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 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.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














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