Microsoft says 3DV acquisition didn't influence Project Natal
By Donald Melanson 
posted Jun 4th 2009 1:52PM
posted Jun 4th 2009 1:52PM
When Microsoft shows off a motion-sensing system shortly after it's been revealed that is has acquired a motion-sensing camera maker, it's easy to see how people can draw conclusions that the two are related. But according to Microsoft, that is not the case, and its Project Natal is actually based on work that has been "going on for a long time." That word comes from a VentureBeat interview with Microsoft's Shane Kim, who further added that "none of those rumors did justice to what we were actually doing with Project Natal," and that it's based on a lot of past work Microsoft has done in natural user interfaces, including voice recognition. The folks at Eurogamer were also able to get an even more definitive statement from Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg, who said flatly that "we built this in house." Interestingly, however, Shane Kim did say that Microsoft wants to "ensure that we have great intellectual property protection," and that "it has to be all buttoned up, legally," which could offer a bit more rationale for the 3DV buyout.
[Via Eurogamer]
[Via Eurogamer]
Work that has been "going on for a long time."
We totally believe you Microsoft. ;)
Technically that's true...I've been working on becoming a millionaire my whole life, the fact that I won the lottery jackpot is merely incidental.
If you goto youtube and look up microsft playanywhere you would see they are telling the truth...
July 25, 2006 is the video post.
I don't doubt they were working on it. That's probably the reason they found a company that was further along in the development. Might as well buy them and cut back on R&D.
It was a smart move to not reinvent the wheel.
So if Apple were to have said and done the same thing, the fanboys would be all cheery cause the rotten Apple was ahead. But MS does it and they are lying and it's not true. If you i-Diots have a brain and know about the business world you would know that this is common for a business to do to make sure they have a competitive advantage...
So basically they admit that they bought out "the little guy" just so they don't have competition. For every cool/good thing MS does they manage to pull off shit like this. What a douchey move. And don't start telling me about how it's protecting its business and other bullshit. They're huge, 3DV was tiny, they hardly offered any long-term threat. It's these kinds of stupid movies that give MS such a bad name, and of course it's fully deserved. :(
movies=movies
and this wasn't suppose to be a reply to the first post though I'm pretty sure it's my bad... still, say it with me Engadget - E-DIT
"movies=movies"
/facepalm slap
epic FAIL, I hang my head in shame
Wrabbit, it wasn't about buying a competitor but keeping a possible competitive advantage away from a competitor such as Sony or Nintendo or even Apple (if they decide to go into the console business). Imagine what would have happened way back when if MS had bought out inMotion or whatever their name is, the people that everyone had to pay royalties to for rumble. If they had bought them back then, then the xbox would have been the only console that could legally have had rumble in their controllers. The electronics business is about 25% about what patents you own and 75% about the products you create. By saying that they were protecting their business they are 100% correct. They are keeping the tech out of competitors hands or if they choose they can license it to them and collect big time royalties.
Yeah we built that in house using other's people IP. Why else would they worry about it?
Microsoft and Sony have had this type of technology in the pipelines since the day they realised that people are going bananas for the Nintendo Wii. Technological industries are all about arms racing. And when you are working on something unique you want to make sure that you won't infringe on anyone else's patents and you want stay clear of the field, which means that any highly similar variations need to be eliminated.
If MS had not acquired 3DV, you can bet your mind that Nintendo and Sony would. This is how the industry works, and acquisitions take place on a daily basis. Apple too acquired a multitude of companies to make the iPhone become a reality. It's all about gaining ground fast and protecting your competitive advantage. All companies who diversify into new fields do this. NS has done nothing new or unusual.
So why were Apple so innovative when they bought fingerworks ?
Actually, I remember Sony working on stuff back with the PS2 EyeToy (or whatever it was called) so it wasn't really the Wii that prompted research. Try again.
"the controller is a barrier" - Don Mattrick
"this is the endgame" - another M$ exec.
Controllers are so 2009.
Project Natal
stop saying M$. they don't have a monopoly, its not the 90's
Natal has limited usability. Some games NEED a controller.
@liamf555
Yeah, thats why you obviously wont use natal with some games, u'd use a controller. Genius...
And some games NEED a keyboard, hasn't stopped consoles from pushing pc gaming onto the back burner.
There doesn't seem to be any reason you can't use the regular control with this.
not in the EU they don't ;-P
I really don't give a shit who made it, as long as it works like it did at E3 then I am sold.
Best. Comment. EVER!
This is what I think of every time I see/hear 'Microsoft' and 'Buyout' in close proximity to each other:
Homer: [reading Internet for Dummies: Remedial Edition] Oh, they have the Internet on computers now.
Marge: Homer, Bill Gates is here.
Homer: Bill Gates? Billionaire computer nerd Bill Gates? Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Get out of sight, Marge. I don't want this to look like a two-bit operation.
Bill Gates: Mr. Simpson?
Homer: You don't look so rich.
Bill Gates: Don't let the haircut fool you. I'm exceedingly wealthy.
Homer: [sotto voce] Get a load of the bowl job, Marge.
Bill Gates: Your Internet ad was brought to my attention but I can't figure out what, if anything, CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet does. So, rather than risk competing with you, I've decided simply to buy you out.
Homer: [softly] This is it, Marge. I poured my heart and soul into this business and now it's finally paying off. We're rich! Richer than astronauts!
Marge: [softly] Homer, quiet! You'll queer the deal.
Homer: Oh, right. [out loud] I reluctantly accept your proposal.
Bill Gates: Well, everyone always does. Buy him out, boys.
(assistants begin breaking things on Homer's dining table-turned-office)
Homer: Hey, what the hell's going on?
