backtop


Print 40 comment(s) - last by degobah77.. on Jul 4 at 12:36 PM

Microsoft's wearable device is said to be priced around $200

Well-connected Microsoft reporter Paul Thurrott has some information on the Redmond, Washington-based company's rumored entry into the burgeoning market of wearable devices. Google has its Android Wear platform, Samsung has smartwatches based on Tizen and Apple is reportedly preparing its own “iWatch,” which will reportedly be revealed this fall.
 
Microsoft’s entry into the wearables market is said to provide “smartphone-based notifications” and will work with any major smartphone platform (Window Phone, Android, iOS, etc.) without any restrictions. In addition, Thurrott says that Microsoft’s device will be more of a wristband than an actual smartwatch, although it will provide a display that shows the current time.

 
The wearable device is also said to include a plethora of sensors to measure your heart rate, calories burned, and steps taken. The information gleaned from the wearable device would also interface with such Microsoft apps/services as Bing Health and Healthvault.
 
According to Thurrott, Microsoft’s latest hardware offering will be priced around $200 and will be available in Q4.

Sources: Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows, U.S. Patent Office



Comments     Threshold


LOL
By BRB29 on 7/3/2014 8:22:00 AM , Rating: 2
It seems like all of MS products and services are being changed to cross-platform instead of locking it down to one ecosystem.

MS becoming Google?




RE: LOL
By CyCl0n3 on 7/3/2014 8:44:51 AM , Rating: 4
Since when is Google a good guy in cross-platform products. As far as i know they even try to ban certain Google Apps on other platforms like WP.

like this for example:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-b...


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/14, Rating: -1
RE: LOL
By Labotomizer on 7/3/2014 10:24:25 AM , Rating: 5
The app the Verge talks about was FAR better than what's available now. There has been a Youtube app for loooong time. The thing was, the Microsoft Youtube app was actually better than Google's own apps on iOS and Android. I know you won't believe that, but it was. It was excellent. Google writes their apps using native code for the platforms and even allows third party apps to do so. However for Microsoft they forced them to write it all in HTML5, so it's basically a wrapper for their web version. And to make that even worse they reduced functionality of the mobile version on Windows Phone.

I get that you hate when someone says something negative about Google but at least try to be somewhat impartial. And just because Microsoft has done similar things in the past, things that they were condemned for and had to pay significant fines on, does NOT mean that it's okay for Google to act the same way. Considering you're not a Windows Phone user you can't call it FUD because you weren't the one trying to use the app. You're doing that because it is something that paints Google in a negative light and you can't bare the idea of that happening. Even when it's 100% substantiated.


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/14, Rating: -1
RE: LOL
By atechfan on 7/3/2014 11:17:27 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The fact that Microsoft has to depend so heavily on Google services, not their own, speaks volumes about how viable Windows Phone is. YouTube belongs to Google, you don't have some god-given right to it, Microsoft.


The vast majority of Google's revenues come from advertising viewed on Windows PCs. Who depends on who? Google doesn't want to start a denial of services fight with Microsoft. MS could utterly crush Google by making ad-blocking integrated into Windows and turning it on by default. Of course they wouldn't, as it would also destroy the internet as we know it, killing all websites that offer free, ad-supported content.

Well, they could, I suppose, make Bing ads exempt from the blocking, forcing everyone to switch. But the fines for that could probably keep a few failing EU countries afloat.


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/2014 11:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Google doesn't want to start a denial of services fight with Microsoft.


Of course they don't. That's what I'm saying here! Why would Google want to do this? It makes no sense.


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/2014 11:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
This is the same kind of sensationalists slant used, especially on Daily Tech, to suggest a routine conflict with one solitary publisher is "evidence" that Amazon is becoming a monopolistic troll in the e-book market.

I'm just saying...


RE: LOL
By themaster08 on 7/3/2014 10:44:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft refused to make a player that was in-line with Google's terms of service for Youtube.
Google's own YouTube apps violate their own terms of service. They are not written in HTML5.


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/2014 11:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
You can't violate your own terms of service. How does that work exactly?

Just..wow. LOL you're so stupid.


RE: LOL
By themaster08 on 7/3/2014 11:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How does that work exactly?
By putting in place roadblocks for competitors in order to stifle competition.


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/2014 11:32:34 AM , Rating: 1
A term of service is something others have to agree to. You directly stated that Google, the owner of YouTube, was in "violation" of their own TOS.

That's impossible. Term's of Service in no way binds the author of those terms to it's own TOS.

