Photosynth comes out of the lab

It looks cool but pretty much every link on that site is broken. I cant see even one example.

Looks like the site is up again...All I can say is WOW!!! Good stuff. --tayme

So, is the end goal to get pictures from all over the world, to crate a virtual 3d planet that you can look at from almost any angle? Also, what happened to the research project that would take several photos, and actually create 3d models? I assumed that was part of photosynth.

It would be good to hear from some of the pro photograhers and such as to what they think of this. Anybody out there? --tayme

Thanks, gorath, will do. --tayme

I'm on Leopard and... hmm... they're not "cool enough" to support this OS at this time... delightfully patronizing :D

@CFisher, Yeah, it almost seems like a fun joke, except that it's just par for the course with Microsoft-based sites and I agree will just play as condescending to most people. Full text of the message: "Unfortunately, we're not cool enough to run on your OS yet. We really wish we had a version of Photosynth that worked cross platform, but for now it only runs on Windows. Trust us, as soon as we have a Mac version ready, it will be up and available on our site." Yeah... they're working on it. And yet many on this site just went absolutely nuts over the MobileMe warning regarding IE7. And it was a more simple statement of fact. Maybe Microsoft should take a look at what percentage of the pro photography community is running on Mac OSX and then revise that support timetable. Just a thought. There is a reason Lightroom's beta came out on the Mac first.

@Master, What, precisely, is "condescending" about iLife being Mac-only? It's their strategy for adding value to their platform. Software is the key differentiator for the Mac, after all. Microsoft has been using the same strategy for decades. The only real difference is that Microsoft has a monopoly which makes leverage of the platform a more questionable practice. Need we really dig into that again? Honestly? Apple's usershare of the photography market is much higher than it's general share. Again, this is why Adobe released Lightroom's beta for Mac first. So Microsoft could be keeping this tool from a very large portion of the photography market by ignoring the Mac. Why would a company ignore a massive chunk of their market except to serve the strategy of a different product (Windows) which earn them more money. Not that photosynth is aimed exclusively at pro photographers. But still. I'm not saying that Microsoft is employing the "moat" strategy here. Such a claim would require proof. But I am saying that your correlation argument about iLife has very fundamental flaws and your recommendation that Microsoft "should not even bother" isn't very smart business. Imagine how Adobe's shareholders would tolerate an announcement that they were ditching mac support for photoshop to save costs. "Sure it's like 30% of our business... but just think of all the money we'll save!". This is why worldwide marketshare is meaningless. The photography market is a specific and dedicated market will little relevance to others (like business and the enterprise).

@Master, I've got nothing against Microsoft adding value and even bundling software in theory. The hard part is the health of the software industry and the preservation of a competitive marketplace for innovation by multiple participants. I'm not going to say I have a solid answer and I'm open to debate about the role of government in monopolies (especially since he government seems to help monopolies form more often than help keep them in check). But there are very different issues when it comes to Microsoft bundling software versus Apple because of their market positions. This isn't about ideology, it's about what's good for users and the industry. Microsoft, as the owner and controller of the underlying platform with a defacto monopoly, has a unique and potentially unfair advantage against third parties. They have a distribution mechanism through Windows Update and through bundling with Windows itself that doesn't allow for a level playing field. What this can mean is that Microsoft's solution need only be "good enough" versus competitors to potentially dominate the market. Plus, Microsoft's monopoly money allows them to subsidize projects that other companies would need to make profitable or fail. The Xbox couldn't be done by most companies since it'd require them to a have the means to lose billions and billions with no end in sight. Then, there have been the cases where Microsoft used their control of the platform to prevent competitor's products from running as well as their own or the leveraging of platform knowledge in ways that third parties can't do. On the web, the use of proprietary plugins and active x controls to force an IE-only/Windows-only strategy has also been a problem. That's what this is. Now, sure, Windows is 95% of the market... so it's easy to now say that they are justified in ignoring the mac in a sense. But they have self-interest to do so that is not in line with the interests of consumers or a healthy market. We should all be concerned about that. The stagnation of IE prior to firefox's rise is a classic example of how progress can wane without competitive pressures constantly in place and strong motivations and incentive for new entrants. Microsoft's position poses a barrier to entry that is already very high. make sense?

