• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Speculation: Kinect is just a über Nielson box. All else follows.

billions of dollars invested to determine TV ratings....something cable companies can already do without it.

tumblr_lip867BUXE1qdra0oo1_400.jpg

tinfoil hat yeah... that would probably be your reaction also if the OP was: "MS gives your personal data to the NSA. If they didn't tell us it's because the US governement has legally threatened them against doing so"

OP's theory doesn't seem so crazy, he's not talking about mere TV ratings, also what he says is technically do-able, so at least it's good to imagine some of Kinect's other uses
 
billions of dollars invested to determine TV ratings....something cable companies can already do without it.

tumblr_lip867BUXE1qdra0oo1_400.jpg

Kinect can detect when people look away from the screen. Kinect can tell when you're exitect(heart rate). Kinect can tell whether your happy or not while watching. Kinect can tell how many people are watching.
That data would be pretty much epic for every content creators.
If there is an ad on air, you get direct feedback. Are the people bored? Do the look away? Does the ad keep their attention? How is their reaction?
Same goes for TV Shows and everything else. You know what people liked about your show, what bored them, where you lost their attention, where were many people excited.

The data tells you exactly which parts about you content were good and which were bad.

Right now, everything you know is whether many people watch it or not. You don't know what exactly they liked or what exactly they disliked.
 
The only thing crazy about the OPs theory is to believe that Microsoft is actually that clever and capable. If you told me Google was doing this I'd believe you because Google can actually get away with this and would be smart enough to know how to make real money off of this data.

Microsoft on the otherhand just took a several billion dollar writedown on aQuantive. MS is struggling to figure out how to make money off of ads and actually is dumb enough to believe that by being more protective of people's privacy than Google that they will get people to switch to their services. I bet the actual engineering teams behind this stuff are probably some of the biggest granola-eating hippies you can imagine and the reason the Kinect isn't even required anymore came from internal pressure rather than external.
 
Honestly, given that...

A. Microsoft has flat out admitted they are going to collect this data for advertising
B. Microsoft has made a habit of having users to pay it to be advertised to with Xbox Live thus far
C. Microsoft has both lied to users about the nature of the data it collects, and facilitated the handing over of that information (Skype)

...I find it hard to believe anyone would be surprised at this being an absolute core Microsoft "vision" for using its users. And having them pay for the privilege.

There are times for tinfoil hats, and there are times to just open your eyes at what is right in front of you. My vote's on this being the latter.
 
A.) The issue isn't whether MS will collect the data. The question is whether they will share Kinect data with other companies for money. I'm saying they're a bunch of wimps and will probably tell people they'll never share the data. There are tons of people who are willing to share their data with outside companies (look at Facebook, Google, loyalty cards, credit card terms, etc.). I would like an opt-in program that is completely transparent, but knowing MS they'll just squander the potential of the device.

B.) Paying for a service and getting advertising is not a Microsoft habit it is just reality. You pay for movie tickets, cable TV, magazines, newspapers, even sometimes video games and still get ads. You pay for Netflix and they put advertising inside the programming itself (much worse thing in my opinion).

C.) The NSA attack is not fair because Microsoft is actually now actively suing the US government for the freedom to share that information with the public. Both Google and Microsoft are silenced by the government. There's a big difference between sharing data without disclosing it when you have no choice and building a business out of sharing data with advertisers. The NSA stuff is not Microsoft's or Google's choice and they've been pretty clear that they are unhappy about it and don't really want to participate without the public's knowledge.
 

Oppo

Member
A) Microsoft may well not sell the data directly but in that case they will simply use their own ad based resources to place highly targeted ads for high rates (as someone pointed out in great detail in the last page)

B) is irrelevant

C) I certainly said nothing of the NSA

Also I'll point out that I'm not trying to portray then as evil, never said that. Cynical, sure.
 

SegaShack

Member
I've been thinking about this ever since the Xbox One and new Kinect were announced and shown.

The primary purpose of the Kinect seems to be as a sensor for demographic tracking of viewership. When looking at the device and its capabilities, it makes much, much more sense as that, than even as a novel game or home theatre controller.