And while we're traveling down this path of completely illogical reasoning, how would Google blocking Windows Phone users from Youtube be "stifling" competition exactly?? It ONLY hurts Google if WP users can't use YouTube.


RE: LOL
By themaster08 on 7/3/2014 11:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
It was a technicality. Technically, their own apps do violate the terms they set for their competitors and 3rd party developers.

quote:
And while we're traveling down this path of completely illogical reasoning, how would Google blocking Windows Phone users from Youtube be "stifling" competition exactly??
What you should be asking yourself is why is it only Microsoft that has had this set upon them?

Why is it that when the app was initially banned for the ability to download videos and lack of ads, did Google only state that if the ability to download videos was removed and ads were included, then the app would be made available again, knowing well that Microsoft didn't have access to the APIs to do this?

It doesn't hurt Google if Windows Phone users cannot use an app to access YouTube, as YouTube is still available via the mobile website. It harms the WP platform, as it forces one of the most popular apps to become unavailable.

Read the article on The Verge which has already been posted.


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/2014 11:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
The VERGE is not Anandtech. They are just tech journalists, like those here at Daily Tech, writing juicy stories for clickbait. I wouldn't use them as a serious source personally.

quote:
It doesn't hurt Google if Windows Phone users cannot use an app to access YouTube, as YouTube is still available via the mobile website.


Oh please, how many people want to do that? It ABSOLUTELY hurts Google when people don't have access to a YouTube app.

If Google was going to take actions to overtly hurt anyone, why Windows Phone? Don't you think Apple, which has several times the marketshare and profits of Microsoft, would be a better target?


RE: LOL
By themaster08 on 7/3/2014 12:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The VERGE is not Anandtech. They are just tech journalists, like those here at Daily Tech, writing juicy stories for clickbait. I wouldn't use them as a serious source personally.
Right, so the next time a source is cited, we'll be sure to get the Reclaimer stamp of approval. Got it. Besides, wasn't it you that concluded that Anand was an Apple homer?

quote:
Oh please, how many people want to do that? It ABSOLUTELY hurts Google when people don't have access to a YouTube app.
If it hurts Google as much as you claim, then why wouldn't they simply work with Microsoft in order to prevent the app from violating their ToS, instead of overtly using roadblocks such as preventing Microsoft access to the relevant APIs and forcing the use of HTML5?

quote:
If Google was going to take actions to overtly hurt anyone, why Windows Phone? Don't you think Apple, which has several times the marketshare and profits of Microsoft, would be a better target?
Because targeting Apple would be widely criticised. Preventing Windows Phone access to arguably one of the best apps on the platform can easily fly under the radar without much notice.


RE: LOL
By CaedenV on 7/3/2014 10:10:41 AM , Rating: 2
MS is becoming MS. Back in the day MS became popular because they worked pretty well with everything. Then they closed the noose tighter and tighter and are now bleeding market share. So now MS is opening up again, while Google is tightening the noose tighter... 3 guesses where the market will be moving over the next 5 years...

But for those who hate MS, don't worry; MS always finds a way to screw things up.


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/2014 10:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
MS is playing catch-up to Google, they still aren't as open as Google. How do you figure that their positions are switching?

Microsoft is just desperate, that's all. They aren't turning into a cuddly huggable teddy bear.

quote:
Back in the day MS became popular because they worked pretty well with everything.


Well no, MS became "popular" because they -often illegally- destroyed their competition and/or forced them out of the market entirely.


RE: LOL
By Labotomizer on 7/3/2014 10:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
Google is moving away from being open, MS is moving towards it. Why is that hard for you to understand? Just look at Android and how they're moving more and more functionality to Play services which is closed. Look how they're integrating Google+ and Hangouts into everything, services that are insanely invasive.

Your blindness when it comes to Google almost seems like a parody sometimes.


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/2014 10:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
Excuse me but Microsoft's own apps aren't open source either. There's no difference here. They have terms of service too.

And while they have recently made Windows Phone "free" in certain situations, there's still a TON of strings attached.

Also in what universe Microsoft moving toward being open? Can I make my own Windows Phone fork? Can I get the source code and have custom ROM's made like Cyanogenmod? Can I get the source code to Windows? Where is the Windows Open Source Project again, I must have missed it.

What blindness? Claiming that Google is now closed source and Microsoft isn't is comically stupid.

Calling Google's services "insanely invasive" shows you to be entirely biased against them in the first place. You are the LAST person to be accusing others of favoritism with that kind of mentality.


