Is it too early for Augmented Reality?
Sunday, February 1, 2009 at 02:03PM Before I answer the question, let me refer you to this chart put out by Gartner this past summer. Notice that Augmented Reality is on the far left with a yellow triangle, which means “more than ten years” before mainstream adoption.
Ok, now I’m not going to argue what mainstream adoption is, as that would require a whole discussion of the Gartner research and a bunch of other stuff. What I will say though, is that I think that it will happen within ten years. The thing that has me thinking though, is the amount of mainstream EXPOSURE augmented reality is getting right now. This could drive (accelerate) mainstream adoption or it could be deleterious and actually handicap the technology so much, that it never reaches the mass market.
I’ve been tracking augmented reality on google, youtube, blogs, university research, and in the corporate world for more than a year now (and I’ve been aware of the concept and tech for much longer), and I can tell you that the exposure curve, or degree of exposure has been gaining a lot of critical mass in the last twelve months. Everyone is talking about AR right now, Microsoft XNA can do AR, the FLARToolkit is AR in Flash, and tons of commercials are starting to come out with AR or “AR like” elements.
Today is the superbowl and rumors are already flying about AR ads from General Electric, Coke, and maybe a few others. You can already find the following examples on the net:
Coke Avatar Ad
General Electric (you can do this at home)
Did I mention these will be showing at the Superbowl? I’m not sure there is any method of reaching out to the mass market at one time than a Superbowl commercial. Now, I’m not saying that this will drive adoption, but I’m saying that this amount of exposure, this early in the technology curve, could either be very good or very very bad.
Why bad? Well, first of all, the great majority of augmented reality is based on using markers or “fiducials” which are essentially printed patterns on paper that are viewed through a video stream, recognized by software, and then cause a 3D object to be displayed on a monitor. This works great for particular uses like the Lego kiosk or conference room presentations, or goofing around in your office. There is a long list of applications, but the real promise and potential of augmented reality isn’t based on these novelty applications…it is in something that is ubiquitious, wireless, mobile, global, pervasive, and connected to everything. As I have said before, Augmented Reality is NOT just about compositing 3D graphics on a video stream. Anyone that believes it is, misses the point entirely.
But anyway, I think back to the very early 90s when virtual reality started getting exposure. I fear that history may repeat itself. The technology was nowhere near ready…the graphics were terrible, the head mounted displays were giant and bulky, the whole thing was slow and caused eye strain, vertigo, and headaches, and the list goes on. However, Hollywood jumped on the idea and was putting out VR movies left and right, and then (the worst thing ever!) the greedy money guys jumped into the game with a lot of overeager, overpromising marketing types.
Virtual Reality obviously didn’t deliver what it promised and it was soon one of those things you didn’t to be associated with. “Virtual Reality” in a business plan meant certain death. Some of the same people weren’t quite satisfied with this and the movement to rebrand it all as “Virtual Worlds” (piggybacking on the early successes of MMORPGs) started developing. Looking back now though, is it any wonder that many of the virtual worlds companies (or the ones using VW tech for military/government/academic “solutions”) are the same seedy guys in suits and the technology has barely moved from where it was in 1995 or 1996? In contrast, the game industry kept moving forward like gangbusters…this is one of the differences between innovation and greed, but I digress.
I predict that Augmented Reality is going to get a massive boost in public mass market exposure in the next six months (starting today). You will see several high profile venture capital deals where an insane amount of money is either going to go to the established players (particularly Total Immersion and Metaio) or some unknown startup with a glitzy exec team, big corps are going to get on the bandwagon or increase their current efforts (IBM, HP, Sony, Nokia, Intel), Universities are going to increase their research programs (there are at least half a dozen great programs out there right now), and floundering virtual world solutions companies are going to attempt to twist/retool their marketing pitches to get a ride too, although they may try using different terms and marketing speak…augmented reality, enhanced reality, mixed reality, etc. I bet Forterra does this, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see the UCF Institute of Simulation and Training trying to leverage their facilities as well.
I think that most (not all) of the venture deals in this space are going to be a total waste of funding for the time being. You have to look beyond a pretty business plan, accomplishments in other industries, an experienced executive team, or a demo that your 14 year old son likes. Before you throw any money at a venture deal in the augmented reality space, you better know exactly what you are getting in to. Ask around, pay attention to what bloggers are saying and talking about, read the right sci-fi books (Gibson, Stephenson, Sterling, Vinge, Stross, Niven, etc.). You have got to look AHEAD when considering an investment, not the NOW.
Anyway, Augmented Reality is at risk of getting people excited about the future potential and vision now, while we are still crawling around with basic concepts and marker technology. The industry doesn’t even have a decent lexicon and is generally one giant unexplored area of technology that has not really been trailblazed and pioneered yet. Sure a lot has been done in the last 20 years, but this is still an embryonic market. You can’t get people excited about the Coke: Avatar commercial, or Roku’s Reward, and then deliver this:
I’m just sayin.
