Microsoft Kills Smart Display

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.newswireless.net/articles/031229-smart.html' target='_blank'>http://www.newswireless.net/article...1229-smart.html</a><br /><br /></div>"The Smart Display, a year old, will not make it to 2.0 - Microsoft has told the unfortunate manufacturers who partnered with it in the doomed venture. The idea of a flat panel display which you could pick up and carry around the house sounded like a brilliant idea when it was first mooted, since all it needed was a (presumably, cheap) Windows CE processor and a wireless link. At the time it was not quite as obvious as it is now that it was a dead duck. Now, according to ET News, Microsoft has decided this ugly duckling won't ever become a swan. "Last week, Microsoft sent a letter to a part of smart display developers including Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics notifying them that it would immediately abandon the development of 'Smart Display' OS 2.0, according to industry sources," said the Korean news source."<br /><br />I can't say that this surprises me very much - the Smart Display was a great concept, but hardware and price made it a flop in the market. Did any of you ever buy a Smart Display? What was your experience with it?

[Jeff Rutledge]

Too bad. I think it had enormous potential. But, like you say, it cost way too much. I think most people would have viewed this as a mid-level electronic appliance, but it was priced like a computer. It should have been priced as an accessory if they wanted it to take off.

[brianchris]

We purchased three (two 15" and one 17"), for use in a healthcare clinic (I know, they were marketed for home use, but they fit great in our application.....myabe part of the problem is they were incorrect about there target market????). As I said, they've really found a place in the clinic, as they are quick to boot up (instant on thanks to the CE OS), have good battery life, and are as zippy as the desktop you remotely control (which most are P4 zipsters). Also, they worked great over VPN's to!!

Although we didn't have any immediate plans to purchase more, I found this bit of news unfortunate. But I couldn't agree more, at a prices that eclipsed laptops, they were hard to justify, especially when they needed to be tetherd to a desktop (unlike laptops).

-Brian

[Air]

It's an answer to a question nobody asks.

What is a smart display? If they think people will wander around in the Living room watching TV and hooking up the net with that, they must be kidding. Can you say Audrey and web appliance?

Is it a tablet computer? where are the softwares? It has to perform all the functionality of laptops. But then again, that's what tabletPC is for.

------------
Personally Tablet PC won't fly either in current form. Too clumsy and useless to perform what most people envision it to be. A notepad replacement.

Another two must die projects:

1. SPOT watch. It'll never take off as they envision it. The push information the watch is capable of displaying are utterly useless for targetted audiance. Only nerds will wear those.

They should have aimed for "fashion" and teen crowd instead. Make the phone able to display pattern, cutesy phrase, electronic pet, or whatever other light weight fun apps. Then it will take off.

Only teen will buy novelty watch. No respectable adult will be cought dead wearing funny looking watch. Sure as hell a stock broker and a heavy sport fan won't wear such idiotic watch. That's what Rolex is for.

2. Media2go. Who wants to buy a portable deivce the size of boat anchor? It's ugly, too proprietary, limited, and I bet expensive too.

hint: that's what PPC is for! just make a PPC with HD and 4inch screen, make it nice, and voila... Media2go is obsolete.

[johnm]

I really liked the concept. In fact I do a very similar thing now with a wireless web pad (sonic blue) using remote desktop to my main XP box. It really works nice.

In my opinion the biggest thing that went wrong (besides price of course) is that they didn't deliver on the multi-user capabilities that Balmer promised. Originally the bigest feature I saw was that little Billy could grab the smart display (setup as a second monitor) and surf the web while Dad was doing taxes. Two user's logged in at the same time! You can't do that with remote desktop, it kicks the current user out to the login when the remote connects. This promised two user mode version of XP got me excited. But when it finally shipped I couldn't find any mention of this capability anywhere. Also it was pretty unclear to be if the second-monitor capability was available on any of the shipping devices.

The other down side of course is that remote desktop (the core technology here) works very well except when it comes to anything high bandwidth like video, audio, games, flash animations etc. So the user experience might let some people down.