In fact it seems to me that the Kinect "possibilities" may well have been shoe horned, ret-conned, after the fact, strategically. Which is kind of tinfoil hattish but bear with me a moment longer.

Microsoft saw a possibility to leverage the new Xbox across several different markets: the existing video game/streaming media market that the 360 worked in, plus as a competitor to the likes of Apple TV/Roku/Chromecast, AND as a drop in replacement for all the cable boxen in North America (at least), capable of doing all those functions much better than the VIC 20 guts you find on a typical Big Cable set top box.

Kinect can see how many people are in the room, where they sit, what their expressions are, perhaps their heart rate, what sorta people they are (I.e.kids or adults), and it can do all of this in the dark. Ok. That data is crazy valuable. Highly accurate demo data that is time stamped. No they aren't staring at your boner, they could not care less about your boner; your boner is not valuable data. In fact most of the RGB stuff it captures is sort of incidental, a verification layer.

What they want is: this ad during this part of the Superbowl raised heart rates across the view ship by 22%. There were an average of X many viewers in a given room for Show Y's premiere. 3/4 of that audience was female. 72% of them frowned when the intro played longer than the initial minute of runtime (looking at you, Orange Is The New Black). 46% of the audience left the room when the ad break was placed early in the show. And so on. That data can be compiled into little tiny dB reports, no need to beam fat (and obvious) RGB data back to MS. Kinect and One can compile all of this at the client end.

And then MS has some of the most valuable viewship data in the world, with a high degree of accuracy and integrity.

Every decision MS has made about the Kinect, makes perfect sense to me, in this light. Of course it had to be mostly required. Of course they had to ship it with the console. Of course "Xbox One IS Kinect". It's part of the entire strategy for the thing.

Kinect was proposed first and they reverse-engineered gaming and remote control examples for the tech. It makes so much sense. It's why there's a scant handful of actually compelling use cases for games. It's why they've rolled voice commands in with gestural body tracking and called the whole thing — two very different control schemes — as "Kinect".

I don't think Kinect was ever meant to be a video game controller, at least certainly not primarily. It's a demographics sensor. The game part was the Trojan horse. The retconned marketing plan made to sell the thing.

Thoughts?

I don't think anywhere in their terms and conditions of the console does it say they are giving away personal data from the Kinect, so this would be illegal.
 

Ultrabum

Member
Someone shop that scene from batman where the riddler(as played masterfully by Jim carry) is absorbing all of the brainwaves of people. But make him major Nelson, and all the boxes kinect.
 

ShapeGSX

Member
I don't think anywhere in their terms and conditions of the console does it say they are giving away personal data from the Kinect, so this would be illegal.

I'm not sure the T&C of the XBox One have been released yet. But yes, they would have to disclose this. I suspect they will also have an opt-out for sharing data.
 

Ploid 3.0

Member
The only thing crazy about the OPs theory is to believe that Microsoft is actually that clever and capable. If you told me Google was doing this I'd believe you because Google can actually get away with this and would be smart enough to know how to make real money off of this data.

Microsoft on the otherhand just took a several billion dollar writedown on aQuantive. MS is struggling to figure out how to make money off of ads and actually is dumb enough to believe that by being more protective of people's privacy than Google that they will get people to switch to their services. I bet the actual engineering teams behind this stuff are probably some of the biggest granola-eating hippies you can imagine and the reason the Kinect isn't even required anymore came from internal pressure rather than external.

MS has been after the living room for a long time. Some could even say they went along with making xbox to get into the living room in the first place. Google got them on search engine, google got them on browser, google had google tv but I think that didn't do too well. There is also iOS, android, vs W7 or whatever MS call their phone os. MS is usually late to the party, they are here but they have xbox and kinect. Are Google TV, and Apple tv still in the game?
 
It is very depressing that so many people actually believe this.

It's very depressing that people really think it measures all the things it does for kinectimals or whatever. The OP's breakdown makes all the sense in the world. Anybody who's ever worked in a modern tech company knows how completely metric-driven their thinking is.

Was it the driving force in developing it? Nah, but is it part of their thinking? You'd have to be naive to believe otherwise.
 
