Twenty five years ago, when Microsoft were advocating the Personal Computer over the mainframe/terminal combination, they were promising that their software would allow users to work collaboratively over a network within a few years.

Meanwhile, those working at Xerox were actually using the time-sharing mainframe systems that they were selling. This is the company that invented the concepts of WIMP- Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer, the paper paradigm (using paper terminology to describe the workings of computer software- files, folders, trashcan, desktop and so on.) They were using email. They were working collaboratively on documents. They were doing the stuff that is considered an information revolution today, back in the days when Solitaire was seen as a pretty cool computer game.

In 2007, Microsoft released Office 2007 which finally delivered on their promise. But by then, the mainframe was pretty much dead- the corporate customers, when told that Microsoft would be delivering the same features "soon" believed them and bought into the "Personal Computer on every desktop." And why shouldn't they have done?

Don't get me wrong- the Personal Computer is great, and we wouldn't have them in our homes (or at least, not in the same way) if the business mainframe had been the chosen model for businesses. The point is that there is a difference between a technical promise and a marketing exercise, and I think this old technical promise clearly falls more in the camp of the latter. The aim wasn't so much to sell PCs as to stop people buying time-sharing mainframes.

So when I hear about Project Natal, I'm reminded of the stories I heard about Microsoft's history of announcing wonderful things that will be available at an unspecified time in the future, for an unspecified price, and I am wary.

Interested- yes. Excited- sure. But wary.

John Gruber points out that "when Microsoft makes a product announcement that people actually get excited about, it’s almost always for a product that isn’t scheduled to ship for a year or more"

So put it this way- I'm not going to be buying an Xbox 360 just yet on the back of this product. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who will be holding off buying a Playstation 3 or a Wii after hearing about this, and I suspect that's the real point of the exercise. My bet is that it won't be on Christmas lists for 2010.

Apple are more of a hardware company than a software company. When Apple launch a product, it's a "here is our new product. Here is someone on stage, using the product, showing you how it works. Here is the release date, and here is the price. Any questions?" This is clearly aimed at getting people to buy the product.

Microsoft's seems to be more of a case of "here is our new product idea. Here is a well produced video of what it will look like when it works the way we expect it to work." You can see why it would be better than the competition, so you are less likely to buy the competitors product.

Meanwhile, Sony were showing off their own motion controller- with an actual demonstration of an evolution of an existing product- the Eye Toy. They say that it will be available early next year, and I tend to believe them. (At least, that it will be available in the first half of next year…) Sony are also primarily a hardware company. The product they are showing off isn't an idea; it's an actual, physical thing.

Interesting to see how the different schools of thought operate though.