Scott Anthony: Microsoft's motion controller falls short of Kinecting with Charlie

It's rare that a technological innovation creates debate both in the Anthony household and among my colleagues, but Microsoft's Kinect had done just that.

The core issue: did Microsoft over-stretch in its effort to transform the gaming market? For those who haven't seen the ubiquitous commercials, Kinect is a new way to play with Microsoft's Xbox video game console.

Instead of a traditional controller, it uses a range of motion-sensing technology to allow arm waves, kicks, and jumps to control the action.

Microsoft hopes the device trumps Nintendo, which created a new market of gamers with its simple-to-use Wii system. Nintendo substantially changed the video gaming market and created billions in profits for the company.

My wife saw a commercial for Kinect, and said, "I assume you'll want that for Christmas."

Later that week, a colleague who knows I've written extensively (and, largely positively) about the Wii said, "I assume you are a big fan of the Kinect."

In both cases, they were surprised by my ambivalence. I told them I loved what Microsoft was trying to do, and have little doubt motion-based interfaces will open up amazing new applications. But I'm worried that Kinect isn't quite ready to pass the Charlie test.

That involves giving a new technology to a child under the age of four, and seeing if they can start using it within a minute. When my son Charlie was two, the gap between him first holding the Wii remote and playing baseball was about three seconds. Apple's iPad passed the Charlie test as well; my 2-year-old daughter Holly very quickly figured out how to use one.

But over the weekend Charlie (now five) and I wandered over to the Kinect demonstration unit at Selfridges department store on Oxford St in London to try out bowling. The screen told him to move to the left. Then back. Then left again.

Then he had to raise his hand. I had to explain to him how to pick up the ball. I could see his frustration growing. Now, this was an in-store demonstration unit, and I think the odds remain high that Kinect will be under my tree. But I suspect that it will only be a true breakout hit if it turns out that it can in fact pass the Charlie test.

Perhaps Microsoft could have explored a very different commerci-alisation strategy. Maybe it could have positioned the first-generation Kinect as something for hardcore gamers who don't mind dealing with quirky interfaces before introducing a more streamlined version for the mass market.

The risk in trying to introduce a revolutionary technology in the mass market is that Microsoft could potentially poison the market, limiting Kinect's long-term potential.

I have little doubt that Microsoft is on to something huge with motion as a transformational way to interact with games, data, and a whole range of other applications. However, I think there might just be enough rough edges around Kinect that it might not live up to the hype.

- Bloomberg