsoft R&D teams contribution to technological development and access are undeniable. Do you have any smart phone? If you do chances are the manufacturer paid Microsoft a portion of it's worth in order to use their patents.
something like that. Reason is, this forum is very obviously disproportionately pro-Microsoft in such a degree that does not represent the average consumer metrics.
in other words, I think its possible that every single Luma phone owner has an account here because to be frank there arent that many out in the world
And I think you are just mad that Microsoft is about to outsell Rift by a lot. It's ok to admit defeat and move on.
ok well here is what I think shows bias
'Oculus? yeah VR sucks its going to fail miserably' 'MS? well I am not really into VR but props to them'
'How can they do it?' 'because they have one of the best R&D in the world as evidence by Luma'
'I think we should wait to see if its as good as an HTC or a google cardboard' 'well obviously its going to be as good as an HTC that is obvious'
doesnt even remotely touch on what I said. in fact i dont even understand how its related to anything I said. Luma or Lumia.
Care to explain to me the connection between what I said and what you linked? I dont get it. Lumia is barely even relevant in the industry how the fuck do you ignore that?
I know you don't understand because you're embarrassing yourself by lumping the Lumia (developed and designed by another company that was purchased by Microsoft) in with Microsoft R&D.
doesnt matter.
its the same company making technology market based decisions and do we know for sure because we looked it up before me making this statment that the VR headset was developed by the R&D team? The first table size Surface came from Microsoft R&D as well and I have never even seen one in real life
Just walk into a microsoft store.
The thing is, what you would consider a failure from microsoft isn't. Surface began as this crazy, unlikely consumer tech, that has now morphed into a consumer staple and a fast growing tablet and desktop hybrid.
Kinect definitely sold well, and flopped eventually as a gaming accessory, but the technology is being rolled into so many products from the VR set to Hololens and beyond, and it's a solid piece of technology. I've seen kinect in use anywhere from 3D modeling to Driverless Cars.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is the best in all things they do, but to say that this headset won't be a commercial success because the ZUNE failed.. is taking out all of the massive successes that Microsoft has had.
The VR set is poised to be the leading PC VR set based on several important rules. Affordability. Ease of Use. System Requirements. Technological Superiority.
this whole thing started because of the exchange below
'how do they do that?' 'because Microsoft has one of the best R&D on the planet'
the problem I have with that is: 1. if that was evidence of great consumer products then they would have a much larger exposure to the consumer market then they do primarly in the following categories A. Smart Phones B. other cool stuff. If the consumer product lines benifited so greatly from an outstanding and amazing R&D department then evidence of that would show itself in the market place because MS would have better phones then the ones they selected and they would have gotten it to the market faster.
2. Microsofts exposure to the consumer market in the various hardware areas that they are currently is is.........TERRIBLE...for a company of its size and prevalance in the technology market.
3. is the VR headset DIRECTLY a product of the R&D department and did people here know that before looking it up?
They have saturated the consumer market with quite a lot of products.....
just not accurate given how many consumer markets they have tried to get into and has basically failed at. Xbox is really the only prooven success. Surface tablets might become one but they still have a ways to go.
the bias in favor of Microsoft and in Sony on this site is painfully obvious
I thought these damned quote walls were done away with on these newer forums. Yes, I quoted all of that just to complain about all of that. That's what the Edit button is for people.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
IBM and Microsoft file for the most patents. The Microsoft R&D teams contribution to technological development and access are undeniable. Do you have any smart phone? If you do chances are the manufacturer paid Microsoft a portion of it's worth in order to use their patents.
what they develop be it a single USB port that can run an external sensor and internal sensor in ways that no other VR firm has been able to figure out or look up at the patent office or not its a formula that DOES NOT happen regularly enough to suggest its a common assumption.
1. its unlikely that they have an approach to USB technology in the example of the VR needs we are discussing here that others do not also have access to the same information either directly or...wait for it....the fucking patent office.
