The pressure sensitivity of this is cool but lets not get ahead of ourselves with 'true innovation' - this isn't the tactile feedback multi-use touch surface we've been waiting for.
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.
> 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
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 is their thing, and it is one of the things that has made them big in the first place
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.
My commentary was not on how they work - its whether that strategy is competitive in this context. The numbers bear that out. And the fact that they're keeping both x86 and ARM in Surface 2 shows they still have no clue. When you're in 3rd place, last thing you want to do is introduce two entirely different SKUs and wind up in both 3rd and 4th place. That strategy may only work if you're trying to put pressure on chip makers to compete for your business, which requires you have a pretty dominant position in the market, which... they don't.
This has worked for them because the basic form factor of PCs hasn't changed in 30 years. They're still basically an evolution of a mainframe terminal but with the computer inside. Screen, keyboard, pointing device, etc. It's a very capable design but requires you either sit at a desk, or like laptops have a built-in desk that folds down and has an integrated keyboard and pointing device.
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.
Is there a name for what happens when a vendor gets locked into the technology of its users? E.g. Microsoft basically getting stuck supporting ancient DOS software until the end of time.
This crazy compatibility and lock-in is Microsoft's biggest advantage, but it's simultaneously a huge weakness.
Yeah, sure, they support the Zune players, XNA game development, and Plays for sure music.
/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.
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.
A few years ago, I think around iPhone 4, there were many patents about touchscreen tactile feedback. Some thought it would be what Jobs wanted as the main new thing for the iP4 but it wasn't, and since it fell off the radar or maybe I'm not looking deep enough.
Has Windows improved it's audio latency yet? It's been a while since I did any audio programming for windows, but when I did, the 3rd party ASIO driver system was required to get acceptable latencies. That's not going to work on RT.
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 -
Completely agree with this. In a live environment (loud, dark, time sensitive) I've found using a iPad to control music much harder than using a standard computer keyboard, even with the iPad's simple controls.
How are dark environments a big problem if you can see the buttons? Touch panel based mixing UIs are not unusual in said spaces; I've seen people using touchscreens instead of physical sliders. Given that, this device would be perfectly usable in a dark mixing studio or similarly poorly lit environment; no less usable than a traditional touchscreen (probably more useful, since they can carve little notches into the buttons so you can feel where they are).
It just doesn't make sense to criticize the lack of tactile feedback when a device like this provides more tactile feedback than traditional touchscreens. That criticism only makes sense if you view it as a replacement for a hardware mixing board, which it obviously isn't.
A brightly lit screen and hand-eye coordination are not 'compromises' unless your goal is to build a device that is all things to everyone. There are non-tablet devices with highly tactile physical input, and there are also these mysterious inventions called 'light bulbs'.
Thing A requires some things to do X. Thing B doesn't require these things to do X. One is a superset of the other, therefore one is clearly better, no matter what the semantics.
Thing A requires gasoline and a starter motor to get you to places. Thing B doesn't require gasoline or a starter motor to get you to places. One is a superset of the other, therefore a bicycle is better than a car no matter what the semantics.
Are you serious?
The point is that tablet computers get used in different scenarios from desktop PCs and in different scenarios from physical mixing boards. Pick a device designed for your scenario, then complain if it's not fit for purpose. You're not going to have a mixing board on the train with you and you're not going to use a tablet to do a live mix at a dimly lit concert.
I don't think the Jaguar ever had card inserts for its controllers. In any case, even if it did the Intellivision had them first. They were a neat idea, but putting another piece of plastic in front of buttons that weren't all that easy to press to begin with...
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.
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.
I think the Blades are an awesome idea, but I really don't understand your assessment of Apple's usage goals for the iPad. Apple has run commercials promoting creation oriented tasks for the iPad. There is a tremendous consumption market for iPads, but Apple pretty clearly wants it to be a device used for creation as well.
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?
Do people understand that iPads and iPhones are MIDI compatible through the lightning to USB kit? (CCK before that)
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.
They would have to be pretty darn cheap to beat out the USB Midi controllers people generally use now with things like Ableton Live, considering you can get something like this now for less than $100 that has the virtue of already being for sale.
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.
You're right but I doubt that this is targeted at users who know what MIDI or OSC is.
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".
I can see a lot of potential in this if the platform were to be opened up and customised blades could be manufactured cheaply. I'd love to see Microsoft license the technology to third parties and possibly have an open SDK.
Your comment makes me think - why not allow people to print out the membrane using their own inkjet printer? Some consideration about the material must be made but surely this can be solved.
Fingerworks keyboards and touchpads--which were one of the first commercial implementations of capacitive multitouch--were popular with some music producers for specifically this reason. See for example:
I fail to see the "innovation" in this. Purpose built keyboards have been around for as long as i can remember, I am especially thinking about the TV production computers with special keys, colours etc...