BTW if you want a home grown solution: Pick up one of the sonicBlue, ViewSonic or other cheap web pads off of ebay. They are pretty underpowered for surfing the web on their own, but work great to remote control XP. Also if you want to use it as a secondary monitor pick up a copy of maxivista's software based multi-monitor software (www.maxivista.com.) This allows any networked PC (such as a laptop or web pad) to be used as a second or even third monitor.

[lurch]

I really liked the concept. In fact I do a very similar thing now with a wireless web pad (sonic blue) using remote desktop to my main XP box. It really works nice.
What are these web pads you refer to? I searched ebay but couldn't find anything... they sound interesting!
Thanks..

[johnm]

What are these web pads you refer to? I searched ebay but couldn't find anything... they sound interesting!
Thanks..

They are an older discontinued wireless webpad used in some vertical market or other. They had 802.11b, XGA screens touch screens, sound cards, mics, 6G hard drive and a 400Mhz transmeta gen one processor (slow.) Some came with Windows98 on them, and other has Linux. Search for sonicblue, progear, or frontpath on ebay and you should get some hits.

I picked one up on a wim a couple of years ago.


http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&krd=1&from=R8&MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&query=progear

Here are some related sites:

http://www.progearhacking.com/index.php
http://www.progear-repair.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/progear/

[whydidnt]

I really liked the concept of a small, portable smart display. But it was effectively ruined as a consumer device when M$ couldn't figure out how to stream video to it. If I can easily stream video via my wireless network and remote connections, M$ should have been able to deliver this.

Oh, yeah it was price way to high for the features delivered, as well. In order to succeed it probably would have had to be priced comparable to an LCD monitor- with a slight bump for the portability. Let's see I'm at the store - I can buy this cool Smart Display for $899.00 or this Laptop that does everything with a bigger LCD for $799.00 -- Hmm. I wonder why nobody is buying the Smart Display?

whydidnt

[rlobrecht]

The big thing I never understood was why the didn't include ink technology with the smart displays. I mean come on, bundle a copy of XP Tablet with the Smart Display, and let you load it on your desktop. The ink doesn't do much in desktop mode, but would be pretty useful when using the Smart Display.

I read that LG likes the Smart Display, and is going to try to do it with MS's help.

[medic119]

I was really looking forward to them. It seemed like the perfect solution for my wife while I was outof town. She like to do lesson planning while watching the TV but the desktop is in another room. When I take the laptop offshore, she has to resort to the desktop.

I figured $300-500 (the inital supposed to be price) would be worth it to give her what she wanted, and cheaper than a laptop to boot.

The they hit the streets at 999 - 1200 or so and I said NO WAY!! 300-500 would have been fine, but why buy a terminal running CE and Terminal Services for the same price as a laptop!

I truly thing the price killed the concept. If they had been cheaper, they would have flown off the shelves. Guess I'll wait for the CompUSA cleanance sales and eBay sales now.

[arnage2]

for $800 or $900 (smart display price) i could save a little more for a tablet pc.

[Jon Westfall]

This really appeared to be a great technology last year when it was announced. Its sad to see it go.

:microwave:

Well, more business for PPCs hopefully ;)

[SassKwatch]

The they hit the streets at 999 - 1200 or so and I said NO WAY!! 300-500 would have been fine, but why buy a terminal running CE and Terminal Services for the same price as a laptop!

I truly thing the price killed the concept. If they had been cheaper, they would have flown off the shelves. Guess I'll wait for the CompUSA cleanance sales and eBay sales now.
I'll put ditto marks under every bit of that.

[tthiel]

Thats what happens when you get in bed with Microsoft. You take a big chance thay they will either steal your idea or discontinue a product that you have spent alot of resources developing.

[Janak Parekh]

Thats what happens when you get in bed with Microsoft. You take a big chance thay they will either steal your idea or discontinue a product that you have spent alot of resources developing.
Er, every developer on every platform suffers this problem -- and it's not easy for the platform vendor either. For example, Microsoft has been lambasted for not beefing up Pocket Word -- but what happens if they do? It's potentially "stealing" from the developers. And I can imagine what software manufacturers had to deal with when Palm integrated Documents-To-Go into most Palm bundles.

