Microsoft's LaserTouch prototype brings hand control to any display

We'll go ahead and get this out of the way: the fantastic product you're about to hear more on has "no plans" to go commercial. Now that we've thoroughly killed your buzz, let us introduce to you the LaserTouch. Said device is a prototype that recently emerged from Microsoft Research's labs, which essentially allows people to retrofit any display (monitor, projector, etc.) so that they can use their own hands to control the on-screen action. According to Andy Wilson, who played a vital role in the unit's creation, an infrared camera is used to track how a person touches the screen, while software that he developed handles the majority of the magic. Too bad this could totally undercut Surface sales, right?

[quiksilv3r @ May 23rd 2008 8:31PM]

Must....have...video

[clak @ May 23rd 2008 9:39PM]

Well, you see, this is the problem with Microsoft. They really can't develop a product into a business model until another company shows them how. Case in point:

Microsoft creates PlaysforSure which fails completely in the market, mostly due to DRM and Subscription based business models for music. Apple, on the other hand, releases a music model that allows you to own your music, tethering the music to both your computer and a popular device called the iPod. Years later, Microsoft follows the iPod/iTunes model with the Zune/Zune Marketplace.

Microsoft creates DirectX, a very good proprietary standard of APIs that allow for gaming companies to make games for Windows, but the business model is undercut by piracy brought on by the internet and the PC itself is found to be a less than ideal platform to develop games for due to the abundance of different hardware configurations. Sony develops a console with games that rival the quality found on PCs and that more importantly, provides developers with one hardware model and the Playstation becomes an unqualified hit, drawing PC owners away from the PC platform. Years later, Microsoft follows with the Xbox and Xbox 360.

Microsoft creates Internet Explorer and effectively kills Netscape by tying Internet Explorer to Windows. Thinking that they have a firm grip on the internet, they relax their development of Internet Explorer while a company called Google creates a revolutionary search engine with proprietary search algorithms, rivaling anything else on the market. Google is so good that people like Chris Pirillo, a notable Windows geek, declares that Google IS the Internet. Years later, Microsoft follows up with their own search engine.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

My guess is that Apple will continue to update their product line using multi-touch technology with very useful and practical applications for the technology and Microsoft will suddenly follow suit with EXACTLY the same thing. Of course, Microsoft's dabbling with Surface and LaserTouch will give them enough cover to be able to say that they're not copying Apple and that they actually were planning to build features remarkable similar to Apple's offerings all along.

That's my two cents.


There's something you don't know about me, Joe Rogan. I smoke rocks—Tyrone Biggums, Fear Factor, Chappelle's Show, 2004

[DarCowAlways @ May 23rd 2008 10:15PM]

@clak

Wow. That totally summed up my thoughts.

What a rip-off company. Seriously. If I start breathing, they're going to be breathing too.

That kind of poor business practice really makes me mad.

[John @ May 23rd 2008 10:20PM]

You've managed to mention less than five or so out of the hundreds of products Microsoft makes. Do you have any idea how much hardware and software Microsoft pushes out?

[fred @ May 23rd 2008 10:31PM]

That's two of the stupidist coments of the year.

What you two cant seem to get is that a company can do reasearch and develop products, they dont necessary have to do one and directly lead to another.

And if reasearch that MS does is developed into a product by someone else, and Microsoft picks up on it and makes their own? So what? Why am I as a consumer or user of these products going to be pissed off at this? Because some internet jockies think that only ONE company can ever release a certian product at a time? That once one company does it, everyone else that does the same is a "ripoff"?

What type of ass backwards thinking is this?

If this was how the sane world behaved, we would have only RCA radios and TVs, Ford cars, AT&T service, Bell Telephones, Atari video games, and Xerox brand computers.

These guys work for my benefit. Consumers should not be out there shilling for or against corporate brands. I dont care how many companies do different versions of the same widget, as long as they do it, drive down price and drive up variety, everyone here should be happy, not pissising their pants in disgust because of it.

How the hell could that make you "sad" is beyond me. And Im begining to think that people with your type of thinking are the true threat to consumer electronics innovation and competition.

[The Dude @ May 23rd 2008 10:44PM]

@clak:

Why'd you use that quote from the sketch? The best is probably where Tyrone responds to the penis eating challenge.