When i saw this i had my hopes high to see a touch surface with an electronically customisable layout, so that the app can essentially draw its own controls.
Yes, that would be nice. Those dual screen laptops are a nice idea, but not with double screens; no battery life/too heavy and such. With e-ink and especially mixed with something like Tactus[1] you could have a winner.
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.
For reference's sake, Point-of-Sale systems (as per fast food retail) have been using completely custom keyboards for years (only affects the last case).
Nowadays yes, but most POS systems I have seen almost look like they have inserts in them and are a covered in buttons every color of the rainbow. The trend is defiantly to move to touch but its not free and that industry moves very slow.
I'm excited for the Surface 2 and will likely get one, but I'm not sure the idea of creating several use-case specific keyboards beyond a standard QWERTY makes any sense. Isn't the whole point of having a dynamic touch screens to enable ANY use case?
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.
Think about it this way: the blade is a second control surface that allows you to make use of the full screen for data or other touch UI.
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.
This is supposed to be the "innovation?" A static, physical, printed-on-a-touchpad input system for a touch device?
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.
Exactly. The whole point of a tablet is to show the buttons you need when you need them (and only then), without an external device taking up space whether you need it or not.
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.
Exactly. The whole point of a tablet is to show the buttons you need when you need them (and only then), without an external device taking up space whether you need it or not.
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.
There are of course exceptions to every rule. A specialized controller might be suitable for a few applications. When talking on the scale of Microsoft and general-purpose tablets, the market for such specialized controllers are vanishingly small; great for a niche, but a paltry offering from a company in desperate need of mass appeal.
This is like a parody of innovation! It looks like a concept project mostly. The key to making anything like this comes from how well it is integrated with the software, and audio production software is really hard to get right.
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!
I think this is a step-backwards. It's a terribly flawed concept for two reasons:
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!
Yes, this is potentially innovative, but not in the same way that the standard iPod/iPhone connector is. On iOS musical devices you can already plug them into music hardware - guitars, keyboards, mixers, etc. That's already happening.
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.
"Yes, this is potentially innovative, but not in the same way that the standard iPod/iPhone connector is."
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.
Hmm. Linkin Park's DJ? How much more C-list can you get in terms of DJs to endorse your product. If Armin van Buuren plays a set in Ibiza with a Surface, I might possibly give it a bit more credit as a serious device. From a DJ and producer perspective, MacBook Pros and Mac Pros are still king. I don't know the specs on the surface, but I would bet running a full Ableton setup on the surface would be a bit stressful on that OS. Serato might run on it though, so the wedding DJ market might eat this up while the real producers and DJs will stick with their laptops, MIDI controllers and USB/FireWire mixers. I've never played in a booth that was so small that a Surface would be the only thing that fit. This Surface thing is going simply be a marketing pull like iLife is for Mac.
Hello I am a member of Microsoft's target market here. I've definitely heard of Linkin Park, and their music, but I've never once heard the name Armin van Buuren before. Does that make him D-list?
Electronic dance music (EDM) DJs are not well-known in the US. Only a tiny portion of the population listens to EDM. I'm 29 and have friends that are very interested in EDM and I've never heard of Armin van Buuren either, but have heard of Linkin Park (of course I was directly in the middle of their demographic when they broke out). I suspect this is a regional issue. In the US the marketing value of having <insert any known US band here>'s DJ is probably higher than having Armin van Buuren if you are trying to target a broad demographic out of the gate and not going for the hardcore early adopter strategy.
At least the Surface has a USB port which means I can plug almost any music peripheral into it, unlike the iPad where I have to spend extra for a 'camera connection kit' like there aren't any other devices in the world that employ USB.
Ah, yeah, true innovation alright; an application specific touch-UI? Dang, tablets will never be able to offer that XD.
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'
Honest question. Not just for knappador, but anyone else who wants to chime in. How do you all feel about a single piece of glass vs. actual buttons?
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.
The problem is, how much better is it really? The flatness of the cover by its very nature implies awful tactile awareness compared to Cherry MX's or any other such device wholly designed to aid tactile awareness. Looking at the images, I'm guessing I'm about as likely to gain a feel for this device as I am to start reading Braille spontaneously. What is there to give tactile feedback on this thing? Paint!?!? XD Subtle dips in an already subtle material?! I'd rather open a school teaching finger-navigation on felt than develop any application dependent on this. Who is this really a wake-up call to? I'd have to have been using an iPad to transcribe on for the last three years to buy an exclamation that relevant change has occurred. Hardly the thing that will stop the slide of MS, and good riddance. One less platform wholly and utterly founded on proprietary software.