And what about all the vendors that have profited from Microsoft platforms? There's a business risk in every partnership.

--janak

[dean_shan]

It would be a good thing if they were cheap. The thing is you could get a tablet or a notebook for the same price.

[zhmic31]

I own a smart display, and although I have to agree with all the comments on it being overpriced, it is an extremely useful device. I keep mine in my Living room, and use it to control my whole Home Theater system remotely, as well as browsing the internet, reading the morning news, accessing tv listings etc. I also had a webcam in our baby's room and it became a portable sound and video monitor that could go anywhere in the house! I was surprised how much I found to use it for once I had it. I do believe the principal idea behind the smart display was very solid, which was to provide a mobile computing experience around the home. The issue comes back to price relative to a full blown laptop. I also agree most people are not as dumb as I was to shell out the kind of money necessary to buy one. What is dissappointing to me is I don't think it ever really had a chance, given the fact that Laptops and other mobile computing devices have been around for a while, they have hit mass production and prices have dropped significantly. We apparently will never find out how low the prices of smart displays could have eventually gone had they caught on, but I for one am dissappointed we will never find out.

[jimski]

With Microsoft's inability to synchronize anything effectively I was really looking forward to this technology. A laptop may be cheaper, but try to get it to sync up with your desktop 100% of the time.

Maybe when flat panel displays become affordable this concept will make a comeback. Whishful thinking I hope.

[ipaqgeek]

I don't agree with a lot of the comments here. The cost is cheap. You could always get the Viewsonic 150P (15" touchscreen) for under $1000.00, and Dell frequently had a discount with this, thereby pricing it below $900. You can't get much of a laptop for that much - especially one with a 15" touchscreen.

The problem with it imho was 3 fold:

1) They gutted CE .NET of all its usefulness when they made "CE .NET for Smart Displays". No local applications could be ran. Everything had to be done remotely (using Microsofts proprietary RDP protocol). Had they simply added RDP on top of CE .NET then Smart Displays would have been a hit - but not for what it was inted - but because CE .NET can run most PPC applications with minor modifications. Personally, I think MS was afraid of CE .NET competing with XP for Tablets. In so many ways CE .NET is so much better suited for Tablets than is XP for tablets. However, if my understanding is correct, Microsoft make $3 / machine off CE .NET, and $75+ / machine off XP for tablets.

Incidentally, these things came with a keyboard. If they ran CE .NET then it would be a serious tablet alternative to XP - If not a notebook replacement as well.

2) The way they implemented the RDP was to disable the desktop machine whenever the Smart Display was accessing it. In otherwords, you couldn't run two sessions on the same machine: one on the smart display, and the other on the hard wired monitor. This was to prevent users from using dozens of Smart Displays as thin clients to your desktop - using the desktop as a server. Again, greed motivated this decision and it proved to kill the product.

3) 802.11b. Need I say more? The blasted government has so restricted the frequencies available for the public sector that we're stuck with a horrid WiFi situation. Even 802.11g has confict problems. Do you know what frequencies are affected by Microwave ovens? 2.4 GHz - same as the WiFi frequency band. Don't believe me? Try to surf wirelessly within 10 feet of your microwave oven while popping popcorn.

This last point would be okay if they allowed you to hardwire into your Lan. No dice - none of the Smart displays even have a network cable port.

The hardware was excellent for the price. The potential was there. Poor standards and greed killed this product.

[brianchris]

2) The way they implemented the RDP was to disable the desktop machine whenever the Smart Display was accessing it. In otherwords, you couldn't run two sessions on the same machine: one on the smart display, and the other on the hard wired monitor. This was to prevent users from using dozens of Smart Displays as thin clients to your desktop - using the desktop as a server. Again, greed motivated this decision and it proved to kill the product.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a limitation of Windows XP, and *not* the Smart Display? I mean, I remote desktop (RDP) from any client to a Win XP Pro box and it always "steals the terminal" (i.e. prevented others from using it). Another post in this very thread mention Balmer had promised to fix that in XP (at least, perhaps, for Smart Displays), but that never came to be. Again, my appologies if incorrect.

