I own a Surface (journalist freebie hand-me-down), and after playing with it extensively I've determined Surface's only real contribution to society is as a physical manifestation of Microsoft's inability to commit to design decisions. Should it run classic UI or Metro? Should it to run ARM or x86 apps? Should it have a keyboard or a blade? Microsoft's answer to all of these is YES, and that means NO polish and NO market share.
This blade is another example of not committing - are there any launch partners where you can use this with any software you want? Doesn't look like it. So we're to expect musicians are going to drop the music software they've been using for years for a cut-down v1 Microsoft remix app? If not, then who's it for? The uber casual remixer who.. probably already owns an ipad? Pick a market, guys.
I feel bad for the undoubtedly smart folks who put together the blade and the remix app, but who are stuck working on a crappy platform. Building an array of 1000 pressure-sensitive sensors into a touch surface is cool (I'm impressed w new blade touch architecture), but its also something that a committed hacker could do. And after doing it, they'd have as much market share and software partners as Microsoft does with this blade on Surface. So... I wouldn't call it 'true innovation'. Lets leave that distinction to groundbreaking research projects or highly polished new-ish ideas that finally go big.
Do you understand anything about how Microsoft works? Supporting everything is their thing, and it is one of the things that has made them big in the first place - for example, my parents (doctors) still use a DOS based program on their Windows 7 machines that has pretty much gone unchanged at its core for over two decades[1]. Now if that isn't vendor lock-in, I don't know what is.
Supporting everything made sense when they built an operating system for something that was, for all intents and purposes, a legacy platform (doing ever so well, of course). I presume no one intends to run Promedico on their Surface table though.
Answering "yes" to every possible design question, just to make sure you don't piss anyone off, isn't a solution when you want to provide a well-integrated design. It leads to a messy UI with superficial metaphors and very little flexibility, because there are a million little things that aren't actually meant to work together.
It also complicates the API and the programmer's work, which is the last thing you want to do when you're playing catch-up with the rest of the market.
True mobile devices such as phones and tablets are very different beasts. They have highly restricted form factors and design parameters such as weight, battery life, screen size, finger-scale touch interface (as against more precise but inconvenient pen or mouse input). These restrictions demand a radical re-think of the UI that effectively closes off a lot of options. Trying to cram in those options anyway, no matter how inappropriate they are to the form factor or how much they compromise the user experience, shows an appalling lack of discipline.
Microsoft looked at the iPhone and iPad and completely failed to understand that it was the clarity and focus of the UI design that made them successful. That it was precisely the jettisoning of desktop UI metaphors and user interface cruft that made them so appealing.
So what Microsoft did was develop exactly such a no-compromises built-for-mobile UI in Metro, and then bolted it on to the side of a crufty old desktop UI, with an array of laptoppy peripherals. They also decided that while the system launches into he new UI, you actually have to figure out how to trigger the invisible gesture to get to the old UI to do anything useful like run Office or change basic system settings. I honestly don't know how they could have botched the whole thing more completely.
So yes, you're right that Microsoft have stuck to form an maintained backwards compatibility at all costs. The problem is that this time that cost is a viable place in the mobile market. The thing is, they don't need to do this. Desktops and laptops are having their market share adjusted downwards to make space for true mobile devices, but they're not going away. Anyone who wants to run traditional Office or legacy DOS applications can still buy a device to do so. There's just no need to the new generation of mobile devices to have to cater to a market that's already catered for. Suppose Microsoft had launched Surface last year with no desktop, Metro only and with a native Metro version of Office and Outlook. I think the situation now would be very different. Maybe that would have been impossible given the time constraints, but that's what needs to happen.
/sarcasm
They support lots of things, the things where they are or have been market leaders. But Metro doesn't seem to have the market share to make MS commit to them. Neither does blade.
So, there's no real reason for MS to support them in the long term.
This crazy compatibility and lock-in is Microsoft's biggest advantage, but it's simultaneously a huge weakness.