[clak @ May 23rd 2008 10:47PM]

@John

What would you have me do? Write an encyclopedia of products that Microsoft has copied from other people? Well, yeah, I could have mentioned other Microsoft copies like Silverlight, which copies Flash and XPS, which copies Adobe's PDF. There are probably at the least a dozen more examples but the Zune, Xbox and Live Search (MSN Search) are the best examples and the one most likely not to put people to sleep.

@fred

Damn, calm down, dude, I wasn't implying that Microsoft was evil or anything for this practice. I was just stating an obvious fact. Microsoft really doesn't know how to to develop their own business models or monetize products, outside of the one that they made with Windows and Office. Doesn't it strike you as significant that the only business model that Microsoft has had an unparalleled success with is Windows and Office, a business model that THEY created? Microsoft was essentially the first software company. Before Microsoft, companies like IBM focused most of their energies on hardware. Even Apple, which developed the first marketable GUI from the license they obtained from Xerox, weren't really a software company. Their software development was essentially designed to entice you to buy their hardware, which continues even today. That's why Apple could never copy the Windows model and make it work for them. Companies that copy another company's business model, usually don't become big players in the market. They become at the very most, second best.

Microsoft's strategy isn't that much different from Burger King. There used to be a time when McDonalds would spend millions of dollars doing research on where to best place their fast food joints. Instead wasting money doing similar research, Burger King would wait until McDonalds built a new restaurant and then would build a Burger King in almost exactly the same location. A good strategy, but to this day, Burger King is still not the market leader. They've been doing great lately, and may overtake McDonalds at some point, but they won't overtake McDonalds by doing EXACTLY the same thing. This is why it's foolish to talk of iPod and iPhone killers. Once you innovate in the marketplace and establish a brand, that horse has left the barn.


I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her: marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet, buried alive. Buried alive—Khan, Star Trek II

[clak @ May 23rd 2008 10:52PM]

@The Dude

"Why'd you use that quote from the sketch? The best is probably where Tyrone responds to the penis eating challenge."

Oh, I don't quote anything in any particular order. I don't have a system or anything, it's just something I thought would be cool to do. Chapelle's Show is perhaps the greatest comedy sketch show in history, but it's not the only random quote from a show or movie I'll use.


Keaten always said I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him. Well, I believe in God and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze—Verbal Kent, The Usual Suspects

[Quikboy @ May 23rd 2008 11:08PM]

@clak : First off, how does this relate to quiksilv3r's comment?

1. Um, PlayForSure failed for many reasons, but there always was an option to BUY music instead of renting music, or at least on the stores I've seen. Also iTunes uses DRM as well. And technically many of the tracks that were bought on iTunes, weren't necessarily fully-owned by purchaser. Anything with DRM isn't fully yours.And Zune Marketplace also has that rental payment method, and many people that use Zune like it.

2. I too dislike the way MS went about IE for so long. Thankfully, the competition has finally gotten MS to do something about this with IE8. But if you're implying that just because MS created a search engine to rival Google, makes MS a copycat, so must every other search engine made after Google. And if you don't think Google copies, look at Gmail, Google Maps, Google Health, and a good number of other Google-related services.

"Microsoft's dabbling with Surface and LaserTouch will give them enough cover to be able to say that they're not copying Apple and that they actually were planning to build features remarkable similar to Apple's offerings all along." - Are you Apple's lawyer? MSR as well as many other tech researchers has been working with creating better multi-touch systems for a long time. Apple did NOT invent everything tech-related. You need to get that in your head. Most people could (or should) care less about who made it first, but who made it best.

Oh, and about your later comment: Microsoft copies, as well as Apple copies, as well as Google copies, so give it a rest already. I don't need to list every single thing one company copied from another, but MS is definitely not the only one that copies in business.

And the comparison of Microsoft with Burger King is oh-so accurate. Comparing the tech industry with the food industry definitely makes sense.

[clak @ May 23rd 2008 11:37PM]

@Quikboy

Why are you guys putting words in my mouth? Where did I say that Microsoft is the only company that copies? I just mentioned that Burger King copied McDonalds. Of course, perhaps you didn't read that since you were busy writing something to refute all my points.

