When I see augmented reality concepts and applications I think of that demo I saw in the mid 90s about interactive TV where we were told that people in the future would be buying the clothes and products they saw in the soaps they were watching at the press of a button. That didn’t happen.
Many applications like Layar (pictured) seem to have been built just because you can layer information on the visual but not to make things better. There is a lot of hype about services like Layar but personally I don’t see the point. We seem to be getting into a Second Life style bubble with the technology and people and companies are running away with the concept without truly working out what the end user wants and needs.
I think application designers need to remember that online retail sites don’t look like offline stores (which was predicted in the mid 90s) and Facebook doesn’t look like a coffee morning. I still think that a map with some information on it is more useful than a data ridden video of the view I can see clearly myself anyway.
Thoughts?
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Beeyotch, I just told that to your peeps here in the office 3 hours ago. ;)
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Hey Piers –
While I agree, the hype factor is high right now (admittedly probably too high). I think comparing AR to second life is apples and oranges. Second life was a virtual world, a community site. Augmented reality is a technology… a young one. I’m sure people looked at the old PINE email system, or websites back in the early/mid 90s and said “this whole internet thing is overrated.”
I think we just need to be patient. We need to give the technologies time to advance, and developers the opportunity to create executions based on utility.
My agency actually has created a few applications centered around the AR space. I’ll be in NY for Web 2.0 if you want to do a meet and greet (we can also demo our newest technology that hasn’t been announced yet).
Here’s a video demoing one of our apps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxQZuo6pFUw
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Jack,
I wasn’t trying to compare the functionality. Just the hype. But let’s have coffee when you’re here.
Piers
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Kevin,
Great minds?
Actually, I mentioned Second Life in the Q&A at the end of Mike Arauz presentation yesterday at Future Trends in Mimi. Promise.
And thanks for coming by.
P
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
In the past second life was approached by companies as the next thing to make quick money with. The knowledge of the use of technology acquired in the last couple of years on Second life will be very useful to make augmented reality work. If you wish, the supposedly money making on Second Life, will start with augmented reality. It’s surely not a hype, it will be an integral part of our daily life in the future. (Sooner than we might think.)
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Hey Piers –
My bad. Then it looks like we agree. There’s currently more hype around AR then the current executions deserve, but I’m bullish on the future of AR.
I think part of what caused Second Life’s “perfect storm” was that so many were late to the social networking party (or, at the time, the MySpace party) and people didn’t want to look like they “didn’t get it”. As a result, no one wanted to stand up and say that the emperor’s not wearing any clothes…
Looking forward to meeting you.
- jack
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Piers
I think maybe you’re jumping the gun on writing off AR. What can be done and what should be done are two different things. While yes, for some folks maps are fine but for the directionally challenged, being able to hold a phone up and use the screen like a heads up display on a fighter jet with the appropriate info overlayed is quite helpful. Much easier than trying to figure out if you’re walking the right direction on a google map.
@TomMartin
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
It is extremely trendy right now for everyone in marketing to compare Augmented Reality to Second Life (I’ve read it in a half dozen articles/blogs in the past week alone).
The truth is, AR companies should be so lucky to get compared to Second Life. Unlike say Twitter, or other current media darlings, Second Life actually turns a pretty tidy profit. It just isn’t an advertising supported business model, so the advertising industry poo-poos it.
I agree with you on the video overlay apps currently available, in comparison to bird’s eye view maps. But I also believe these “through the looking glass” mobile app interfaces are only the stop-gap solution before the introduction of AR eyewear. With quality and fashionable AR glasses, combined with increased mobile computing power, AR will inevitably become a mainstreamed technology. The gap between expectation and current technology performance in eyewear is beginning to close. I can see a trough of disillusion in 2010, followed by a holiday season 2011 introduction of eyewear by someone like Apple, using a partnership like they’ve done in the past with Harman Kardon on their speaker system, and Nike on their iPod Sports Kit. A pair of Apple AR lenses in CK designer frames, will be the first step towards making Mobile AR as ubiquitous as… as, say, the iPhone.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Hi Piers,
Agree on the hype and the bubble. These early marketing attempts and dinky apps are pretty sad. But I still believe that the game and storytelling potential of AR (even if it has to be renamed with a proprietary brand down the line) is limitless. Given the right industry support (like serious R&D to evolve or integrate hardware), and I’m convinced it will be massive.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:01 am
The interesting thing with AR is that a widely accesible technology array in cellphones has emerged (cameras + high-res displays + motion sensor + GPS). This could turn AR into a commodity mobile service, certainly it does not necessarily have to be that way.