RE: LOL
By themaster08 on 7/3/2014 11:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And while they have recently made Windows Phone "free" in certain situations, there's still a TON of strings attached.
Wrong. Windows Phone is free to license. That's it. Regardless of OEM, cost of device, or specs.

You're confusing it with Windows 8.1 with Bing. Besides, there aren't a TON of strings attached to that either. It's actually very simple:

The device needs to have a screen under 9 inches.

It needs to have Bing set as the default search engine.

The device has to be less than $250.


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/2014 11:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
And in your mind, that's exerting LESS control than over lets say, Android?

Well thanks for helping me prove that Microsoft isn't nearly as "open".

And you know what, I don't even have a problem with any of this. Microsoft spent money developing that software, and have a right to make a profit and exert whatever controls they see fit.

But don't sit here and tell us that's being more "open" than Google. That's preposterous!


RE: LOL
By themaster08 on 7/3/2014 11:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But don't sit here and tell us that's being more "open" than Google. That's preposterous!
I've not disputed that Microsoft are more open than Google. Calm yourself down and stop being so angry.


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/2014 11:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
But that's the entire point of this discussion...

Okay well then I apologize. And I'm very calm and not angry. Why do people always say that?


RE: LOL
By inighthawki on 7/3/2014 11:41:26 AM , Rating: 3
There's just something about the way you write replies where you just always seem to sound like you're mad. Maybe the use of small insults combined with exclamation points, neither of which really help make a person sound collected, especially during an argument/debate.


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/14, Rating: 0
RE: LOL
By inighthawki on 7/3/2014 11:36:18 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think Labotomizer was using the term 'open' to mean 'open source' in this scenario.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


RE: LOL
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/2014 11:46:52 AM , Rating: 2
I know what he was referring to. Google is consolidating services into it's own apps, to ensure a consistent and better end-user experience for all users . Mind you this is NO WAY prevents others from promoting, developing, and distributing competing services. All of which Google freely allows and supports.

They are also blocking OEM's from making custom UI schemes on certain versions of Android. And even though these custom UI schemes have been mostly a blight on Android, responsible for millions of users complaints, on Daily Tech this is more evidence of Google's evil monopolistic behavior apparently.

Everywhere else on the Internet, this is accepted as a good thing. If you go back a few years ago, these were the CHIEF criticisms about Android! So now that Google is addressing those complaints, and making Android a better platform for all users (not just ones who bought the "right" phone from the "right OEM), it's a bad thing?

On Daily Tech it's portrayed by the same haters as being the apocalypse, signs that Google has a "monopoly" (wtf?), and of course that they are not "not being evil".

And anyone pointing out the absurdity of this, is labeled a fanboi or whatever and trolled, flamed down and dismissed.

I don't even really think I'm some huge Google fanboi. But compared to FUD of this level, ANYONE disagreeing seems that way I guess.


RE: LOL
By themaster08 on 7/3/2014 2:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know what he was referring to. Google is consolidating services into it's own apps, to ensure a consistent and better end-user experience for all users . Mind you this is NO WAY prevents others from promoting, developing, and distributing competing services. All of which Google freely allows and supports.
I personally don't have a problem with Google doing this. In fact, it's a good thing that Google does this, as it means that users are less dependent on carriers updating the OS.

If more of the OS is consolidated into the Play Store, it means that core apps can be updated at a much faster rate. This bypasses the molasses slow carrier OS updates, which become less significant as more of the core OS is moved to GMS.


RE: LOL
By themaster08 on 7/3/2014 10:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft is just desperate, that's all. They aren't turning into a cuddly huggable teddy bear.

Microsoft's product portfolio is available across all major platforms:

Office
Bing Apps
Skype
Yammer
Outlook.com
OneDrive
Xbox Games, Music, and Video
Lync
Remote Desktop Client
Intune
Dynamics

It's not desperation. It is has always been Microsoft's, and in particular, Nadella's plan to do this.

Windows is becoming less important to Microsoft, hence why we're seeing such things as Windows Phone 8.1 becoming free for OEMs, and Windows 8.1 with Bing. Their aim is to push their services.


ok
By p05esto on 7/2/2014 9:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yawn. I don't see the point of the watches or glasses, or any other wearable. I'm old I suppose???




RE: ok
By inighthawki on 7/2/2014 9:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
Probably depends on lifestyle. I too am not very interested in these technologies. The idea of a smartwatch sounds pretty dumb to me. I have an actual watch for the time, and such a small display could never provide me with any useful information or ability that I would not rather be doing directly on my phone.