Instead of making a sensor array to just replicate machines that already exist, it is a sensor array that adds a new dimension of creativity and expressiveness. Its these types of innovations we should really be celebrating. I imagine this will be the new norm for high end keyboards in the future.
I'm also skeptical of Tactus. If they would build a similar input pad with embedded actuators that could create the illusion of a click, I would think this could be made more robust. An e-ink display built into the surface, and this would be perfect.
The Microsoft thing is nifty, but it screams "planned obsolescence" to me.
Blades could be a compelling feature, if done right. Apple forces users to do things according to the "Apple Way" and succeeds by polishing that way very well. Anyone who is happy with the "Apple Way" is a happy Apple user. Unfortunately, creating a significant amount of content on a tablet is not really a part of the "Apple Way". Tablets are for consumption, dummy! People who want to create stuff on a tablet are currently an under-served market. It remains to be seen if MS will find success in tablet-space, but at least they're targeting a niche that Apple is neglecting.
1. Apple makes the iWork suite
2. Have you ever used a touch cover? You hardly can call the touch areas on these devices buttons. They give nearly as much feedback as touch screens: none.
3. Why would a DJ or a gamer prefer this when the surface has a usb port anyway. They could use peripherals from traktor or the 360 game pad.
If there is a difference in strategy here, it that Apple's view of how a user should interact with a tablet interface is more direct. I.e., the sliders and buttons showcased on the example Blade would simply appear as interface elements on the display. The Blade idea follows a slightly different model where the tablet serves as a hybrid input/display. The up-side is that the Blade effectively doubles your input surface area. I think that appeals to a lot of people.
In short, I think Apple and Microsoft are promoting a lot of the same ideas here, but I think the Blade represents a bigger commitment to the creation side of the market.
I would assume that the HID (human interface device) API within the Surface's operating system has good support for the development of peripherals like Blades. Does anyone know if iOS has similar APIs for Bluetooth connected HIDs?
The number of peripherals, corded and Bluetooth that work with the iPad are staggering because of this. Look at the Queneo, the new novation series, the Qunexus, the new Numark controller... And most importantly the software is there to utilize these control surfaces. Akai made a case like this for the ipad two years ago...
So good for Microsoft for launching this, but show me the software and the specs.
[1] http://atariage.com/system_items.html?SystemID=JAGUAR&ItemTy...
Yeah, operating hardware without any tactile feedback in very dark environments sure sounds nice.
I would actually argue that Surface Blades are not the best thing ever simply because for things like mixing you want 3 dimensional tactile feedback for subtle adjustments. Big buttons on a flat touch pad is probably better than a purely visual interface, but it seems like they are straddling the line between a non-optimal software interface for a middle ground that isn't the same as using a real mixing board, but it's maybe a bit better than using an on screen UI.
My guess is that musicians aren't going to flock to this unless they get some established producer to use it to mix some awesome beats and even then it's unclear that this is much better than a dedicated hardware device experience yet.
Why does it have to be the same way? How will copying be an innovations then? Also, i could not understand your second sentence.....you can plug ipad into guitar? Was that the implication?
Tactile feedback can be generated using vibrations ala Xbox controller. I think they have Linkin Park's DJ behind them.
Get Dr.Dre on board. Market it like Beats headphones. Generate a following in music at least.
Why can't we see it for what it is? Microsoft was the first (I think) to use an extremely very flat keyboard that doubles as a screen cover on a tablet. While not revolutionary, it is a good step forward, as good as Apple's introduction of covers that double as a stand. Now they added something fun and playful to the range. Maybe professional musicians won't use it, but it adds a lot of fun to the device for amateurs. And if they open up the 'platform' and provide an SDK, it may lead to interesting new covers.
They are trying nice new things (touch covers, hybrid devices), pushing tablets in new directions. In fact, my next tablet may well be a Surface Pro, after being an iPad user before it was introduced in The Netherlands.