Of course Kinect can be used to collect very valuable data, and it's very likely that it will be used for that purpose, among other things (just like every other capable device connected to the internet). But suggesting that it's Kinect's primary purpose, and that the device has been designed around that idea with gaming added as a justification is a great example of a crackpot theory that hasn't been given a lot of thought, sorry, OP.

Kinect started its life as an optional peripheral introduced late in the generation. As such, your theory is applicable to Kinect not any more or less than it's applicable to PS Eye, Xbox Live Vision camera or EyeToy. However, Kinect ended up being a huge success, selling to almost a third of the Xbox 360 user base in just a few short years. In fact, since Kinect was introduced in November of 2010, Xbox 360 sold approximately 30 million units, which means that with its 24 million units, Kinect achieved almost 1:1 sales with Xbox 360. I could go on, but I believe that alone is a sufficiently clear indicator why Microsoft decided to bundle the unit with every Xbox One - it's proven to be a very popular differentiating factor that's only going to profit from better support assured by becoming an integral part of the system.
 
Disagree that's just a Neilson box but I'm sure Microsoft has gone to all the big players in the entertainment industry and given them a run down of all these audience tracking tools to strike up some deals.
 

mattiewheels

And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
Just how angry did MS make the leaders of the New World Order when they went back on mandatory Kinect, anyway? Maybe Ballmer got sacrificed to the Lizard People in exchange.
 
I assumed all of this was a given. Microsoft is definitely chasing after ad dollars. Having near perfect demographic data of it users allows them to better target ads or simply sell the data to others. That is why MS was so resistant to letting us unplug the Kinect. In fact I believe that the only reason that they 180'd on that was that the criticism that the Xbox would be bricked if the Kinect fell and broke started to take hold. They couldn't come up with a response to that and the idea was simple enough that it would easily spread to the mass audience.
 

ShapeGSX

Member
MS designed Kinect when motion gaming was in its heyday with the Wii.

Nerf, if your theory is correct, then why hasn't MS done exactly that with the XBox 360 and Kinect? Not with live TV, of course, but with ads on the dashboard, or with the various video apps? If they were doing this already, they would have to put that data collection into their privacy policy.

All I can see is that they may collect anonymized performance data during game play.
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/kinect/privacyandonlinesafety#DataCollection1
 

ShapeGSX

Member
I assumed all of this was a given. Microsoft is definitely chasing after ad dollars. Having near perfect demographic data of it users allows them to better target ads or simply sell the data to others. That is why MS was so resistant to letting us unplug the Kinect.

Or they just wanted to make sure that devs could be assured it would be available for use and more games would take advantage of it.
 

Ploid 3.0

Member
Someone shop that scene from batman where the riddler(as played masterfully by Jim carry) is absorbing all of the brainwaves of people. But make him major Nelson, and all the boxes kinect.


Looking over that movie, it has a lot of funny similarities. The Box was Riddler's tv companion that made watching tv better.
 

Davidion

Member
It's very depressing that people really think it measures all the things it does for kinectimals or whatever. The OP's breakdown makes all the sense in the world. Anybody who's ever worked in a modern tech company knows how completely metric-driven their thinking is.

Was it the driving force in developing it? Nah, but is it part of their thinking? You'd have to be naive to believe otherwise.

As someone who works in the advertising space, and actively speaks with both Microsoft and Sony with regards to advertising on their platforms - I can guarantee you that they see Xbox One as a means for additional revenue.

With regards to the Nielsen comments: Nielsen gets its data from two sources, diaries filled out by individuals, as well as digital data from households with remotes which require the user to identify themselves, and then track their TV usage. The bases used to extrapolate each market or DMA is very small in comparison to what Xbox 360 can do for the 'gamer' demographic, and the Xbox One will be able to do with individual user recognition using the Kinect 2.0.

This is not 'tin-hat' thinking - the data will be collected and used for advertising. Also, the CPM (cost per thousand) for placing an ad is very high in comparison to other mediums such as cable or network TV, etc.

You are giving them a very small amount of money (from an advertiser) each and every time you are exposed to their ad. At this point in time, they receive (depending on individual client negotiations) $32+ per 1000 impressions served. Yes, you are paying to use their service, AND giving them an additional revenue stream. The amount is small on an individual level, but rather large when viewed in total. The revenue will only grow for them when you watch TV through Xbox One, and they reach deals with cable providers and networks to provide the Nielsen data, and receive a portion of the advertising revenue from regular TV advertising served through your Xbox One.