So before someone starts calling me a stupid fanboy, let me say this: what I'm talking about is a phenomenon that is endemic to every industry. This goes beyond fanboyisms. Let me use the film industry as an example. When film was first introduced, it was seen as a novelty act, something people would marvel at at carnivals. People like the Lumiere Brothers would film boring stuff like a train arriving into a station or a body builder flexing his muscles. People would actually pay money to watch stuff like this because the technology was so new and astounding, but soon enough the luster wire off, UNTIL a guy named Melies saw a demonstration of the technology. When Melies asked about it, the Lumiere brothers refused to sell Melies a camera, stating: "This invention will ruin you, because it has no commercial future." Or something like that.

Anyway, Melies went on to create the first story-based feature utilizing film technology, a film called "A Trip to the Moon." I'm sure you know what happened to this failure of a technology known as film.

Microsoft faces the same problem with The Surface and just about every product they make. Doesn't it strike anyone as pathetic that Microsoft demoes The Surface with finger painting software? I even watched a video with Michael Dell showcasing a new laptop with multi-touch technology and he did exactly the same thing. Another finger painting demo. Companies like Microsoft may be able to develop new technology, but like the Lumiere Brothers, they don't know what the hell to do with it.

Do you see Apple showcasing finger painting software? Perhaps they will but what I've seen is cool stuff like scrolling though music and contact lists. Pinching to enlarge FULL internet browsers. Swiping through photos. Stuff like that. That's actually something useful and practical, which is why I believe Apple is going to win this round. And I understand your arguments about iTunes and its DRM, but Apple succeeded because they use a DRM scheme that people will accept, that is, iTunes music won't suddenly stop working just because Apple decides to stop developing iTunes, as we saw when Microsoft deactivated MSN Music.

And Apple also succeeded by allowing MP3s to play on iPods. Lest we forget that most of the music on iPods come NOT from the iTunes music store, but from CDs and P2Ps.


When a man steals your wife there is no better revenge than to let him keep her

[Chris Macdonald @ May 23rd 2008 11:45PM]

CLAK, you ALWAYS end up in a NERD WAR!!!

[clak @ May 24th 2008 12:27AM]

"CLAK, you ALWAYS end up in a NERD WAR!!!"

There's no war. Not at all. We're just having a nice, delightful chat before bed. That's all.


We don't have a monopoly. We have market share. There's a difference—Steve Ballmer

[John @ May 24th 2008 12:37AM]

I dont think you idiots realize.. copying in the business environment is a GOOD thing. It forces companies to innovate to one-up each other, keeps technology at a similar level between products, and spurs competitive pricing: all GOOD things for the consumer. I hope microsoft copies, and google copies, and apple copies.. it will keep OUR technology options at a semi-even plane and keep prices out of the stratosphere.

All of these companies innovate, but none of them are dumb enough to pass up a good idea when they see one.

[Mitch @ May 24th 2008 12:49AM]

Clack:
Do you read your comments before sending them??

"Microsoft really doesn't know how to to develop their own business models or monetize products."

Don't you know that Microsoft is one of the most successful business ever?
Well, let me tell you that apple just delivers design-lovers products and that's it. Do you know how hard it is to give users the choice of hardware. How strong the OS need to be to support each and every one shitty hardware product that comes out nowaday?

Well at least Microsoft support pc worth less than few k$ and you don't have to use only programs developped by microsoft on their OS because people actually makes software for MS Windows.

I've check for mp3 players lately and the new nano sells for 244$ in canada for a 8gb!? That's more than twice the price of a Creative zen 8GB (116$) and at least with Creative I can use any application or even drop files directly on it... and yes, it supports h264...

So when you try to say apple is better, spend the same amount on a generic pc or laptop and you'll find that apple is just a lame hardware at a premium price to have a slick design that doesn't do anything but make you look like a materialist.

[prayalone @ May 24th 2008 6:51AM]

clak is a most stupid apple fanboy that can't understand the difference concept of "projector" and "camera".

more :
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/02/video-atandts-surface-makes-comparing-phones-transmitting-illne/

[w @ May 24th 2008 10:42AM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6M7SK-qScY

[itchy @ May 24th 2008 10:59AM]

@clak

Dude, you are the man! For the life of me, I can't understand these microsoft fanboys. I mean, this is a company that consistently has worked AGAINST the consumer. AGAINST THEM. A while back you said they were like those women who keep going back to men who beat them. Sadly, you are correct.