However there are a lot of people that benefit from fitness tracking devices, and I'm sure there are things a smartwatch could do that I'm not thinking of (or wouldn't normally care about) that others would find invaluable based on their daily routines.

I won't discount their potential usefulness, but I'm also not very impressed by what they can do.


RE: ok
By peterrushkin on 7/2/2014 11:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, these hipsters from Cali are everywhere nowadays, down-rating everything they don't like! Please stop migrating, we all know you want to turn the US into another bankrupt state like your homeland!

Like you, I see these as pointless. I'll be saving my collective $1700.

What I would buy however. Is a combination of the AI in "her" and also having glasses which would overlay AR into my vision. Now that would be cool.

It's a shame thats a few years away. The AI at least ;)


RE: ok
By StevoLincolnite on 7/3/2014 5:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
If I can display some sort of a Geocaching map on it, then I'll be all over it like flies to poop.

Conversely, having a calorie counter would be awesome.


RE: ok
By Flunk on 7/3/2014 7:57:20 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe the gen 2 or 3 product will be more compelling. Right now the whole thing seems to be a cynical attempt to wring more money out of us, like "3D" TV.


RE: ok
By marvdmartian on 7/3/2014 7:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
True, as it seems the only things these devices can do, is what the smart phone you're already carrying can do....including, telling you what time it is! Is it really so difficult to pull that phone out of your pocket? I know it's not difficult to carry it in an arm band (or your pocket) while working out, as I see 95% of the people in the gym doing just that.

I've got a digital watch that will give me a fairly accurate heart rate, do lap timing, alarms....oh yeah, and tell me the time, too! It won't give me the weather, or tell me who just e-mailed me....but it cost me less than $20. Think I'll stick with that one!


RE: ok
By Labotomizer on 7/3/2014 9:13:43 AM , Rating: 2
Some of us like nice watches. While I haven't seen a smartwatch that I want yet I'm not going to rule them out if they're something I think looks good enough to wear.


RE: ok
By marvdmartian on 7/3/2014 1:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
I won't disagree with you. But I think it's much more likely that Apple hinted at an "iWatch" type device, in a campaign of misinformation, to force their competitors to waste money on designing and producing their own devices, none of which will likely make a lick of money.

Could be, the fruity ones are quietly laughing their collective butts off.


RE: ok
By CaedenV on 7/3/2014 10:04:06 AM , Rating: 1
Naw, kids have absolutely no interest in this kind of tech. Watches are pretty much aimed at older businessmen whose heyday was in the gadget heavy '90s and early '00s, and the people below them in the food chain who want their jobs whenever they get around to retiring. Everyone else is moving towards having fewer and more versatile devices that they have to spend less and less effort into charging or maintaining.

Look around the world. The general public does not wear watches, or smartwatches, or fitness gadgets. Heck, for that matter I know very few women who wear bracelets or other jewelry on a daily basis anymore when that was considered 'normal' 10 years ago. There are even several people I know who don't even bother to wear wedding rings anymore, and there is all sorts of social pressure for that tradition to overcome... so that means that the pressure to move away from wearables of any kind is pretty huge these days.

The idea that the mass public will willingly wear a smartwatch or other wrist-strap device seems silly and quaint. Sure, there will be a market for it; and when the watches cost $200+ there is sure to be profit in it. But as a whole this is going to be a big disappointment to companies hoping for this to be the 'next big thing'. Manufacturers loved the profit in smartphones, until the market started to saturate and they realized that smartphones replaced a heck of a lot more devices than they bargained for which bodes poorly for their future. Then it was that tablets were going to be their savior, but that market saturated extremely quickly. Now they are hoping for watches, and again the mass market is simply not there.

The movement in technology is invisibility. If you want to sell electronics, get into embedded systems that are hidden from the user. Get into cars. Get into home automation. Get into wireless data and power transmission. Get into sub-dermal computer tech (that will be huge!). Get into clothing-embedded tech. But if something has to be strapped on, or charged, or 'worn' outside of required clothing then it is not going to have a large following. The best technology is often the technology that you do not see, do not have to maintain, and do not have to interact with.


RE: ok
By inighthawki on 7/3/2014 11:19:57 AM , Rating: 2
I see a ton of young people wearing watches all the time. I don't think it's as uncommon as you think, you might just have to go to the right places.


RE: ok
By degobah77 on 7/4/2014 12:36:56 PM , Rating: 1
I live in a major metropolitan area and the only people I see wearing watches are showoff douchebags and old people.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki