This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

CES

edited January 2012 in Technology
Anyone following CES news? I am very casually. Have the Spike livestream going in the background and the Mad Katz guy is on right now showing off their new Street Fighter arcade sticks. They've always been an impressive product, but the newest version lets you take 2 sticks and link them together side by side, creating an exact replica (same dimensions) of a Japanese SF arcade cabinet surface. That's pretty badass.
«1

Comments

  • Nothing so exciting.
  • They've got some sort of blogging partnership with Gizmodo for the week, and one of the Giz guys is on screen a lot with the usual Spike heads. Didn't catch hit name but it is so obvious this guy is not used to being in front of a camera. It's actually making me uncomfortable.
  • They've got some sort of blogging partnership with Gizmodo for the week, and one of the Giz guys is on screen a lot with the usual Spike heads. Didn't catch hit name but it is so obvious this guy is not used to being in front of a camera. It's actually making me uncomfortable.
    Engadget only, k thx bai.
  • Isn't Gizmodo banned from CES?
  • Isn't Gizmodo banned from CES?
    No, banned from Apple.
  • I'm not much of a skiier but these goggle with heads-up-displays built in seem pretty awesome. Tells you all sorts of stats about your run, connects to your phone to do calling and such. http://www.besportier.com/archives/new-snowboard-technology-recon-goggles-with-in-goggle-gps-display.html
  • I'm not much of a skiier but these goggle with heads-up-displays built in seem pretty awesome. Tells you all sorts of stats about your run, connects to your phone to do calling and such. http://www.besportier.com/archives/new-snowboard-technology-recon-goggles-with-in-goggle-gps-display.html
    Seems like a first gen technology. Will definitely get when it is second gen for everyday use.
  • Isn't Gizmodo banned from CES?
    No, banned from Apple.
    Oh, i just looked it up. The writer who was being a cock (using a universal TV remote to turn off a bunch of TVs) got banned, not the entire site.

    Whatever, Gizmodo sucks balls regardless.
  • I'm not much of a skiier but these goggle with heads-up-displays built in seem pretty awesome. Tells you all sorts of stats about your run, connects to your phone to do calling and such. http://www.besportier.com/archives/new-snowboard-technology-recon-goggles-with-in-goggle-gps-display.html
    Seems like a first gen technology. Will definitely get when it is second gen for everyday use.
    Yeah it's not quite there yet but it seems like things are really coming along in the HUD department. In a few years we could have something really cool for daily use.

    Part of why people are sort of meh on CES is that tech has turned into an industry trying too hard to force trends on consumers when they aren't actually asking for them (Boo-ray, 3DTV). I think people would really like to have a device such as a smart watch or glasses w/ HUD that lets them keep their phone in their pocket when they just want to check a notification or even do a very short task.

    Spike just plugged an upcoming announcement of partnership between Taco Bell and an unnamed tech company. I'm turning this off.

  • A large part of innovating is solving problems people don't know they have. That's not to say that they aren't making useless crap, but the thought process isn't flawed.
  • I've been following the hilarious stuff, like Samsung putting android inside everything they possibly could and Intel's ridiculous ultrabook designs... oh and this ahhahaha:
  • What I'm seeing in the tech industry is the same thing I'm seeing at work and at most companies period.

    You have a business, you want to make money. It's very hard to come up with something that a lot of people want and will pay for. It's a ton of work, and the risk is very high. You have to spend a lot of money on marketing and development.

    Instead, what you can do is make a business where other businesses are your only customer. Then you only need a handful of customers. You can handle each sale in person, and each sale is a multi-million dollar deal. Risk is much lower, and your customers are richer. Most of the money is in the bank accounts of corporations, not individuals.

    As a result, you are seeing lots of people developing products that serve the needs of corporations, but not much serving the needs of people. Google, Facebook, and even Mozilla make all their money from B2B. They may have individual consumers as users, but those users are the product, not the customer.

    What you see in consumer technology is not people trying to make things better for consumers. No better user interfaces or open devices. No lower prices. Very few things that actually make our lives better, even though they are possible. Instead you see consumer technology that serves other corporations better than it serves the people who actually buy the devices.
  • Basically, this. The only thing I even slightly care about at CES is whatever Valve is going to announce.
  • Damn Scott, excellent point. You can even really see this in Microsoft; trying to capitalize on "the social consumer" with cheap stuff like the Kin, then just quickly throwing that out the window and forming a low risk partnership with Nokia to get Windows phones in peoples' hands (hopefully increasing Bing usage and getting a cut of that Google search money). Meanwhile, they had Buxton researching the surface for like 15 years before they even announced it.... and it's well out of mass consumer reach ($12.5k per table).
  • Disregard the last part of my post. Valve's apparently going to announce something at E3. Wishful thinking on my part that it would be today.
  • I'm fascinated by the way some ten inch tablets are now getting 1920x1200 screens, yet on a laptop that is considered a luxury. Why aren't laptop manufacturers making these in 13-15 inch sizes?
  • edited January 2012
    Disregard the last part of my post. Valve's apparently going to announce something at E3. Wishful thinking on my part that it would be today.
    You mean EEE. 3 is considered a dirty word at Valve.