PS: Sony does this as well - but to a much lesser extent, and only in very limited areas versus Xbox.

These two guys saved me from having to type my thoughts. Is the data collection "evil"? That's something for you to decide. Is it the ONLY reason why they developed the hardware and services behind it? Probably not. But if you think that it isn't featured prominently in their business considerations...
 
You realize that from voluntary things like focus groups and surveys marketing firms can basically identify we consumers down to the style of shoes we prefer (velcro making a comeback!), the hours we like to shop, the church we attend and how often (not kidding) and the frequency that we'll buy that next bonus size box of Chees-O Snack Munchies... If you've not seen the kind of consumer data being collected, you should look it up, it's stunning. Stupefying, perhaps.

So then companies buy ad time based on what they hope Joe Consumer will be watching... which is where the magic happens. Yeah, sure, you pay for XX million eyes watching your ad, depending on what time of day it is and how popular the show is with audiences, but translating that 30 seconds of commercial into a sale isn't guaranteed... it would be much easier if you could instantly see how well your ad resonated with a giant sample size group (XBONE install base will be large), and also compare that data against everything else they watched/played/downloaded/bought in the last couple of weeks. You could identify consumer habits down to the millisecond, and tailor your ad dollars accordingly.

It's not far fetched to think that MS could make big money off it, if that's indeed what they're planning to do with the kind of data they could potentially collect. I don't know what they have in mind, but if the dollars are there.... they'll find a way to collect them eventually

They can even see from your behaviour if your pregnant or not.
 

Afrikan

Member
I did this thing for a gaming site (which I will not name). But they paid with $150 Best Buy gift card.

all they asked me to do was sit in front of a monitor and look at their new website lay out. But before they did that, they told me there is a camera right in front of me and to sit still.

the camera followed where my eyes were looking, on their website layout. I viewed about 10-15 different layouts. Different types of ad space popped out and they wanted to see what got my attention and where.

so when I first heard about how Kinect 2.0 can track your eyes, that was the first thing I thought it'd be used for.
 

Davidion

Member
I did this thing for a gaming site (which I will not name). But they paid with $150 Best Buy gift card.

all they asked me to do was sit in front of a monitor and look at their new website lay out. But before they did that, they told me there is a camera right in front of me and to sit still.

the camera followed where my eyes were looking, on their website layout. I viewed about 10-15 different layouts. Different types of ad space popped out and they wanted to see what got my attention and where.

so when I first heard about how Kinect 2.0 can track your eyes, that was the first thing I thought it'd be used for.

Yeah, eye tracking is a pretty basic research technique; it'll definitely be interesting to see how Kinect changes the market/user research field.
 
D

Deleted member 13876

Unconfirmed Member
These two guys saved me from having to type my thoughts. Is the data collection "evil"? That's something for you to decide. Is it the ONLY reason why they developed the hardware and services behind it? Probably not. But if you think that it isn't featured prominently in their business considerations...

Exactly how I think about it.
 
Can't you just... put a blanket over Kinect when you're not gaming? Or put it against a wall?

I mean... it's not that you don't know it's there...
 

Alx

Member
Yeah, eye tracking is a pretty basic research technique; it'll definitely be interesting to see how Kinect changes the market/user research field.

I doubt kinect has the required resolution to do eye tracking though. The device like those described by Afrikan are meant to be used on people very close to the screen, they're not meant to track people further than 1m.

As for the original topic, kinect can be used for marketing data collection indeed, but it's obviously not its first purpose. If it were, you wouldn't need all the depth measurement and everything, all the data mentioned in OP are best collected by a simple color camera. Detecting faces, estimating their emotion (which is more or less utopic, but whatever) or even their heartrate only requires an image with great quality and the appropriate processing. It's not really different from your smartphone finding faces and detecting smiles before taking a photo.
 
Kinect is not required. The install base is probably only 40-50 million units in an optimistic scenario in one region. Nielsen can already provide valuable tuning behavior to clients in real time through set top boxes and PCs.
 