If what I predict does happen, Augmented Reality (or at least the thing we are dreaming about) will have to rebrand itself. I already don’t think that “augmented reality” is a great term anyway and we need to find something a little shorter and more direct, but that is just me.
When I get some time, I’ll write another post describing where I think the technology could go and what we should be striving towards creating over the next 5-10 years. The future is very bright and I am extremely optimistic on the potential here. Augmented Reality is a disruptive technology and it will change the way we see the world, interact with media, and communicate, but as with the virtual world and MMORPG industries, there are too many projects and ventures going about it the wrong way (almost backwards in some senses).
Let’s do this right and not get ahead of ourselves. I welcome mass market exposure, new companies, a lot of venture capital activity, and willy-nilly innovation, but I don’t want to see us get mired in poor delivery and over promising. We have to break away from the “novelty” of AR and build something real and world changing.
What do YOU think?
PS Follow me on twitter already. @robertrice
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (8)
Great post Richard!
I think 10 years is a bit too conservative myself. When VR was all the rage in the mid-90s, the state of the web was in its infancy. Today we are mobile, socially-networked, always connected... and adoption of emerging platforms is happening at a much more rapid pace. I would like to believe that some giant leaps in AR will happen in a relatively short period of time.
We are already starting to see AR-enhanced print materials (books, cards, billboards, etc), and I'm certain many more will be sprouting up over the next 2-3 years (ala Lego). We'll see more location-based experiments over the next few years too. I'm gonna predict that in 2-3 years, 1 or 2 ventures will penetrate the market the way MySpace did 5 years ago with social-networks, and then there will be no looking back... AR will change the way people interact with each other and their environment.
The Coke commercial is a truly exciting vision. Kudos to the agency that put that together! As more and more people online have invested in creating virtual personas, it's a natural extension to bring your alter-ego with you into the real world. Leave it to clever marketing to express that it will take a soft drink to break us from our digital dream state.
And one more: The Bud Light Skier...
http://adage.com/brightcove/single.php?title=9230240001
Well said, Robert!
If the AR industry plays it right, it will avoid the fate of VR in the nineties and in 10 years we will all interact with the world through an Augmented Reality layer.
The term AR is indeed too geeky. We should look at it as a new way to experience reality - or simply a "reality experience". MTV brought us the now ubiquitous (and often times annoying) reality TV. It is now time for reality experiences.
TV commercials showcasing AR is really cool (I also hyped about it in my blog games alfresco). It trains the eye to the idea of real and virtual objects sharing the real world. However - as Darkflame expressed: as long as the term or at least the concept is not explained - it's all in the eye of the beholder. For most people it may be a cool imaginary commercial - but not an experience that can be realized.
I guess that's the job of the AR industry...
I appreciated your post and enthusiasm but it is a bit sloppy with regards to your characterization of the virtual worlds industry with words like seedy and floundering. In the same sentence you predict floundering virtual world companies to try to implement AR with just marketing spin you write 'I bet Forterra does this'. What do you mean - that they will try to implement AR because they are capable or if they do it will be just marketing spin - rather than the professional customer driven development they are known for? What do you base either on?
I agree that AR will be transformational and that nascent developments are at risk of over hype. My solution to mitigate the inevitable hype is to be sure that our developers and clients understand what problems mobile AR can solve and opportunities it creates. Along the way I'm sure I'll be proud of the less transformational but still fun projects too.
Disclosure - my company is Forterra's European partner.
Ron,
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and comment, I appreciate it.
First, I should note that everything in this blog is nothing more than my own opinion, thoughts, ideas, and analysis that are usually based on my own individual experiences or my perception of industry, technology, trends, or whatever else I feel like talking about. This is a one-sided discussion or monologue (open to others voicing their views), and frequently nothing more than a personal rant about things.
Having said that, I hope that readers don't expect me to do a formal analysis or market research on the topics I do address. That is something I would do as a consultant (and get paid for) to a much higher standard of objectivity with less off-the-cuff opinion.
I have been around in the "industry" (virtual reality, virtual worlds, MMORPGs, etc.) since the early 90s and I feel that my own opinions have merit and in some cases are observations of things that are self-evident in consideration, but may be subtle and require a different perspective to notice. For example, I have been taken to task previously for contending that the MMORPG industry is in decline and under-performing, particularly when you consider the extraordinary market size and plenty of revenues. I submit that game design is stagnant and becoming worse, with the vast majority of the sector devolving instead of evolving. The MMORPG industry could, and should, be much larger.
People that know me or are familiar with how I express myself, realize that I frequently use generalizations and hyperbole to make a point, and that I readily accept that there are exceptions. When I point a finger at the virtual worlds industry and use terms like seedy and floundering, I do mean these as generalizations. Quite frankly, I passionately believe this IS the case, but admit that there are exceptions.
