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


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

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.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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