2. it clearly does not happen enough times to suggest its common place.
The reality is much if not most of all technology around hardware is knowledge that all companies already know.
an example of a bias (or a lack on understanding technology) is to assume MS has a lab that contains an huge amount of magical technologies built from even more magical technologies that no other company on the planet has access to the information of said discoveries
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
IBM and Microsoft file for the most patents. The Microsoft R&D teams contribution to technological development and access are undeniable. Do you have any smart phone? If you do chances are the manufacturer paid Microsoft a portion of it's worth in order to use their patents.
what they develop be it a single USB port that can run an external sensor and internal sensor in ways that no other VR firm has been able to figure out or look up at the patent office or not its a formula that DOES NOT happen regularly enough to suggest its a common assumption.
1. its unlikely that they have an approach to USB technology in the example of the VR needs we are discussing here that others do not also have access to the same information either directly or...wait for it....the fucking patent office.
2. it clearly does not happen enough times to suggest its common place.
The reality is much if not most of all technology around hardware is knowledge that all companies already know.
This was already explained in detail. Just because you don't understand it, didn't read it, or couldn't read it, doesn't mean it's not possible.
IBM and Microsoft file for the most patents. The Microsoft R&D teams contribution to technological development and access are undeniable. Do you have any smart phone? If you do chances are the manufacturer paid Microsoft a portion of it's worth in order to use their patents.
what they develop be it a single USB port that can run an external sensor and internal sensor in ways that no other VR firm has been able to figure out or look up at the patent office or not its a formula that DOES NOT happen regularly enough to suggest its a common assumption.
1. its unlikely that they have an approach to USB technology in the example of the VR needs we are discussing here that others do not also have access to the same information either directly or...wait for it....the fucking patent office.
2. it clearly does not happen enough times to suggest its common place.
The reality is much if not most of all technology around hardware is knowledge that all companies already know.
This was already explained in detail. Just because you don't understand it, didn't read it, or couldn't read it, doesn't mean it's not possible.
samsung uses a lot of technology that was developed by Microsoft.
but here is the kicker. Samsung is aware of that technology, they build from that technology. yes they pay microsoft but its not like they dont know what a USB can do with VR unless Microsoft is NOT sharing that patented information with them.
see?
so what is the likelyhood that they hold some magical inforation that they are not sharing with anyone that allows a single USB to perform as well as all other VR setups?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am surprised there is so much arguing about this.
I would expect that people browsing gaming sites would generally appreciate that there is a VR product affordable for a broader audience which is likely to contribute to futher evolution of the technology.
I would somewhat understand a bias if someone owned shares of one or more companies selling the VR kits. Otherwise, why would you care which of the kits is the most successful.
because the hate for Oculus started BEFORE prices where known. The love of Sony VR started BEFORE Prices where known.
People INSTANTLY and wrongly assumed the second they heard Sony that the Sony headset would be of the same quality as Oculus which it is not.
If that is not a bias I dont know what is
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
IBM and Microsoft file for the most patents. The Microsoft R&D teams contribution to technological development and access are undeniable. Do you have any smart phone? If you do chances are the manufacturer paid Microsoft a portion of it's worth in order to use their patents.
what they develop be it a single USB port that can run an external sensor and internal sensor in ways that no other VR firm has been able to figure out or look up at the patent office or not its a formula that DOES NOT happen regularly enough to suggest its a common assumption.
1. its unlikely that they have an approach to USB technology in the example of the VR needs we are discussing here that others do not also have access to the same information either directly or...wait for it....the fucking patent office.
2. it clearly does not happen enough times to suggest its common place.
The reality is much if not most of all technology around hardware is knowledge that all companies already know.
This was already explained in detail. Just because you don't understand it, didn't read it, or couldn't read it, doesn't mean it's not possible.
samsung uses a lot of technology that was developed by Microsoft.
but here is the kicker. Samsung is aware of that technology, they build from that technology. yes they pay microsoft but its not like they dont know what a USB can do with VR unless Microsoft is NOT sharing that patented information with them.
see?
so what is the likelyhood that they hold some magical inforation that they are not sharing with anyone that allows a single USB to perform as well as all other VR setups?
What does that have to do with anything I said at all? It has ZERO to do with it. Microsoft is doing head tracking and roomscale with ZERO WIRES on hololens. ZERO USB PORTS. Do you get it?
Lol that is a load. Unless the screen in there is like 480 resolution. 1080 gtx i5 6600k is the min requirements to get 70 min fps in modern games at the higher resolutions. In some of those games you would even have to lower the settings to get a min fps rate of 70+, even with a 1080gtx and a i5 6600k
Lol that is a load. Unless the screen in there is like 480 resolution. 1080 gtx i5 6600k is the min requirements to get 70 min fps in modern games at the higher resolutions. In some of those games you would even have to lower the settings to get a min fps rate of 70+, even with a 1080gtx and a i5 6600k
But the thing is, a lot of VR games shouldn't be using the power that they are.. they're little more than tech demos. These minimum specs will likely get you to a place where if your system can handle the game (based on the games actual system requirements) then chances are you'll be able to play it fine.
I am surprised there is so much arguing about this.
I would expect that people browsing gaming sites would generally appreciate that there is a VR product affordable for a broader audience which is likely to contribute to futher evolution of the technology.
I would somewhat understand a bias if someone owned shares of one or more companies selling the VR kits. Otherwise, why would you care which of the kits is the most successful.
because the hate for Oculus started BEFORE prices where known. The love of Sony VR started BEFORE Prices where known.
People INSTANTLY and wrongly assumed the second they heard Sony that the Sony headset would be of the same quality as Oculus which it is not.
If that is not a bias I dont know what is
You argue bias, when you have bias of your own towards the Rift. That is some grade A irony right there.
HTC is the better option.
that said, has anyone even bothered to read my examples of why I am saying its painfully obvious?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
IBM and Microsoft file for the most patents. The Microsoft R&D teams contribution to technological development and access are undeniable. Do you have any smart phone? If you do chances are the manufacturer paid Microsoft a portion of it's worth in order to use their patents.
what they develop be it a single USB port that can run an external sensor and internal sensor in ways that no other VR firm has been able to figure out or look up at the patent office or not its a formula that DOES NOT happen regularly enough to suggest its a common assumption.
1. its unlikely that they have an approach to USB technology in the example of the VR needs we are discussing here that others do not also have access to the same information either directly or...wait for it....the fucking patent office.
2. it clearly does not happen enough times to suggest its common place.
The reality is much if not most of all technology around hardware is knowledge that all companies already know.
an example of a bias (or a lack on understanding technology) is to assume MS has a lab that contains an huge amount of magical technologies built from even more magical technologies that no other company on the planet has access to the information of said discoveries
And we didn't have motion sensor controllers till Nintendo took the time to develop them. Guess what, other companies made fun of them for it. Sony in particular. Then all the sudden both of the other two console companies popped out motion sensor tech for their consoles.
Just because one company hasn't done it and another has, doesn't mean the others won't follow suit. Just because Rift hasn't figured out away to make their VR use 1 USB doesn't mean Microsoft hasn't made a way for it to happen. Maybe Rift can follow suit.
a few problems there 1. how information is shared now is very much more rapid then it was then. 2. you are ASSUMING the LESS COMMON OUTCOME. the more COMMON outcome is that they dont. because MS is spoken you are ASSUMING its all magic boxes which is the LESS COMMON outcome
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
IBM and Microsoft file for the most patents. The Microsoft R&D teams contribution to technological development and access are undeniable. Do you have any smart phone? If you do chances are the manufacturer paid Microsoft a portion of it's worth in order to use their patents.
what they develop be it a single USB port that can run an external sensor and internal sensor in ways that no other VR firm has been able to figure out or look up at the patent office or not its a formula that DOES NOT happen regularly enough to suggest its a common assumption.
1. its unlikely that they have an approach to USB technology in the example of the VR needs we are discussing here that others do not also have access to the same information either directly or...wait for it....the fucking patent office.
2. it clearly does not happen enough times to suggest its common place.
The reality is much if not most of all technology around hardware is knowledge that all companies already know.
an example of a bias (or a lack on understanding technology) is to assume MS has a lab that contains an huge amount of magical technologies built from even more magical technologies that no other company on the planet has access to the information of said discoveries
And we didn't have motion sensor controllers till Nintendo took the time to develop them. Guess what, other companies made fun of them for it. Sony in particular. Then all the sudden both of the other two console companies popped out motion sensor tech for their consoles.
Just because one company hasn't done it and another has, doesn't mean the others won't follow suit. Just because Rift hasn't figured out away to make their VR use 1 USB doesn't mean Microsoft hasn't made a way for it to happen. Maybe Rift can follow suit.
a few problems there 1. how information is shared now is very much more rapid then it was then. 2. you are ASSUMING the LESS COMMON OUTCOME. the more COMMON outcome is that they dont. because MS is spoken you are ASSUMING its all magic boxes which is the LESS COMMON outcome
I can see that you are oblivious to everything everyone is pointed out. I think it is just time to put you on a permanent block list here. But before I do, no it isn't because Microsoft just said it, it is because they are releasing the specs for it. Like every other company does. You just don't like the fact that they have figured out ways to run stuff on less USB's.
You will argue when you are wrong in every aspect of what is being pointed out to you. I don't know if it is because you honestly believe, in your own special world, that you couldn't possibly be wrong or you just refuse to see that you are wrong.
So welcome to my permanent block list. Enjoy your stay.
your response is random and non specific and I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to what others are pointing out
1. what? the Samsung uses microsoft technology THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF? 2. what? the Lumina is selling so well?
what the fuck are you even refering to SPECIFICALLY?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
your response is random and non specific and I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to what others are pointing out
1. what? the Samsung uses microsoft technology THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF? 2. what? the Lumina is selling so well?
what the fuck are you even refering to SPECIFICALLY?
probably the FACT that your questions are erroneous because they've all been answered, yet you continue to ask them as if there's some crazy "unanswered mystery" about how Microsoft is out doing every other PC headset on the market.
Comments
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The thing is, what you would consider a failure from microsoft isn't. Surface began as this crazy, unlikely consumer tech, that has now morphed into a consumer staple and a fast growing tablet and desktop hybrid.
Kinect definitely sold well, and flopped eventually as a gaming accessory, but the technology is being rolled into so many products from the VR set to Hololens and beyond, and it's a solid piece of technology. I've seen kinect in use anywhere from 3D modeling to Driverless Cars.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is the best in all things they do, but to say that this headset won't be a commercial success because the ZUNE failed.. is taking out all of the massive successes that Microsoft has had.
The VR set is poised to be the leading PC VR set based on several important rules. Affordability. Ease of Use. System Requirements. Technological Superiority.
'how do they do that?'
'because Microsoft has one of the best R&D on the planet'
the problem I have with that is:
1. if that was evidence of great consumer products then they would have a much larger exposure to the consumer market then they do primarly in the following categories
A. Smart Phones
B. other cool stuff.
If the consumer product lines benifited so greatly from an outstanding and amazing R&D department then evidence of that would show itself in the market place because MS would have better phones then the ones they selected and they would have gotten it to the market faster.
2. Microsofts exposure to the consumer market in the various hardware areas that they are currently is is.........TERRIBLE...for a company of its size and prevalance in the technology market.