This has a potential if Microsoft opens up the architecture and allows other companies to create their own touch covers. it will automatically boost Surface sales if big name software companies produce customized touch covers to work with their applications.
Think for example covers for video editing software, CAD etc
It would be awesome if the 'keyboard' could be combined with an e-ink screen that overlaid it. That way, the touchpad could be reconfigured on the fly depending upon the app that you are using.
The new Web MIDI spec allows hands-on devices with sliders, dials, XY pads etc to be accessible from javascript.
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
It really surprises me how in the middle of Microsoft massive failures, you can still find a couple of good ideas here and there, proving that some fresh blood is still pumping inside that company.
I wonder what it feels like. Does it feel great like "i'm the one that keeps this company innovating", or bad like "damn, if only I were working at apple or google, i would be among other people like me, and management wouldn't destroy my ideas with their crappy execution" ?
Meh. I dont feel much innovation there. They are simply using the keyboard port as a USB replacement to connect a dedicated peripheral. Its not bad per se, but its proprietary and you may as well throw it all away when you buy a non surface tablet late on. I doubt this will change anything.
I hate to say it: but when Apple comes out with such covers for the iPad during their fall iPad event, it will all suddenly be innovative and revolutionary. Some people will point out that the Surface has it, but then people will say 'but Apple added this feature that makes it work'.
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.
Ha Microsoft is the scapegoat for most. M$ hate from the 90s just carrying over. Remember when they brought out the Flat Design, the amount of skepticism here was amazing. Slowly Gmail switched, then Youtube, Andoid, Yahoo and now IOS. MS gets comparatively less credit for anything they come up with but don't bother, its a techy hivemind thing and it will fade.
>Some people will point out that the Surface has it, but then people will say 'but Apple added this feature that makes it work'.
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 was the first (I think) to use an extremely very flat keyboard that doubles as a screen cover on a tablet."
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.
Microsoft is struggling to get developers excited about their platform. If they can't convince companies to invest the time to build software, they'll never convince anyone to manufacture hardware; hardware has a real cost per unit.
That's not entirely true. First, increasing amounts of haptic feedback can be faked with vibration.
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.
A keyboard in turn has limitations over game controllers. Why not provide a game controller interface for your tablet instead so that manufacturers can provide arbitrary controllers instead of just flat ones the same size and shape as the tablet?
Faking haptic feedback with vibration sucks insofar as I've experienced it: laggy with unnatural sensation. I'm sure it could be done right, but a phone vibrator isn't it.
I was actually considering taking my Surface Pro down off of craigslist and keeping it to play with this for a while (depending on how much they wanted for it). I love synths and drum machines and am always interested to try new music toys and software (I'm far from a musician, so toys is the appropriate word here for me).
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.
Fair enough, I got carried away, but custom keyboards will not suddenly make this a good device. I got caught up in ranting about it, because it looks and feels so cool, but is so infuriating to use. What I was hoping to get across is that adding these to the surface don't make it any more practical, and don't address the existing problems with the surface and its keyboard. Without the Surface, this is nothing new (custom input devices are common).
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.
You might be looking at it the wrong way. From what I can gander, these blades are going to be for application-specific use. I can see a double-folding math-character keyboard for Mathematica or design-tool for Photoshop being quite useful. Yes, this whole thing is novel, but as we've seen with the iPhone-era, novel gidgets and quirkets make people go bananas. Nothing new, yes, but still a cool thing if executed right. The big difference that people aren't getting here, is that touchscreen UIs take away screen real estate and are limited in size, these covers can be double or triple-folding and can have all kinds of LED-driven knobs, sliders, and whatnot.
I do like to see people trying new things, and agree that people love useless gadgets (myself included). I didn't notice the idea of double folding versions, but it definitely makes sense for mathematica and photoshop, you need the standard alphanumeric keys pretty often, and the keyboard is about as cramped as you woudld want it to be already, so they would need to be bigger to really offer extra utility.
I think they could have generated more interest and more money just selling them with more designs and sports team branding (The Surface is already used by the NFL, so some sort of relationship between them and MS already exists).
As for the knobs and sliders, I agree it would look 'cool' to see real LEDs light up for your fader or the active loops on your sequencer or whatever, but the reason actual musicians like physical knobs and sliders is because of the tactile response they provide. Thats why Serato's vynil controllers are still popular with a lot of people (http://serato.com/controlvinyl). With a touch keyboard like the one that the surface has you get the worst of both worlds. The (lack of) flexibilty of a hardware device and the (lack of) tactile response of a touchscreen.
Hm right, bidirectional input/output for lightshows and whatnot. We have to be careful not to tread into full peripheral territory - because the whole point of these things is to be covers as well? I guess we'll just have to see what M$ offers and hope it's innovative. Because I have no reason to buy yet another tablet unless there truly is something that makes me excited.
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.