[Miko]

OK I don't know if this was brought up before, but I want to know what you all think about the pros and cons of what seems to be the two leading Multi-Touch offerings available. Forget the Apple vs. Microsoft debate, hell even throw out the 10K entry price for Surface. I just want to know which technology you feel provides a better solution + functionality.

[Doxxic]

Well I think they're incomparable in every respect I can think of: problems being solved, market being served, technical execution...

[Kickaha]

Ayup. One uses touch-sensitive capacitance, the other, cameras and projectors.

Entirely different beasts.

I like the camera/projector concept, but their execution wasn't thrilling. For most people, the iPhone is more useful.

[Miko]

I know they are "different beasts" but the general public will see them both as Multi-Touch.

The camera/projector solution is not limited to actually having to use your finger to manipulate objects, as I'm sure many women can attest to. My wife keeps trying to use my phone with her nail and it doesn't work. Seems like with Surface it will recognize whatever you place on it as a method of input, i.e. the paintbrush or digital camera from the video demo.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Miko I know they are "different beasts" but the general public will see them both as Multi-Touch.

The general public is smart enough to know you don't buy a truck when you really want a motorcycle, even when they're both vehicles powered by a combustion engine. It'll understand the difference between two otherwise unrelated consumer electronics products with a multi-touch user interface.

Seems like with Surface it will recognize whatever you place on it as a method of input, i.e the paintbrush or digital camera from the video demo.

Microsoft was very (and presumably deliberately) vague on what exactly it recognizes. Knowing them, and knowing at what an early stage this technology as a whole is, color me skeptical. I think Microsoft was more trying to benefit from the hype surrounding Jeff's demo, the iPhone MWSF keynote, etc. than present a product they actually deem particularly useful. They pull this trick a lot (and the media keeps on falling for it). Cairo comes to mind.

[Miko]

@chucker

I think you missed my point about the general public. Lets say they were to develop two identical apps one running on a touch sensitive panel and one running on a camera/projector panel, I don't think the general public would know the difference or even care as long as it works.

Your analogy about bike vs. truck was off a bit, now if you said you wanted to buy a car and was given the option of two identical unmarked cars one a hybrid and the other a traditional vehicle which would you choose. well they both look the same and both get you from point A to point B. that will make the buying process a little more difficult.

[Doxxic]

I get the feeling that your question is really about product placement: how real are the problems both types of multi-touch try to solve, and how well do they solve them?

Well I think that "Big" Multitouch, as presented by Microsoft, is a solution in search of a problem. Hotel lobbies are not yearning for something like it, households don't really need tables that recognize phones, or project Ludo board games.
It could be great for theatrical performances though.

While Apple's "Pocket" Multitouch solves real economical problems of hardware costs, hardware inflexibility and pocket space scarcity.

But I'm still under the impression that you could include the marketing and usefulness of any invention in your question, since both types of multi-touch are so hard to compare.
Or just leave Apple's multi-touch out of this thread, since so much has already been written about it, and just ask our opinions about Microsoft's application of multi-touch.

[Miko]

Good points, I really just want to see what everyone feels are the pros and cons of each of the technologies, many "ahem ok some" here are smarter then I. Obviously Apple's can be presented on a smaller scale than Microsoft's making it more personnel, but Microsoft's seems to offer true interaction between not only objects but devices as well.

[Doxxic]

"Seems to" indeed.

Imagine they have this installed in, say, 500 hotel lobbies around the world (wild guess). Do you think those installments are going to keep recognizing every mobile phone people lay on it and interact with it, for the next years? If yes: why would they do that in the first place?

I think Microsoft's multi-touch is going to have a hard time even competing with your average touch screen info point.

[Miko]

Well to be fair Hotels already keep and track a lot of guest information, and if this was to be implemented into hotel lobbies it would not be a stand-alone system, it would most certainly be connected to a database somewhere, just like the already crappy Dells and IBM computers hotels use are.

I don't think they would use every feature but would instead taylor it for a specific application, say fast credit card check-in, check-out.

I guess my point is that this could at least be feasible using the camera/projector tech, but not really using the touch-sensitive tech.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Miko Good points, I really just want to see what everyone feels are the pros and cons of each of the technologies, many "ahem ok some" here are smarter then I. Obviously Apple's can be presented on a smaller scale than Microsoft's making it more personnel, but Microsoft's seems to offer true interaction between not only objects but devices as well.

Er, some devices. A small number of devices. That have been customized for it.

ie, no devices available to consumers, therefore, no devices. In theory, it's an interesting concept, but for it to be *actually useful to the consumer*, there would have to be an insane amount of infrastructure built up under the MS banner (what, you think they're going to use available open standards?? Pshaw.), and that's just not on the horizon right now.

And really... this sort of sums it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_czPDtECjlU

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Miko Well to be fair Hotels already keep and track a lot of guest information, and if this was to be implemented into hotel lobbies it would not be a stand-alone system, it would most certainly be connected to a database somewhere, just like the already crappy Dells and IBM computers hotels use are. I don't think they would use every feature but would instead taylor it for a specific application, say fast credit card check-in, check-out. I guess my point is that this could at least be feasible using the camera/projector tech, but not really using the touch-sensitive tech.

Even more feasible using those crappy (and inexpensive) Dells and IBMs. Seriously, what does this *add* for the consumer? Is the camera/projector cheaper than a touch screen, at $10k? Nope. Does it deliver on its promise of device interaction? Nope.

The technology concept itself is interesting, but their 'vision' is just lame.

[rasmits]

Exactly. When you're checking into a hotel, who cares if it's on a Multi-Touch screen or not?

I guarantee this 'Surface' novelty won't get anywhere outside a few trendy restaurants and boutiques.

[Taskiss]

Capacitance touch sucks when you're wearing gloves.

Surface touch sucks when anything (other than your choice of pointing device) touches the surface.

Of the two, I'll carry one in my pocket and not the other. Guess which one.

[Miko]

Yeah you're right guys, there's no point in comparing the features of an existing technology that has been released, to one that has not been released. I just find the possibilities interesting and if it were to take off if the iPhone's type of Multi-Touch would be able to play ball.

[Kickaha]

There's one place where the visual-MT has the advantage, and that's at *very large sizes*. Imagine a translucent white board, for instance, one that is display and drawing surface. (ie, think Newton, but wall-sized) A touch-screen wouldn't be able to be cost-effective at that size with today's technologies, but a camera-based system might be.

The problem is... what are you really going to do with it? That's what makes visual-MT feel like a solution in search of a problem, not a solution *to* a problem. A handheld in-pocket MT unit is immediately obvious as to why, and touch-MT is cheaper and easier to do in that form factor. The larger the unit, the less need for MT, but the more the balance tips in favor for visual-MT. Net sum: neat idea, but what real-world problem does it solve?

Ironically, just saw this: http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/09/....coffee.table/

[Kraetos]

Surface is Microsoft's answer to a problem that nobody asked.

Kick already linked the video, but here it is again for shits and giggles: Big Ass Table. I couldn't put it better if I tried, and I have.

[Doxxic]

I think within a few years it will make a lot of people happy finding it's way into the hands of freaky synth performers roaming Redmond's dumpsites.

At that time, multitouch tables are becoming reality, but using cheap wireless XGrids consisting of multiple iPod touch devices glued to (Starbucks) tables.