Kinect can be controlled and disabled.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/privacy

http://www.amazon.com/Post--3-Inches-Canary-Yellow-12-Pads/d...

Though there are a number of reasons I don't like the Xbox One, the Kinect isn't one of them.

Really though I think it'd be easier for them to just give customers the option not to plug it in, but my guess is that they're trying to make sure everyone uses the kinect that they ship with the console (its not necessarily being used for nefarious purposes), but with that being said I still don't trust Microsoft.

Really? What about mute people? Microsoft can't be that accessibility-impaired!

I guess the difference with this microphone is that it's listening to you all the time by default, and that creeps some people out. But it's not sending your words over the network, and is not more likely to start doing so than any of the aforementioned devices (actually, much less, because of increased security); it's just pattern matching for the word "Xbox". Kind of like the initial worries over Gmail "reading your email" to target ads: I predict that this too will peter out once people start actually using the product, albeit perhaps never die completely.

(For the record, the fact that Gmail messages can also be read by law enforcement under some circumstances is both a serious issue and irrelevant to the analogy.)

Not any speaker, but you can use some headphones as microphones very easily.

When it comes to teardowns you trust that multiple independent parties aren't all actively lying to you in concert.

I don't see how these are at all similar.

I won't reveal any secrets, but:

1) It should be very easy to determine if the Kinect is listening when it should not be, at least when the unit is off. So whatever MS claims the unit does should be verifiable.

2) I trust the Kinect team to do this right. They're dead serious about privacy issues.

You don't know me, so my trust in point #2 isn't necessarily transitive. But you should be able to look at signals and verify #1.

A switch that just twiddles a bit on an input line can be ignored by software.

A switch that controls power might be interesting. But then there's a cable from the camera to the console itself, which could carry some power, and might be used to run a microphone, or maybe the camera electronics, a little bit.

Really, your recourse is to unplug the camera. Or not have one.

Others have pointed out that there are microphones on laptops and tablets (that appear to be off, but who knows?), and many celebrated cases in which reverse-spyware has been used to recover stolen hardware.

This stuff is all around us now. There's no coordinated plan for NSA-like folks to glue it together, or light it up without us knowing, and I think this would be hard, at least for the time being, and doubly hard to do without someone noticing.

By contrast, there is no compelling reason the Kinect component(s) must be connected to the xbox when not in use.

I obviously don't know what sort of bus is being used internally, but if it were, for example, USB, then the mechanical switch could easily behave as the equivalent of removing a USB connector from a socket.

The laptop/microphone argument is a red herring. "Everybody else is doing it" is not a valid excuse for doing the wrong thing.

Don't get stuck in the mode of thinking you must design the solution to fit arbitrary requirements already decided upon. Those requirements aren't merely the source of the problem, they are the problem, and they're causing Microsoft to deliberately put its customers at risk.

Either way thats not the point, I don't have a webcam or mic plugged in, except when i am using it for video chat or gaming, and afterwards i unplug them. The xbox's cannot be removed like my PCs.

I'm completely building this into a paranoid delusion, but then this whole thread is a demonstration that we lack / are denied the knowledge to dispel paranoid delusions, and sometimes they're right.

m3mnoch.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth talking about. The chances of snooping due to the console being hacked are slightly higher, but where are all the people complaining that most laptops, tablets, and phones (which generally have significantly less software security) have built-in software controlled cameras and microphones? Laptops usually have indicator lights for cameras, but not microphones, and the other two have no indicators and follow you wherever you go.

But doesn't that just mean you have to trust the light? I mean this does indeed seem rather ridiculous. If you're really that paranoid, a piece of masking tape will solve your problem.

This problem is solved by having the power to the camera hardwired to the light. If the camera is on the light will be on, well until the led burns out but that takes a while.

Last I checked and my model of macbook has this but I do not know how common it is over all.

I do not think this is common practice for microphones and it seems like it should be.

There are many places where you have to leave your cell phone by the door before entering.

I also expect that if video/audio are being saved or else transmitted to Microsoft/NSA or else being dynamically analyzed using the latest wank-detection algorithms, then someone will detect this by the resource usage.

- Yes one could tape it. Don't apply the tape directly since repeated application and removal of tape can impair camera functionality due to residual adhesive accumulation and the depositing of dust etc on the residual adhesive. Use Microfiber based cloth material between the tape and camera.

- But having said that, I find it painful to even think of repeatedly taping and 'untaping' cameras. Having to remember to point them the other way too is not good - one can forget to do so at times. And then lose sleep over it after having say, watched a romantic movie with one's girlfriend. And so on.

Physically connect when required is a more comfortable model, at least for me. I've seen some unbelievable shit being pulled by hackers, including changing camera firmware to achieve their objective. So making it easier for users to feel absolutely comfortable with their devices is important.

No, of course not, and that caution is entirely justified. Consider how effective Samsung's Smart TV security was, right up until they got rooted at the end of last year, at which point if the only privacy safeguards are under software control then they are essentially worthless.

Of course, but why would you go through that bother if you can just move to a PS4?

I think that's reason enough to avoid it.

I also don't care about the always-semi-on Kinect.

Same here! Also, I'm a casual gamer and I go months...YEARS without playing video games. I do not want another subscription that I'm going to forget about. I had an Xbox 360, but I never paid for the Gold service - so the only online gaming in my house is done on my PC workstation.

I will probably get a PS4 this time around.

WiiU + PC will probably get you more coverage than PS4 + PC. As far as I can tell anyway...

How so? The WiiU seems to me like the most likely to have a bunch of exclusives, if only because of the distinct architecture.

