It's disappointing to see the cynicism and negativity directed to this announcement. Yes, the presentation is a bit lacking: the website is difficult to read for many and the video seems to be a big ad. But the message is so hopeful. I'm not blind/visually challenged/whatever the correct terminology is, but this announcement/description/advertisement made me happy.
It made me happy not because this is another channel to bring advertisers and consumers together (as others have pointed out) but because it seems like a way to leverage technology to really give help and hope to others.
Is there a reason why Microsoft shouldn't put their branding forward and promote their own devices if they put up money for the research? Apple does this all the time. I hope we take joy in the possibilities of freedom that this technology could provide.
I'm also disappointed by the cynicism and superficial judgement ("bad web design!") that this piece is receiving.
This might be a serious innovation, easing the lives of a (large!) marginalized group. Blindness is a serious disability, and I'm really happy to see Microsoft taking this step. This is actually something that might help people. Can we appreciate that?
I've a feeling most of the HN audience is comprised of people working on websites. Almost every time something shows up, they usually contribute with what they know (css, javascript, design, etc). I've learned to ignore it but it's a bit sad anyway.
It might be worth mentioning that this sort of thing is something Microsoft has cared a lot about for a very long time. I attended the huge, 7,000 attendees unveiling of NT for developers in SF in 1992, and one of the things they did, pretty much orthogonal to the rest of the program, was give us a handout and maybe a CD on accessibility, and strongly urge us to incorporate it in what we developed.
Hating on Microsoft is a lazy way to get "e-cred" regardless of the actual topic. If this was announced and presented the exact same way by Apple it wouldn't receive half of the negativity.
It's absolutely awesome. It beats the typical crap on here about some start-up coming up with a not-really-needed solution to a millienial's already-cushy life.
if the configurability is there, I will happily withdraw my cynicism. I too am happy when I see technology being used in new ways to help people live richer lives.
What bothers me is that the most important part of this project is to get a lot of existing entities to do something for the visual impaired people (e.g. put bluetooth devices everywhere, create sevices to push the information to users), and I feel this part of the project is brushed away in a "we have great ideas, surely everyone will be conviced to make them possible" attitude.
There is already realtime tracking of the train delays where I live, and it just doesn't work (regularly a train will be displayed as arriving to a station, when clearly it's not there, and 5 min after it gets rescheduled). Telling me in nice video that we'll expand this kind of experience to vuses and a lot of other things, and it will help blind people to workaround unexpected things just feels like wild fantasy.
About the other companies, Apple's doesn't advertise feel good prototypes of "boil the ocean" types of projects. They didn't come with a "wouldn't it be great if you could pay for things with our technology ? Imagine if everyone put this beacon everywhere in the world" video telling fluffy stories in advance.
They prototyped the barcode payment system in their shop, you could actually use it with existing devices, and they're pushing their NFC payment with a nationwide partner networks with working payment terminals from the get go, doing the hard work upfront.
That the data is already accessible. It has an app, it has a website. If you can use the accessibility features of any smartphone then you have access to it.
The leveling of the playing field you mention is not some moonshot, some dream to hold dear to one's heart. It certainly can still be done better, but it's already done competently.
Should we dismiss ideas because they don't work as intended right now? All I see here is room for improvement. Rarely, if ever, do new approaches work perfectly the first time around, and the problem is especially complex.
Regardless of how Microsoft profits from this, it is still a good idea that could improve the lives of millions of people. If a company can make money while improving the lives of people, that is a good thing for both parties, wouldn't you say?
I think I might be grumpy, but it's hard for me to share the hyperbolism of this PR piece on the importance of the experiment. To put it differently, this PR story should be written when this experiment expends to London as a whole and is ready to actually take the world.
In a way, this is another instance of the "ideas don't matter, implementation does" mantra. It's not their ideas that will change millions of people's life, it's the implementation, and what is presented doesn't seen revolutionary nor reliable nor scalable to me. I'd want to be proven wrong, of course.
It made me happy not because this is another channel to bring advertisers and consumers together (as others have pointed out) but because it seems like a way to leverage technology to really give help and hope to others.
Is there a reason why Microsoft shouldn't put their branding forward and promote their own devices if they put up money for the research? Apple does this all the time. I hope we take joy in the possibilities of freedom that this technology could provide.