Bill Gates: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks. [cackles loudly]
They sure can hide their secrets
Not that I really believe in that statement, but it make sense, anyway.
Maybe they bought 3DV to guarantee that another companies had any patents that could be used to contest MS creations. Or even bought them as additional specialized dev workforce for their own projects.
Use your heads people.
The 3DV camera uses infra-red time of flight measurements to get the distance of each pixel from the camera. However it decidedly not trivial to convert this distance image into a model of a person (or people). I expect that that is the part Microsoft have been working on. Indeed there are other ways to get the depth map (e.g. stereoscopic cameras, laser scanning, etc.)
Engadget comments seem to be halfway between Slashdot comments and Youtube comments.
digital puppetry anyone?
troll?
makes sense, they bought out a competitor to avoid brand confusion and add guys to the team who have experience.
microsoft spends more money on R&D per year than some companies spend in their entire existance
testing trolls
now if only i could get my hands on natal right now...
So, (even if we believe them), it basically means that Microsoft had been developing this stuff for years, but got *beaten* to market by another company doing the same thing but with different tech, ... then they got *beaten* at the patent office because their tech was not as good, or different enough from these guys to go ahead? This is lame-a-tude at it's very best.
Or, possibly MS envisions enough potential in this tech that they'd like to be the only ones offering it, and thus they purchased the competition before someone else did.
All of this smell fishy.
And how is this different from Apple buying Fingerworks for their iPhone tech?
Micro$oft (NYSE: M$) paid big anti-trust violation fines in Europe, their operating system runs on 90% of the personal computers in the world, and they just bought the biggest technology competitor to the motion sensing system they've been working on - how is that not a monopoloy? Just because it's a new decade, they are no less of an illegal monopoly and no less of a threat to innovation and productivity.
Three words: Learn then speak.
You just proved they are not a monopoly...
"their operating system runs on 90% of the personal computers in the world," since a monopoly would be 100% you just proved they do not have a monopoly.. Also for them to have a monopoly they would have to buy out Apple for their OS, and buyout every linux vendor... as long as you have a choice in OS then they dont have a monopoly.. learn what something is becuase you show how much of a troll you are...
Apple is currently under investigation for anti-trust issues. At one time hey claimed to have 82% of the market share of portable media players. Apple also purchased iTunes (formerly known as SoundJam MP) tech to create a monopoly in the music player market.
How much did Apple innovate when they said "I will pay you $x to buy your media player"?
Jesus, get over yourself.
Microsoft bought it, so what?!?!?
its still epic, i have a mac pro and also an xbox 360 and a dell running vista. they are all good for their own things, stop being a stupid add fanboy.
is Microsoft didn't buy this company they would have copyright and patent issues, or another company would have bought it. its not microsofts fault its so epic, it just is. nobody forces people to use the microsoft OS, and nobody is forcing you.
GTFO
@Numus: In Economics, a Monopoly is NOT 100%. Wikipedia actually has good definitions for economic monopolies:
--------------------------------
In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition.
--------------------------------
a coercive monopoly is a business concern that prohibits competitors from entering the field, with the natural result being that the firm is able to make pricing and production decisions independent of competitive forces.[1] A coercive monopoly is not merely a sole supplier of a particular kind of good or service (a monopoly), but it is a monopoly where there is no opportunity to compete through means such as price competition, technological or product innovation, or marketing; entry into the field is closed.
--------------------------------
In other words, so powerful that there's no way to compete. Microsoft IS a convicted monopolist in several countries. Due to corrupt politics though, they were not properly dealt with.
Jon - What does that even mean? Do you even speak English? Are you really a 6th grader?
I just hope MS realize the full potential Project Natal has beyond games. This leapfrogs over touch UI. Forget Surface They should integrate it with PC, Mobile, etc. Possibities are endless. Not as the sole input but as an addition to existing methods of input. If done right, this could change the way we interact with technology.
They realize about it but they are struck on something, may be about the price or how well it works.
I believe their statement. Bill Gate alluded to this technology a couple of years ago. I bet they bought 3DV because they didn't want Sony or Nintendo to buy it and sue them for stealing tech. The alleged 30 million dollar purchase price for 3DV is pretty minor to expand their patent rights.
I also think this tech is also coming to the PC. I bet MS has BIG plans for this technology.
They are probably licensing the tech from gesturetek. go look at gestureteks website. does the same exact stuff.
So are we to assume that if MS didn't "button up" 3DV and 3DV didn't allow a buyout, Natal would have never seen the light of day?
If MS was the true creator of this technology and owner of the patents then there shouldn't have been a reason to buy 3DV for any reason. Obviously 3DV owns the tech and MS doesn't want to get into a legal battle. It's much cheaper for them to buy the tech then to pay their lawyers, rival settlement fees and licensing fees.
They did the right thing so this product could be introduced and widely available to the consumer but they shouldn't blow so much smoke.
orly?
Wonders if the tech works sort of like the Radiohead House of Cards video... http://code.google.com/creative/radiohead/ ... at least that's the first thing that came to mind when I read about this.
Its so hard to say that project Natal is just it, a simple project.
Technically speaking, the problem of a motion capture system is:
a) price.
b) setup.
c) Precision.
d) cpu power needing.
e) lag.
May be MS cheated when showed Natal, after all MS is seasoned to do such things.
http://news.cnet.com/Xbox-360-demos-running-on-Macs/2100-1043_3-5706658.html
WiiMote works fine because it was the sum of proved technologies and still present many troubles, Instead to capture movement with camera is a real different thing,the technology is anything but 100% working and proved, even a expensive mocap system usually present problem with the precision.