However, I am curious about which AR applications will be developed. Why should we call off a new technology from the start? I think it’s quite natural that a new technology comes with a lot of experimentation- some good, some bad.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:18 am
I can’t dispute your thoughts on this, but remember: the telephone was first thought of as a way to propagate Opera (not the browser) across long distances. It could be that the hype prevents us from getting to the real efficacy of the tech, but it is only a matter of time until someone (from the Behance network maybe?) find the right application that triggers the real explosion.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:32 am
I can’t dispute your thoughts on this, but remember: the telephone was first thought of as a way to propagate Opera (not the browser) across long distances. It could be that the hype prevents us from getting to the real efficacy of the tech, but it is only a matter of time until someone (from the Behance network maybe?) finds the right application that triggers the real explosion.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:32 am
I tend to agree with Mr Grayson. While the current appliation of the technology seems to intrude more than enhance, eventually AR tech will be wide spread. While Mr Grayson speaks of glasses, imagibe car windshields providing you real-time distances and speeds of the vehicles around you, as well as directions and information. Eventually AR will become a ‘life tool’ much the same way we’ve all engrained the iPod/iTunes interface into all of our daily functions.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Interesting. The hype definitely isn’t AR, but it is some of the functionality. We’re siting increases in next year, see the blog article: http://www.theopenconsultancy.com/blog/2009/10/geo-tagged-augmented-reality-mobile-utilities/
But we’re not seeing this as an AR phenomenon, but more about about mobile integration/ apps.
Like any good idea, the beta versions came out too soon and the novelty’s moved on, but the implications for usability and integration haven’t even scratched the surface yet.
Likewise the point about how consumers adopt behaviours around new tech is interesting and alot of that comes down to ease of use and integration into other aspects.
Think Bluetooth – pre launch it was tagged as the future of shopping payment etc, but it never materialized as the infrastructure wasn’t there so we only see it as a limited file share device.
In the same way AR isn’t the ‘thing’ but it will be defined by what other things allow it to become.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Where there’s hype, there’s hope. What it comes down to is most of the AR / MAR (mobile augmented reality) produced is poor in terms of user experience. But, it seems that the hype has some legitimacy in that you can produce AR and MAR experiences and services for millions of people now. It’s an accessible technology today. While missing many interactive and personal features that could make things very compelling, both types of technologies can easily work with existing objects that are out there: paper, a web cam, a mobile phone with a digital compass / GPS.
Second Life required an computer installation, a configuration and an artificial world that you had to figure out, discover and live in. Not very accessible in my opinion.
AR and MAR work in conjunction with the objects and data that exist in your real world. What’s annoying about MAR is that it’s all about the non-discriminate “what’s around me?” and not being more contextual and dynamic in terms of being “what’s happening around me that matters to me?” – We are working on that part of the experience now.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Yes, for the most part its gimmicky. But look at this app just posted to boing boing:
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/04/car-finder-app-for-i.html
It’s an augmented reality app that helps you locate your car. That’s useful.
Bottom line: you shouldn’t write off a technology wholesale. It all depends on how it’s used.
Augmented reality is like photoshop or drum machines: it often used inartfully but that does not mean it does not have any utility.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I wonder if AR in an art gallery is a whole lot more interesting than AR on the street.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Jack, checked out the link for zugara (have you picked up the typo 21 secs into the vid – visTitors?) then Earnie’s comment about an app that helps people locate their car… what’s useful to some may not be to others. At least the apps exist for those that want to use them.
Thoughts that come to mind…. if adding layers is the first step, will there eventually be an app to take them off? IE be able to see thru walls to check out if places have a vibe… see how many people are inside and listen to the type of music playing before paying a door fee for nightclubs, … now that could be handy.
Wasn’t necessarily thinking of taking layers off as in clothes layers.. however is there a way to stop that? Airport metal detectors can already get into people’s wardrobes both in a suitcase and on a body… what’s stopping mobile phone apps heading in that direction?
I agree, this is a step in a direction that could go any which way, and the buzz might just be for what’s possible rather than what’s happening so far. Think the beginnings of the internet, the possibility for people to connect and share info became clear before it was actually possible for millions of people to make that happen. I sense the same deal here, this level of AR is just the beginning and that’s what’s so exciting.
November 7th, 2009 at 5:25 am