3. is the VR headset DIRECTLY a product of the R&D department and did people here know that before looking it up?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Google/Samsung are all about the mobile VR experience
MS looks to be heading in the social/creative direction
Apple just wants to remove ports
OcRift/Vive are looking towards the hardcore gamer demographic and seem to have the most hurdles and challenges to overcome in appealing to that audience. I know Facebook wants to go the social route, but they'll have to figure out why someone needs an OcRift for that purpose instead of the Google/Samsung mobile solution - basically do I need an OcRift for facebook VR or can I just use an app on my phone? I have a feeling the mobile side will win on this front as that's where facebook's audience is, they're not building gaming PC's to use facebook.
Sony wants to sell more playstations, they don't really care how, if it takes a VR headset, they'll sell you a headset.
But that really has no bearing on this VR set.
1) Samsung sells a lot of smartphones, shows signs of decreasing tablet sales and no growth
2) Microsoft sells a lot of surface tablet/PC's and has a steady 10 percent growth rate but fails at their nokia made smartphones.
Microsoft didn't fail in the mobile market, they just didn't make money on their phones.
2 - Microsoft is selling their Xbox hardware is beating Sonys PS4 hardware month over month in sales. Thats a stark turnaround from this time a year ago. This isn't terrible at all, and Microsoft has been profitable for a long time now in all of these avenues.
3 ------------- THIS is the only important pertinent fact here, and lets be clear about one thing.
This VR set is a product of their R&D via HOLOLENS.
If you want to question how this VR set is supposed to do roomscale, how it's supposed to know positioning, all you have to do is watch a Hololens video. It's already in a working state for everyone to see. Hololens needs to know where you are in the room, how close you are to the holograms, what side you're looking at it from, and where you placed an object in a room so that it stays there.
This is a simple extension to Hololens. And it's a damn encouraging one too, because if they can make this set for 300, I can only imagine the consumer hololens version to be probably what the Rift or Vive sells for right now -- and I would happily buy it for that.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
They fucked up big time and they need to get their MSRP down quick
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
the bias in favor of Microsoft and in Sony on this site is painfully obvious
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Microsoft is in a lot of consumer markets. Surface already is a success, they've been at a stable 10% growth of an already profitable business. No more time is needed for them to "become successful". They are on their 5th generation SURFACE system already lol. Think in terms that Samsung is on their 7th iteration of their flagship smartphone and you'll start to understand Microsoft isn't failing here. http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/54552/20161121/microsoft-reported-to-release-surface-phone-2017-surface-pro-5-together-on-february-2017.htm
1. its unlikely that they have an approach to USB technology in the example of the VR needs we are discussing here that others do not also have access to the same information either directly or...wait for it....the fucking patent office.
2. it clearly does not happen enough times to suggest its common place.
The reality is much if not most of all technology around hardware is knowledge that all companies already know.
an example of a bias (or a lack on understanding technology) is to assume MS has a lab that contains an huge amount of magical technologies built from even more magical technologies that no other company on the planet has access to the information of said discoveries
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
but here is the kicker. Samsung is aware of that technology, they build from that technology. yes they pay microsoft but its not like they dont know what a USB can do with VR unless Microsoft is NOT sharing that patented information with them.
see?
so what is the likelyhood that they hold some magical inforation that they are not sharing with anyone that allows a single USB to perform as well as all other VR setups?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The love of Sony VR started BEFORE Prices where known.
People INSTANTLY and wrongly assumed the second they heard Sony that the Sony headset would be of the same quality as Oculus which it is not.
If that is not a bias I dont know what is
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1. how information is shared now is very much more rapid then it was then.
2. you are ASSUMING the LESS COMMON OUTCOME. the more COMMON outcome is that they dont. because MS is spoken you are ASSUMING its all magic boxes which is the LESS COMMON outcome
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
is this topic serieus?
You're talking about the minimum requirements for windows 10 to run, and 1GB is only for 32 bit systems, or Windows 10 Mobile.
Just about every system on the market is a 64 bit system now. 1GB is not enough to run Windows 10 64 Bit.
1. what? the Samsung uses microsoft technology THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF?
2. what? the Lumina is selling so well?
what the fuck are you even refering to SPECIFICALLY?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me