I used to own a Nomad Jukebox. It was a decent MP3 player but was marred by crashes, terrible battery life, and excessive bulk.
While I still think Nomad's offering was good, my friends iPod was excellent. Better battery life, polished UI, and the thing was tiny - well, as tiny as a hard-drive based MP3 player could be.
No one cares who made it first. All that matters is who makes it work, and makes it work well.
Microsoft introduced tablets way before than Apple too. Sometimes been the first is not a guaranteed of success.
Although I with Microsoft on this, we desperately need a productive tablet and not just a consuming device. Let's see if that comes, and if it is MS who brings it, let's see if they can take advantage of the innovation this time.
It won't look half as cool with your Surface, though.
It might make sense from an industrial standpoint to replace a gazillion of those membrane pads at Micky-D's but as a consumer good? I'm not so sure.
If you're a professional there are a lot of better, established and thanks to Midi more configurable/hackable options available. However this might be popular among casual "musicians".
This input device was made to seem cool in an ad. In the real world the reaction will be puzzlement over why these controls are not implemented on the screen, where visual feedback and reconfiguration of the controls is possible.
For a couple times the price of the static physical dedicated device, you could buy a second device and program the app to use that as expanded-screen input.
What if I want the buttons available without taking up space on the screen whether I need it or not? The information density of a screen collapses in on itself when it is completely crowded out by control surfaces, so your very argument can be used as a counter-argument.
In the comments: "Apple has a patent for a similar device. However their touch sensitive keyboard is also an e-ink type display so each software you run can have it's own custom keyboard/input tablet displayed without having to purchase or install anything extra. That will be a game changer and make the MS device look primitive."
Man oh man. There's no point in putting the '$' in M$ anymore. What a great day for the rest of the world.
I'm waiting for the infospasm posts self-assuredly advising start-ups leave room for your product to pivot by not implementing the UI in static hardware and 'How Flaviboard Increased Our Revenue by 30000% by Getting Hardware Out of the Iteration Cycle'
Personally, I tend to prefer real buttons more often than not. I'm fine with tapping and swiping when I'm just browsing stuff (browser, certain apps, etc) on my phone or tablet.
But I feel like if there's 9 or more buttons grouped closely together (maybe less), an interface where I can feel the boundaries between buttons without activating them and get a physical response when pressing them is just better.
I wonder how many people feel just a touch interface is on par or better. I know I've never really gotten used to typing on my tablet like I do my keyboard. But maybe I just need to spend more time with it.
Second, the surface keyboard had raised keys. That's very useful for quick operation where you are not looking at the keyboard. Something that I don't think you can do with a tablet without sticking things on the screen.
iOS 7 for better or worse is doing that instead:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/19/gamecase-the-first-co...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57589649-37/ios-7-ready-ga...
IF Microsoft has really thought through this new strategy, and mapped its product release timeline out with enough care and analysis so that it will stick with and expand upon Surface (and its new vibe/product range in general), and hasn't just rushed into a new look and is will flail about and switch to something new in two years - if Microsoft really is committed and focussed - and
IF Microsoft can match the confidence and self-assurance with which Apple releases and iterates its core products and
IF Microsoft can effectively communicate and deliver upon its vision of technology and
IF Microsoft can genuinely make people feel excited and good about themselves when they use their products and
IF Microsoft can attract a developer/user community which feels as comfortable and at home as Apple's -
then Microsoft could be back in business.
It's a big ask but it's possible I think.
Uargh...
1) the screen is already an infinitely customisable graphical touch UI
2) you need to set your portable device down on a flat surface to use it
Without it you can easily page back-and-forth through multiple control screens each with a custom UI. You can still have a different screen for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Without it you can carry the device to a table and enter the data in situ. You can hold it in one hand and operate the device with the other.
This bypasses a mobile touch device's two main assets: its portability and its touch screen!
imho, the DS is mostly held back by a resistive touchscreen and Nintendo's inability to think big-picture.