Anyway, keep posting, dude! I love reading what you write!

[DarCowAlways @ May 25th 2008 2:30AM]

I don't want to involve myself any further in this flame war, but basically what I think on the matter Clak brought up is that Microsoft doesn't just steal every successful concept other people come up with! Microsoft joining the email bandwagon? It's not like they were the first, or the last. Yahoo, Google, AOL, Comcast, Microsoft, those are only the most notable of hundreds of companies with Email. Search engines. How can Microsoft be picked out among all the different companies who are trying just like Microsoft to get a successful search engine? Most people would pick out Microsoft because they're simply a big company. I don't hear anyone picking on Ask for creating a search engine after google. Then there's the MP3 player side. The Zune and their online shop wasn't the first, wasn't the last. Think of how many multimedia players there have been. While there aren't quite as many online services, they aren't really probable things, since most MP3/multimedia players simply have users put their own music on them. Don't blame Microsoft for trying.

These things Microsoft does after others do them are simply too all-encompassing and common for it to be an unoriginal thing to do. That's what I'm trying to say.

[stitifier @ May 23rd 2008 8:40PM]

Because it makes more sense to build new, proprietary hardware that's not backwards compatible in order to generate large profit margins... except that I can only imagine that profit margins would be larger using off-the-shelf hardware and clever software. Another example of a clever solution taking a backseat to financial demands.

[JMMGoalster @ May 23rd 2008 8:52PM]

well, in reality it IS surface, just without the computer. Seems like this would actually be better than surface because it doesnt involve a huge table...just throw it on a 22" monitor and your set, no beastly table getting in the way........think about it Microsoft......

[John @ May 23rd 2008 9:01PM]

The article also says that Wilson also mentioned issues with the system that make it salable. It might presently be a neat toy, but it's not hard to imagine a completely new system would be taking a backseat to a similarly purposed product which has been heavily developed already. If they even said they planned to develop it into a product, then people would likely hold off on buying Surface until the new system was available, when surface hasn't been truly released yet.

Finally, it's called fiduciary responsibility, and they're supposed to do what makes the most money. Just like every other public company out there.

[pbase @ May 23rd 2008 8:54PM]

There's a pr0n joke in here, but it's Friday and my brain has shut down.

Anyone?

[Abuzar @ May 23rd 2008 9:25PM]

"so that they can use their own hands to control the on-screen action"

[Decoy @ May 25th 2008 11:02PM]

*hand

[the_fozz @ May 23rd 2008 8:59PM]

hmm, interesting idea, kinda like that crappy laser "keyboard" they used to make? Now I must retreat to my evil lah-bor-ah-tory and see if I can't come up with some way to DIY it.

[redspear @ May 23rd 2008 9:25PM]

To all of those saying this is surface....It can't be it doesn't have multiple projectors.

[Brendan Sheehan @ May 23rd 2008 9:26PM]

"an infrared camera is used to track how a person touches the screen"

The sad truth of all this is for this type of technology to be very accurate the camera inside needs to be very high quality, which leads to exceptional costs, as well as the baggage of a fat display (or thick table). Having the sensor in the fabric of the screen is ultimately the better direction I suspect. That way you can make cheaper, more sensitive, thinner and ultimately "portable" displays.

There was a reason surface needs to be a wall or a table, they need all the room they can muster behind that display for the camera(s).

[roole @ May 23rd 2008 10:32PM]

Heh heh, I'll bet that there's a part of MSFT is already figuring out ways to monetize the images from the infrared camera......

[oliver hart @ May 23rd 2008 9:29PM]

i love the power glove, its so bad

[fred @ May 23rd 2008 10:33PM]

+1

[Jherez @ May 23rd 2008 9:40PM]

Yes, yes indeed.

[Cal @ May 23rd 2008 9:57PM]

I saw something like this last august at the space needle, is this really new?

[AlphaTeam @ May 23rd 2008 10:17PM]

How is this cutting into Surface profits? Maybe they'll integrate this into Surface?

Also the Surface is around $5000 to $10000. The monitor will customizable with a $50-100 add-on option.