There are a few companies that I frequently rant or complain about, recent targets have been Linden Lab/Second Life, and to a lesser degree, Forterra. In the past I focused on the game industry (you can find plenty of this at www.killtenrats.com where I wrote under the pseudonym Nicodemus) and discussed companies like Electronic Arts, Activision, Interplay, and 38 Studios among others.
More often than not, it isn't the actual people at these companies I have a problem with (although there have been exceptions), but rather the things these entities do as companies, their actual products, or how they go about marketing them.
As far as Forterra goes, my main point of annoyance is their marketing and how they present their products and technology as state-of-the-art and innovative. Sure, they do some things right (in my humble opinion) and are, as far as I can tell, relatively successful with good people at the helm. I have previously written about the divergence of virtual worlds and mmorpgs, and even in this blog post I commented how one simply stopped innovating and isn't very far from its roots in the mid 90s, while the other continued to advance and innovate (albeit primarily only in technology, and not so much in design, story, or gameplay). When I speak about Forterra, it is partially because I perceive them to be one of several industry leaders in the virtual world space (even if they are targeting verticals like simulations, training, and scenarios that only require a handful of concurrent users). I use them as an example for their own shortcomings as well as an indication of what goes on in the larger market. I could easily replace them with Second Life for many of the same reasons.
Getting back to my seedy/floundering comments, I stand by them. I don't mean to claim that all management is seedy and money grubbing, but rather when you look at when some companies were formed, when and how they were funded, what their executive teams looked like, and so on, you can almost see how the things very much fit into the stereotypical development of an industry goes. You start with inventors and innovators, someone has a success somewhere, and then the money guys get involved, there is another success or two, and then there is a breakout event where dozens of startups materialize, grab insane amounts of funding, and then it all gets messy. This clearly happened in Virtual Reality, it happened in the game industry, it happened in the MMORPG industry, it happened in the virtual worlds industry, and it will likely happen in the augmented reality industry. I was referring to this in general terms, not specifically Forterra.
In regards to mixed reality and augmented reality, I know that UCF is already doing some things here (rather poorly in my opinion) and I expect that any company looking forward would do the same. That includes Forterra...especially if they want to stay as leaders in simulations, training, remote collaboration, etc. I will admit that my comment in the blog could be taken as a negative or as a positive depending on how you look at it. However, I would not be surprised if AR was still outside of their radar...it is a very new and extremely disruptive technology (recent mass market exposure notwithstanding).
I still feel that a high degree of companies selling 3D world solutions are absolutely not leading edge, innovative, state-of-the-art, new, world-changing, disruptive, or the solution to all simulations and training problems. I don't want to pick apart specific press releases, demonstrations, news articles, or interviews, people can form their own opinions as far as that goes. I do base most of my opinions on these, and some first hand experiences at various trade shows or pitches that I have been given.
I know better technology is out there and easily accessible. I reserve the right to point this out to the general public that is under the opinion that some products marketed as cutting-edge are nothing more than re-hashed technology from a decade ago. It surprises me that a virtual world that can only handle 20-40 (or something in that range) as the max concurrent users can say with a straight face that it is state-of-the-art when there are plenty of game engines with more sophisticated graphics, features, functionality, databases, textures, artificial intelligence, tools, and so on, can handle thousands or tens of thousands of concurrent users in the same world.
I wish your company and Forterra continued success and profitability, but I stand by my opinions and my comments.
Thanks - of course you're entitled to your opinions, it's a blog ;-)
I have met many in the enterprise virtual world industry at all levels and while some can be snake oil salesmen touting vaporware, I haven't met any I would actually call seedy.
Anyway, for clarity -based in part on your post earlier this month about a Forterra OLIVE demo you saw at UCF - OLIVE can handle thousands of concurrent users. I'm not sure why people at UCF told you only 30-40, unless they were referring to it running on just one server. OLIVE is state of the art in the professional/enterprise market in several ways. The requirements for consumer and commercial are so different in terms of interoperability with enterprise systems and data that using COTS game engines is more effort than the payoff generally speaking. It is true that the graphics don't match commercial games - this is actually done on purpose to run across more corporate hardware. Not many corporate PCs have dedicated graphics cards yet training and collaboration solutions must work across the largest base possible of what they have.
The book you've contributed to recently - Working through Synthetic Environments looks great, I look forward to reading it! Best wishes with your new institute. I'm eager to learn more about what it will be working on.
Hey, Robert! Really enjoyed catching up on your blog (nice look) and reading your post on the future of augmented reality. I've linked to this post on 30Threads.com, where I'm a guest editor; the post should come out tomorrow.
Thanks again for a great article; hope all is well with you!
Hi Robert,
Excelent post!...
I believe fiducials are to AR, what HMD were to VR. Cumbersome and inaesthetic...
We've been working on markerless AR for some time. Please check these examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NAH5vlkgkk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlYxEbznsfU
Thanks,
Antao