    Post edited by Churba on
  • I would literally shit out golden eggs if they announced that this year. Literally.
  • I would literally shit out golden eggs if they announced that this year. Literally.
    Holding you to that one.
  • edited January 2012
    I'm fulling willing to accept that Blu Ray is far from a perfect standard, but what is so fundamentally wrong with releasing a new physical format that's up to current TV resolution standards? I've never understood why people seem so utterly opposed to it, and, for that matter, why 5 or 6 years after the format was introduced, a good chunk of the people I talk to at my work still have no bloody clue what it is.
    Post edited by Hitman Hart on
  • Because we don't need another physical standard. We need better digital delivery.
  • Because we don't need another physical standard. We need better digital delivery.
    This. The only physical standards necessary are DVD, HDD, and SSD. Tech industries are too focused on meatspace to realize that they've accidentally created the best possible media distribution framework to have ever existed. Also, think of it this way. If you own both a 1080p HDTV and a Blu-Ray player and are enough of a media consumer to appreciate the differences in AV quality that those devices offer, you indubitably have (or could acquire) the money necessary for a set-top box that could download or stream any number of formats and play them back at peak quality. Boo-ray is a waste of vital petrochemicals and a useless standard in a world where I can purchase a 1TB drive and two months of full Netflix service for less than most Blu-Ray players.

  • I'd argue that BluRay may not necessarily be the best way going forward for movie distribution, but BD-ROM is still potentially useful for data distribution. At 25GB apiece (50 GB if dual layered), they're still a pretty cheap way to send large amounts of data when you don't want to send a hard drive.

    I think there will always be a place for physical media, although the applications may become more narrow. However, I don't think network bandwidth will ever exceed the bandwidth of the station wagon full of backup tapes/BD-ROMs/holographic data crystals/whatever hurtling down the highway. Sure, the latency sucks, but if you just want to get a massive amount of data from point A to point B quickly and don't care when the first bits show up so long as all the bits show up on time, it works.
  • edited January 2012
    Yeah, I should state that I'm using "SSD" in a very broad sense; I'd include actual SSDs as well as SD cards and flash drives in there. However, I can see optical media having some very narrow applications in the future; that said, it's far easier to visualize my house with a giant server stack tucked behind wooden doors in the library rather than a massive collection of discs. It's more space efficient and easier to maintain.

    Also, network bandwidth has already exceeded the bandwidth of shipped media in most cases. If I order the complete Cowboy Bebop on Amazon and start torrenting it simultaneously, no bets on which one arrives first.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on

  • Also, network bandwidth has already exceeded the bandwidth of shipped media in most cases. If I order the complete Cowboy Bebop on Amazon and start torrenting it simultaneously, no bets on which one arrives first.
    Assuming you have a fast enough connection. I'm still on a 1meg DSL connection so Amazon will win that race every time for me. I'm fine with us switching from optical media to SD cards or something like that, but until we have universal high speed broadband, it won't work because some people are left behind. If everyone has 25 meg downstream Fios type connections all the time, then yeah, we can all go full digital, but I don't think we as a whole can go beyond physical media until then, and for now, Blu Ray looks the best and has a way smoother menu built in than DVDs do.
  • Also, network bandwidth has already exceeded the bandwidth of shipped media in most cases. If I order the complete Cowboy Bebop on Amazon and start torrenting it simultaneously, no bets on which one arrives first.
    Depends on how much shipped media you're talking about. For something like a DVD box set, then yeah, the bandwidth is probably greater depending on what kind of connection you have. However, if you need to get terabytes of information from point A to point B as fast as possible, loading a station wagon full of hard drives or tapes or what have you is still faster than using a network to transfer it. One day, yeah, using a network to transfer terabytes will probably be faster than shipping physical media, but it still won't be big enough to ship yottabytes (10^24 bytes, AKA 10^15 gigabytes) of information at that point.
  • Also, network bandwidth has already exceeded the bandwidth of shipped media in most cases. If I order the complete Cowboy Bebop on Amazon and start torrenting it simultaneously, no bets on which one arrives first.
    Depends on how much shipped media you're talking about. For something like a DVD box set, then yeah, the bandwidth is probably greater depending on what kind of connection you have. However, if you need to get terabytes of information from point A to point B as fast as possible, loading a station wagon full of hard drives or tapes or what have you is still faster than using a network to transfer it. One day, yeah, using a network to transfer terabytes will probably be faster than shipping physical media, but it still won't be big enough to ship yottabytes (10^24 bytes, AKA 10^15 gigabytes) of information at that point.
    That depends on when we hit the cap of storage density.
  • Yeah, but what the fuck kind of application will ever need the transfer of a Yottabyte of data? Maybe if you're moving a strong AI or something, but the entirety of the internet circa 2009 was only 500 exabytes, and the grand total of all storage systems on earth doesn't even equal one zettabyte.
  • Yeah, but what the fuck kind of application will ever need the transfer of a Yottabyte of data? Maybe if you're moving a strong AI or something, but the entirety of the internet circa 2009 was only 500 exabytes, and the grand total of all storage systems on earth doesn't even equal one zettabyte.
    640K is enough RAM for anyone. Apparently Bill Gates didn't actually say that. Regardless, it is a stupid thing to say, and you are saying it now.
Sign In or Register to comment.