D

Deleted member 13876

Unconfirmed Member
I did this thing for a gaming site (which I will not name). But they paid with $150 Best Buy gift card.

all they asked me to do was sit in front of a monitor and look at their new website lay out. But before they did that, they told me there is a camera right in front of me and to sit still.

the camera followed where my eyes were looking, on their website layout. I viewed about 10-15 different layouts. Different types of ad space popped out and they wanted to see what got my attention and where.

so when I first heard about how Kinect 2.0 can track your eyes, that was the first thing I thought it'd be used for.

Eye tracking is getting fairly common. It measures how long your eyes rest on parts of a page and uses that feedback to improve whatever service they're testing it for or for academic purposes like whether someone pays attention to a certain hidden stimulus or not. A new upcoming field is neuromarketing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromarketing) in which data is collected from devices like EEGs, fMRIs and other biometrics. Saw a case study at a small conference where they used it in order to pick which food packaging would be most effective to give a random example of an application.
 

Ploid 3.0

Member
You guys do know new mobile phones can do all of that as well and are really always online and with gps!

My phone is in my pocket, or staring at the roof most of the time. When I'm not on the road my phone's data mode is disabled. My phone don't track what I do when I watch commercials or tv shows then feed me ads depending on my reactions or sell the data to said programs to give them help on what the collection of it's viewers like and hate.
 
You can unplugg it if you want. That might even be a better idea right ?

I thought you couldn't do that. In fact I thought the console itself couldn't function without Kinect connected.

But yeah, if allowed, would be a lot simpler :D

(Never had Kinect though, so can't really tell)

EDIT:

The thing we all understood, and hence this change, is that there are some scenarios where people just may not be comfortable. We wanted people to be 100% comfortable, so we allow the sensor to be unplugged. And clearly the “it dropped” scenario is possible.

Yep, allowed. Source
 
I don't think anywhere in their terms and conditions of the console does it say they are giving away personal data from the Kinect, so this would be illegal.
Aren't they in the clear if they anonymize the data? The marketing/viewership/reaction metrics are just as valuable without having to connect that data to specific individuals.

I've always thought along the lines the OP is going here. Kinect + metrics + ads drives everything else. Followed by Kinect as universal (non-touch) remote control method. Followed by limited use in games.

Its for this reason I think if anything MS should be paying people to use all of the Xbox online features rather than other way around.
 

Davidion

Member
I doubt kinect has the required resolution to do eye tracking though. The device like those described by Afrikan are meant to be used on people very close to the screen, they're not meant to track people further than 1m.

As for the original topic, kinect can be used for marketing data collection indeed, but it's obviously not its first purpose. If it were, you wouldn't need all the depth measurement and everything, all the data mentioned in OP are best collected by a simple color camera. Detecting faces, estimating their emotion (which is more or less utopic, but whatever) or even their heartrate only requires an image with great quality and the appropriate processing. It's not really different from your smartphone finding faces and detecting smiles before taking a photo.

I honestly can't tell. It's certain that the Kinect 1 couldn't do it, but I haven't seen any hard technical info on v2. I'm inclined to agree with you, but I can certainly think of some potential scenarios where it can.
 
Neilsen really only has about 25,000 families being measured, which really isn't a lot when you consider there are about 100 million households.
The rest of your points about how much more detailed and accurate Kinect's data could be are sound. But the Neilsen sample size is plenty big enough to make very accurate statements about the entire population of the US. You don't need Kinect in every fourth household to draw conclusions; that's not how statistics works.
 

spuit*11

Banned
Steve Ballmer has already said he has and still is switching Microsoft's focus from software products to services with a particular emphasis on advertisement. Long story short, they want TV advertisers money and they want that Google money too.
So yes, the Xbox One is essentially an adbox.
 
You guys do know new mobile phones can do all of that as well and are really always online and with gps!
Yes, but why pay more than 500 U.S. dollars to have the privilage of your privacy be invaded more? Even stranger when we consider there are other products to fullfil your gaming needs that are as capable, cheaper and less intrusive.

At least is worth to think about it. Don't you think?
The Mole Men would never let Lizard People run things.
But are they more evil than the Xsheep that can't at least have the decency to conceived a valid argument instead of ridiculice other board members?
 