-Brian

[Janak Parekh]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a limitation of Windows XP, and *not* the Smart Display? I mean, I remote desktop (RDP) from any client to a Win XP Pro box and it always "steals the terminal" (i.e. prevented others from using it).
You're 100% correct. Only the Windows Server products support "background" terminal sessions, regardless of the RDP client you use. I'd be curious to know if anyone has connected to a Windows Server 2003 box using a Smart Display, because it would serve as the ultimate thin client in that case. Too bad Microsoft killed it -- price drops would have solved the problem and potentially made this very useful for vertical markets, if nothing else.

--janak

[Terry]

I have a viewsonic 15" that mostly sits on a shelf. With some help from "Aibopet" (on another forum), I managed to hack the ROM and add a few additional CE apps (e.g., Reversi).

It was supposed to get a multifucntion IR remote (I now have an $89 All-in-one that actually works).

It would have been stellar if it allowed desktop control...the ability to use it wirelessly to control Windows Media Edition or PowerPoint would have made it useful for high-end technophiles and business presenters, even at $800...but alas, MS decided to limit its RDP connection and blank the host machine.

[TomTanida]

You're 100% correct. Only the Windows Server products support "background" terminal sessions, regardless of the RDP client you use. I'd be curious to know if anyone has connected to a Windows Server 2003 box using a Smart Display, because it would serve as the ultimate thin client in that case. Too bad Microsoft killed it -- price drops would have solved the problem and potentially made this very useful for vertical markets, if nothing else.


I'm not using a Smart Display but I do sometimes log into my W2K3 Server box over wireless using my NEC Tablet PC & Terminal Server. In fact, I often then jump to my workstation machine using RDC from there.

My general rule of thumb is that a consumer oriented technology (vs business) won't succeed unless my mom will ever use it. So the Smart Display was probably too expensive for geeks not to justify making the leap to laptops Tablet PCs, and additionally not really useful for moms & kids to begin with. :(

I agree the price killed the concept. But at the same time, we probably can't just say "if they just lowered the price..." because as it turned out, it just wasn't mathematically possible to sell Smart Displays at the original target of $500 and keep hardware vendors in business.

And even with LCDs plummeting in price, all that has meant is you can get pretty decent laptops for $700-$1000; and there is definitely some large number of consumers still using 300-500MHz PCs and doing just fine printing out their occasional letters and digital photos on their $50 inkjets who don't really need to sit on the couch logging into their PC remotely.

So where is the market? Yes, vertical markets *maybe*, but even the Tablet PC is very niche at this point.

As a geek I was definitely interested in Smart Displays when they first were announced but at the $1000 price I just went ahead and bought a real computer. We geeks seem to think there is a market for everything if only people "understood", but the funny thing is that it's probably the geeks who don't understand that a 300 MHz PC running Windows ME (i.e. not Linux) using dialup to get to AOL is perfectly fine if that's all you do.

This isn't directly related, but I think the Tablet PC suffers from a similar problem- MSFT still charges Tablet PC makers a full price for Windows XP Pro and thus helps makes the Tablet not price competive with laptops which often come with XP Home (and whose hardware takes better advantage of economies of scale). OEMs have griped, but if MSFT "subsidized" the Tablet by discounting the OS, the next thing you know, your Dell/Gateway/Sony desktop will arrive with WinXP Tablet PC edition by default, just to get that $50 edge over competitors in a very cutthroat hardware business. When MSFT really unifies the consumer/first pro tier OS years from now (Longhorn?) this disparity will disappear (though of course the Tablet will still face the hardware economies of scale issue).

Some things work, some things don't. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Life in technology goes on. :D

Happy new year, all! :)

-Tom