[Rocko @ May 23rd 2008 10:18PM]

I bet a dollar that it's not being released because it probably cost around 500-1,000 hojillion dollars.

[mark @ May 23rd 2008 10:28PM]

Surxel developed this identical technology 6 years ago.

[Randavance @ May 23rd 2008 10:54PM]

If I remember correctly, this sounds a lot like earlier touch screens back in the day when people would just have a screen with infrared lazers packed in a row on two sides perpendicular to one another, and sensors on the other two sides. That way your finger could interrupt two of these infrared beams shooting across the surface of the screen signaling the sensors to create an x and y point location of your finger.

Or maybe those never existed and this was another one of those times where I reinvented history in a dream and took it for reality.

[Chris Macdonald @ May 23rd 2008 11:37PM]

Moving your finger across suck a big screen seems so annoying and small and girly. I think there should be computers that can be controlled in a more manly way like having to punch part of the screen to to get it to click on something of having to beat a joystick with a hammer to get the cursor to move. And when you have to turn the computer off, you don't just press a button, you make sure that damn computer is off by throwing it off something or blowing it up. When you want to hook an mp3 player or something up, you throw it at the screen for it to connect. My current computer has NO BALLS i have to press these annoying little buttons to type this comment and when i'm done, i'll have to grab on to a fa ggy little girl-mouse, move it over a pathetic amount of distance on my mouse pad, click the irritating little button and type my password in, then press enter. My computer needs some damn testosterone.

That's why I need a big fracking computer table in my living room.. First step to computers growing some BALLS.

Microsoft Surface FTW!!!!

[Ryan @ May 24th 2008 5:13AM]

+1000

best comment

i got stuck in clak's geek-war upstairs, it was terrible (btw. clak is right, stfu n00bs)

[MAVric @ May 24th 2008 12:52AM]

dare i say it: why not just get a really thin piece of glass, run a static charge across the surface, then use sensors to figure out when something changes the static field, viola, no more problems with multitouch... wait, isnt that how the average cell phone touch screen works... ;P plus you can give a little force feedback with that design...

[Ryan @ May 24th 2008 5:13AM]

because this methods rely on sensors at the edge of the screen

2 1-dimensional arrays (lines) orthogonal to each other means it's easy to resolve a single point, but hard to resolve more than one finger on the screen...

is it:
_______
| x |<
| |
|_____x_|<
^ ^
or
_______
| x |<
| |
|__x____|<
^ ^

i dunno if those illustrate it properly, but yeah, for the same points active on the sensors on the edge of the display, you have ambiguous points selected in the actual 2d display area...

[Ryan @ May 24th 2008 5:16AM]

fark

_______
|---x--------|<
|------------|
|_____x_|<
^ ^

_______
|---------x--|<
|------------|
|__x____|<
^ ^

ascii ftw

[skulldriveshaft @ May 24th 2008 1:12AM]

so this is like every other webcam based multitouch attempt?

LaserTouch = InfraRed Camera?

many in the open source community have already done this type of work and experimentation.

now if there's a 100,000+ people that would buy this product, it would have already been rolled onto the market.

what price would you pay for something like this?

[Doug @ May 24th 2008 2:30AM]

You're all missing it. This is a rip-off of the demo that Johnny Chung Lee did with the Wii controller. He's a uni student and was happy to just come up with the ideas hoping others would put them to use and make cool games for the Wii that he could play. Check out http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/projects/wii/ and watch the cool youtube videos. This "Microsoft" invention is Johnny's "Low-Cost Multi-point Interactive Whiteboards Using the Wiimote" demo.

Clearly someone at Microsoft saw it and they're turning it (or trying to turn it ) into something that they can patent, copyright, and sue everyone else with.

I'd feel sad for the uni guy but he must have been warned a zillion times already that his ideas were frikking brilliant and he needs to protect them.

[Armoured @ May 24th 2008 3:14AM]

Oh shut up all of you!

[chickenator @ May 24th 2008 4:24AM]

no u shut up

[david_topping @ May 24th 2008 5:27AM]

Er, isn’t this re-inventing the wheel? Other companies, notably Smart Technologies have been using this commercially for several years in their overlays for big screens in corporate boardrooms where they don’t want to use a Smartboard. It’s the same basic principle of using cameras to track a finger’s position.

In other words it already has been commercialised and used.