ShapeGSX

Member
How are they going to be able to tell what channel you are watching so they can collect this data (you could have used your DVR remote)? How are they going to know that you just paused the football game for 5 minutes while you poured yourself a drink, and now all of the analytic data they are collecting isn't synced up with the live TV stream? How are they going to know that you are watching something recorded on your DVR, and what it is?

Frankly, this just isn't feasible or even useful or reliable.
 

Hatten

Member
It has way more potential for targeted advertising.

For example, the other day I was checking, just checking for a laptop at amazon and now they are spamming me about every ultrabook deal they have

The kinect2 with its advanced recognition system could tell if you have blue jeans and start showing levi's ads on your games.

It wont be nearly as scary as it will be annoying
 

SegaShack

Member
Aren't they in the clear if they anonymize the data? The marketing/viewership/reaction metrics are just as valuable without having to connect that data to specific individuals.

I've always thought along the lines the OP is going here. Kinect + metrics + ads drives everything else. Followed by Kinect as universal (non-touch) remote control method. Followed by limited use in games.

Its for this reason I think if anything MS should be paying people to use all of the Xbox online features rather than other way around.

I don't think they are in the clear to be recording heartbeats and video recording like most people think. People have to realize how much RAM and internet they would be using just for this supposed data mining that would slow down either the OS or the games, which I doubt is something that should be compromised.
 
Or they just wanted to make sure that devs could be assured it would be available for use and more games would take advantage of it.

What does that have to do with anything? The Kinect still ships with every console. Who is going the see a Kinect game or feature they want and say to themselves, "I really want this game but because my Kinect isn't hooked up to my TV right now I'll give it a pass"

The puzzling thing about Microsoft's whole marketing strategy has been its lack of faith in what they are promoting. It started with their digital DRM when they tried to claim that it would be much better than a disk based one, yet wouldn't let the gamer choose which one they preferred. If their digital offering truly was better then wouldn't most gamers use it? The same is true with the Kinect. If it really was that great, then why would Microsoft have to force people to hook it up when the already owned it?
 
I don't think they are in the clear to be recording heartbeats and video recording like most people think. People have to realize how much RAM and internet they would be using just for this supposed data mining that would slow down either the OS or the games, which I doubt is something that should be compromised.
I've never worried about them recording video.

It could be as simple as uniqueID XXXX000111 was engaged with advertisement #1029-B for 8 seconds out of 15, disengaging at frame XXX. Emotional response/delta XXX.

Thats a tiny, tiny amount of data, and you only need baselines, snapshots and differentials. No need for audio, video or even images to be recorded. Just numbers. Like web metrics work today.

Now aggregate those results by general groupings like "Males, 13-18" and "Prefers sci-fi" movies and what have you, and you've got valuable, anonymized marketing data to use for a variety of purposes.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
It's very depressing that people really think it measures all the things it does for kinectimals or whatever. The OP's breakdown makes all the sense in the world. Anybody who's ever worked in a modern tech company knows how completely metric-driven their thinking is.

Was it the driving force in developing it? Nah, but is it part of their thinking? You'd have to be naive to believe otherwise.
I still remember the crazy amount of ideas my boss and I used to throw out at my last job to find ways to mine data about our users so we can target them better. And that shit was on such a small scale, but the principles are still there.

User-centered content is a reality. The trick is to make it automated via the user's habits and history.

In fact, MS already mines heavily through XBL -- and they've been doing it for years.

To anyone that doesn't think MS has their sights set on the next level of data mining, then they are a special kind of naive. This is billions in potential revenue.

I did this thing for a gaming site (which I will not name). But they paid with $150 Best Buy gift card.

all they asked me to do was sit in front of a monitor and look at their new website lay out. But before they did that, they told me there is a camera right in front of me and to sit still.

the camera followed where my eyes were looking, on their website layout. I viewed about 10-15 different layouts. Different types of ad space popped out and they wanted to see what got my attention and where.

so when I first heard about how Kinect 2.0 can track your eyes, that was the first thing I thought it'd be used for.
Yep, this is called user experience testing. Behind the scenes they had several UX goals they wanted to accomplish, and they were tracking how quickly you were able to get from point A to point B.
 
Top Bottom