This blade thing stinks of being a solution looking for a problem.
So I clicked through to the MS site for it and found that they won't let me order one. In fact, they're a bit condescending about it:
>Want your own Surface Music Kit? Join the #RemixProject and make a Vine video to show us why you deserve one.
I guess that I am willing to pay is not reason enough to one deserve one.'
Then I got to thinking "what's so innovative about this?"
If anything it's a step backwards, a proprietary connector attaches a keyboard/input device to a single model of (shitty) computer.
What about this is better than an iPad + usb midi controller? More RAM I guess...but then there's the laptop + midi controller option.
----
As for the other uses for this, every other one seems better served by a regular tablet or PC. The Surface is not "no compromises" it's "All compromises".
In my experience, the surface pro sucks as a tablet, it's too heavy and the app selection is terrible, what is there is hacked together and offers few features (see the MLB TV app on win 8 vs iPad for a great example of the quality difference).
It also sucks as a laptop. You can't use it on a couch because they keyboard is not helping to stabilize it, every time you hit a key it wobbles about.
The trackpad is miserable. (Edit: miserable on both the touch and type covers)
Windows does not like high dpi Screens, and does not offer decent scaling ability. In order to have applications look crisp, they need to be tiny, and on an 11" screen with that many pixels tiny is really tiny. There's also no support for multiple scaling settings for screens. Plug in an external monitor and you need to take a trip to the control panel (and log in and out) in order to change the scaling....and it will be applied to BOTH screens.
If you want to use the touchscreen on a table with the kickstand, it tilts and the whole thing moves away from you, again the keyboard does nothing to help stabilize it, and there's no non-slip coating on the kickstand or bottom of the tablet so it just slides away if you push too hard.
RE-EDIT:
removed kvetching
More about the article:
One of the best parts of touch based interfaces is they can change with context and can be customized/improved/fixed for the cost of changing the software. No need to ship a physical 2.0 for your POS when you want to change the button layout.
Also, with these blades, are you expected to carry around more than one and swap them out based on the activity? Then use the onscreen keyboard when you need to do any text input?
The thing is a computer. It has a USB port. One can attach whatever input devices they want. The only difference about a blade is that this doubles as a screen cover. In the medical and fast food examples he gives, the machines are stationary (and you probably want them to stay that way).
I'm all for dedicated input devices or customized interfaces to make jobs easier, but that's hardly a new idea.
This college workshop video suggests they may be planning to open it up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9UAxHgXYxw
With e-Ink this is not difficult to do.
I would've actually expected something like that to appear in one of the big vendors' machines as an attempt to be the 'new iPhone/iPad wow moment'. Fail or not, someone has to try.
It also appears to be connecting via a proprietary connector rather than Bluetooth or USB which means it likely won't work with any hybrids/tablets from other vendors.
In audio mixing it's common to have an enormous digital mixing board that's linked up to the mixing software, so that you can fill most (or all) of the screen with the data you're actually working on. Some of those boards have literally dozens of channels with individual sliders, buttons, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qg8IB64yu8
Fingerworks was purchased by Apple, and their technology integrated into the touchpads and iOS devices.
There is a need for physical controls for music software control (or any software) and there is a fundamental problem. The amount of parameters and functions that need to be controlled is vast. It will quickly overwhelm a control surface with limited amount of controls unless a lot of thought and design is put into the a method of switching the function of the controls. These types of controls are still virtual!
Think for example covers for video editing software, CAD etc
While the majority of MIDI controller devices currently target music apps it will be interesting to see how hands-on devices can help improve interactions with other types of app. As an example, here I tackle the fiddly business of graph navigation using a standard plug-and-play MIDI controller and the latest Chrome: https://vimeo.com/74886850
seriously, is any idea now innovation? is it true innovation? or fake? what about disruptive? paradigmatic? enabling?
absolutely clear what the headline is digging at (can't innovate my ass...). so tired of this bullshit.