"Microsoft has the opportunity to abuse their position but hasn't even though their economic interests say they should. Apple, on the other hand, has abused their multiple monopolies at every possible chance." Hmmm... So I guess their guilty verdict was wrong. I'm not going to re-litigate the case (and am not qualified to do so). That you feel qualified to dismiss it is interesting. I detect some hubris. Frankly, claiming that Microsoft hasn't abused their position is not an honest claim. Apple has no monopoly with the Macintosh. That statement is build on your effort to re-define the market in a way that is meaningless and non-existent except to support your argument. It's like saying that Sony has a monopoly on Sony TVs. Or Honda having a monopoly on factory-installed honda DVD players. Yes, Apple is the only supplier of Apple computers. Yes Apple restricts the sale of much of their software to their computers. But in order to have a monopoly, there must not be equal replacement options in the marketplace. You can do everything on a PC that you can do on a Mac (I'm sure you agree with that). And since the Mac is a personal computer, Apple's control over it's particular computer is not a monopoly. Microsoft controls the software on +95% of the entire category. That's monopoly power. You can't just redefine terms in order to serve your argument. Similarly, the iPod has many many equal replacements in the marketplace and the ubiquitous access to the same content on the iTunes store on other platforms and methods makes any argument for monopoly on that front equally wrong. So, Mike, since Apple has no monopolies to abuse, your claim is categorically false. I'm right on this one with a very high degree of confidence. And once again, you've made a sweeping generalization that only one instance of contradiction will eliminate. Competition is not the only driver of individual effort and innovation. But it is a systematic requirement at the macro level. The existence and viability of a market to sell your goods is the crucial ground level requirement for innovation. If an expectation arises that any success will quickly be crushed by the 800lb gorilla with a monopoly... investment and interest in a market won't last. "Microsoft hasn't abused its monopoly". I'll let the community judge the honesty of that statement.

Wow. mikegalos@msn.com, I stand in awe. Seriously. You are a master.

What's bizarre is redefining what a monopoly is and why it matters to consumers and the marketplace. What's bizarre is claiming objectivity while being a paid employee and booster for one side. That's bizarre. #1. You're still redefining monopoly in a way that it isn't intended and loses it's meaning and value to the discussion. Monopolies about real markets, not individual products within a market. There is no "mac market". There is a personal computer market. Given your fixation on worldwide overall marketshare, I find this artificial construct to be hypocritical. #2. You are now changing the problem from being about "abusing their monopoly power" to being about "harming consumers". Determining consumer harm due the absence of innovation and chilling of the marketplace is impossible. But the court did find that they abused the monopoly through predatory techniques. That invalidates your statement and no amount of backpedaling or redefinition can change that. Sorry. Cartels and trusts can do things that help consumers in one sense. Standard Oil kept it's prices low. That could be said to have helped consumers. But the destruction of a market for short-term consumer gain will still have negative long term consequences. #3. I find it very interesting that you consider your credential as a paid employee of the accused as being proof that you have an objective and all-knowing perspective on the US vs. Microsoft case. That's amazing. You call me biased for having silly references to being a mac fanatic on my website (a site geared at the content business, not the tech business) and yet you claim that because you made a living at Microsoft and was actually there during the trial that you are omnipotent and impartial. Wow. I've never made a nickel from Apple. I'm not in the tech business. Again, I will leave it to the community to judge whose claims are more reasonable (and more arrogant). Please, sir, I suggest you get off your high horse. You don't know it all, Mike, no matter how many times you say it on this website.

I'm going to re-read the finding of fact from the case before I make an honest effort to rebut some of what you're claiming here. Given that you were in the thick of it, I don't doubt that you dug in deep to understand what was happening. Something you should understand about me regarding this case is that I was an adamant Windows user at the time of the case. I thought the government was simply punishing a successful company for political reasons. Then I read the massive Wired expose on the case and it changed my outlook on the company I used to admire. That didn't make me switch to the mac, but it sure ended my love affair with MS. So I didn't come at this thing as some Mac fanboy. But it is now old in my mind, so I need to refresh. As for the definition of monopolies... you may be right that the case had issues with defining the market... but your definition of what constitutes a monopoly for Apple is simply ludicrous. Apple doesn't have anything that can come close to the monopoly power the Microsoft still has over personal computing. To define the market down to a product line is just twisting the concept of monopoly for the purpose of making an ideological point. Apple's control of the Mac is not a monopoly that has relation with or equivalence to Microsoft's. Sorry. You're dead wrong on that. One could argue that Apple's dominance of the digital music market is beginning to give them some monopoly-like bargaining power along the same lines as Walmart has in retail. That's reasonable to debate. Except, of course, that the products on iTunes are 100% replaceable with the same products on Amazon or in best buy. I think your employ at Microsoft soaked you in their side of anti-trust interpretation. It's understandable. I'll read up and get back to you with better facts.