Architecture has nothing to do with this - vast majority of exclusives comes from the first party studios (studios owned by the respective console manufacturer) and second parties (independent studio titles, published by the console manufacturer). There are some random third party (publishers like EA,Activision,Ubi etc) exclusives but from what I can tell Nintendo's are just shovel-ware (such as Carnival Games, variously branded "fitness" games, cartoon licensed titles etc.) while both Sony and MS enjoyed some AAA third party exclusives. There is no reason to believe the situation is going to change in the future - if anything it's going to be less of those since the major producer of Nintendo exclusive shovel-ware, THQ Inc, went bankrupt recently.

Out of the three console majors, Nintendo has the least first party studios - 7 (at least 3 of which are working on handhelds exclusively). Microsoft has the most. And Sony has the most first parties that actually ship games regularly.

So the only chance for Wii U to get more exclusives than PS4 is for Nintendo to contract a bunch of 2nd parties and/or sign a lot of exclusive contracts with the 3d parties. If this ever going to happen it's far from "likely" since it has not happened for the last 3 generations of consoles (Nintendo beating Sony on the exclusives).

Go down the lists yourself. http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/List_of_Xbox_One_Games http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/06/18/the-ps4-exclusives-you-...

The majority of these "exclusives", especially the big ones like TitanFall or Metal Gear Solid 5. Most of the Indie-game "exclusives" on PS4 are actually on Steam or will be on Steam. (ie: Transistor)

Nintendo Games however, have never really appeared on PC. No chance ever, especially because the WiiU gamepad is so unique. * Super Mario Bros 2 U * Pikmin 3 * Super Smash Bros. * MarioKart 8 * NintendoLand

----------

The next would be PS4, as there are more PS4 exclusives that aren't coming to PC. Finally, Microsoft tends to shoot itself in the foot and release all of their exclusives on PC anyway. So...

PC + WiiU for me. Possibly PS4 if Killzone is good enough, but thats $400 for a couple of games that I may or may not care about. (and may come to the PC anyway)

It depends on your definition of "huge", I guess. I know just a few games like Halo 1 (and 2 maybe), Alan Wake, which were exclusives on varios xboxes and became available on PC at later time. Don't know any playstation games like that, at least from the recent generations.

Your list (the second link is a video I did not watch) only shows multi-platform, some of which is available on PC. Also I will remind you that this is not the list of all the games. A transition between generations is usually covered with multiplatforms to compensate for the small installed base. Check out the list of exclusives for Wii, PS3 and 360 to make a more realistic picture.

>Nintendo Games however, have never really appeared on PC. No chance ever, especially because the WiiU gamepad is so unique. * Super Mario Bros 2 U * Pikmin 3 * Super Smash Bros. * MarioKart 8 * NintendoLand

Neither had Sony's games. * Infamous 2 * God of War 3 * Playstation All Star Battle Royale * GT 6 * Playstation Home

I don't question your tastes, some people like Nintendo games (otherwise Nintendo had been out of business long time ago). But there is a huge logical leap between "I like these games" and "there are objectively more games like these".

Also a $100 Discount doesn't have any traction with me regarding all of the bad will they created from the decades of pushing highly proprietary technologies into the market. Their terrible practices for me hit a crescendo when they made my life miserable via in-laws putting Sony rootkit audio-cd's into their PC.

Nope. Not getting any more of my dollars.

Does it matter than much though? They are both awful in the context we are discussing. I'll likely not buy either, although that Tom Clancy 3rd person shooter MMO looks like a lot of fun and is console only.

The Steambox is an interesting alternative, it's scheduled for this year (insert valve release date joke here).

Also, Sony-BMG is not the same company as Sony Computer Entertainment, and indeed no longer exists.

[1] www.theverge.com/2013/6/19/4445844/valve-steam-game-sharing

My NES, Playstation, PS2, N64, etc. all still work. 360s die within three years of purchase.

Yes, there were the rootkit issues, PSN hack, propietary memory card requirements, ...

However, I feel like they have finally noticed that the consumer just doesn't take it anymore being treated this way and that they need to rethink their approach to earn back the trust of the consumer.

PS+ is an excellent example. You pay a minimal fee for the service every month and receive free games, which you can use as long as you are subscribed to their service.

You don't need to do anything and your game collection keeps on growing anyway! This is a genius offering, which allows any adopter to quickly build up a collection of games, without having to shell out an additional $20-50 for each individual title.

Add their recent announcements in regards to PS4 & PS Vita and it really sounds like they are trying their hardest to convince the consumer on buying their products based on the actual features instead of trying to lock them in with proprietary hardware and devious protection schemes.

It's the first time where I feel Sony is showing off a product again saying "look how awesome this is" without adding a page full of * trying to explain how & why certain features will or will not work.

- Indie self-publishing (PS4 allows, Xbox One doesn't, this is a big deal for me personally).

Give them credit for addressing some of the more pressing issues. It was enough to sway me back after considering a PS4.

Your points about how netflix is behind a paywall and how there isn't a dvr or multiple hdmi inputs in xbone are spot on. If microsoft implements these features, then xbox one could be a great bet.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5876761

- Doesn't hide behind a marketing facade.

Sony has made a big following with their marketing campaigns that contrast them with Microsoft, but I am really interested to see how the chips actually fall a few months or years in.

... oh, and the old Xbox 360, I guess. That'll have to just use the composite input to the TV.

I'm baffled to see that these are the reasons. Seriously?

> $100 more expensive than PS4.

You get the easy to use Kinect voice control and things like fitness games that can help you be in your target heart rate zone.

It's also not clear if there will be a physical power button, meaning the only way to turn the damn thing on will be for Kinect to hear the phrase "Xbox On", meaning stuffing it in a cupboard won't be a particularly effective idea.