Conversation: Internet Of Things & Augmented Reality

A truly mind expanding conversation yesterday at Intellect, around the Internet of things and augmented reality. From underwear, to societal change, and from obscurity to ubiquity, the discussion spanned all this and more. Here are some notes & reflections from the meeting:

What is the Internet of Things? Simply put, it’s the ability to put physical objects onto the internet, and give them an IP address. Why? Well, some objects generate data – meters, sensors and gadgets (pacemakers, thermometers automobiles), and this data can be read, interpreted and aggregated to help manage the same devices or the universe of devices better. Some objects don’t generate data but can be made more aware of their environment or location, through RFID stickers or the addition of sensors. This would enable us to track shipments through supply chains, or prevent breakdowns or machinery, or even find our keys. Many apps abound and we’ve even had some early start ups go bust in this area.

What’s Augmented Reality? There’s a lot of work that’s been done in this are over the past decades, but again a usable definition is the ability to layer data onto physical objects to enhance our perception of them. Most examples tend to be information oriented, but there are certainly other ways of augmenting reality – visually and aurally, for example.

Let’s get the Privacy elephant out of the room first: I think I’m going to ban discussions on privacy for future conversations. Not because it doesn’t matter, it does. In fact it matters so much that it tends to overshadow other aspects of the discussion. And you know what? The privacy debate is much the same, whether you’re talking about social networking, internet of things or location based services. It’s the big one. The most emotive part of the discussion. And fundamentally, it always boils down to a simple trade-off. Privacy is currency. You trade it with utility/ value. You give up a bit of privacy for a bit of value. For example Oyster cards. Each of us makes this trade off every day. When we put our name on our letterbox, we surrender a bit of privacy. Or when we sign up for any web mail service. Or indeed, when we get onto the internet. The point is, each of us individually, and each society collectively, make these trade-offs. So it really boils down to what’s the value on offer?

Social changes – the discussion tantalizingly touched upon but skirted around some of the social changes. What kind of social engagements will drive us in a connected world. Will we form communities around and with the help of our devices (updates from all people using the same make of hearing aid?), or will there be fundamental changes in the way we live and manage our lives? Will architecture change, driven by the layers of data and information it needs to support? Will urban planning change? What about family structures and social groups? I personally believe that this is an area which is among the hardest to predict, but where change will be both subtle and pervasive.

Machine to machine (M2M) communication is likely to be the hidden 90% of the IOT. Things we won’t see but will be an ocean of ongoing data exchanges working together, mostly to make our lives better. I say mostly because undoubtedly, there will be those that take advantage of this to further self interest (yes, spammers, I’m looking at you) and also those that intend to harm. But supply chains and industrial systems will be a significantly larger part of the IOT than those parts that talk directly to people.

B2B, as a consequence will be a bit part of the IOT. The 2 should not be confused. A mechanic accessing data from a device is not M2M but it could be B2B. Armed with an iPad like device, a mechanic may be able to better visualize and solve problems on the field, or be alerted to preventive maintenance needs of equipment. After all, Paul Caudell invented the term Augmented Reality in the context of Boeing’s Engineers and servicing engines!

The Data explosion that is imminent is another big challenge: how should it be architectured? Centralization may not be an option. How should it be distributed then? How can it be secured? What kind of analyses will be possible? It seems to me that this will be a significant opportunity area to explore, and much value might be available in this space.

It’s clear we’re shaping up for a world with much more complexity. The two contrasting devices that acted as the focal points of an elliptical conversation were the automobile and the toaster. The car, is already a fairly complex device and a typical new car has over 100 computers on board already, performing minute and major control and monitoring roles. The big change here, is how these computers will be networked, in future. Rather than go over proprietary networks, they could use a sim to access the internet. And their data could be aggregated and shared. This would include road conditions, traffic conditions, weather conditions, or track specific in car aspects that are relevant to that driver. The toaster on the other hand is a simple enough device, but it could have a sensor that measures its energy consumption and tracks its repair or performance. You could argue that we don’t want the toaster to get too complicated. But then we don’t really want the car to be more complex than necessary either. And the truth is for it to be simple for the consumer at the point of use, things usually have to be more complex under the hood. Good product design is about hiding the complexity even while adding functionality. Technologists and engineers beware!

So one way or another, the technological component of things, all things, everything, will go up. More chips, more sensors, more software, and more memory. It seems to suggest that the geek will indeed, inherit the earth. We’ll need more support, more upgrades and obsolescence, and more intelligence. But one of the debated areas was: to what extent should we encourage people to DIY their own systems? What if it’s a toaster? What if it’s the car? What if it’s a pacemaker? Some argued that the future is about putting this power into the hands of the consumer. While others insisted that a passionate amateur is more reliable than the job-oriented professional. But I would suggest that for any system where the consequences of failure are significant, the power must reside in the hands of the professionals. For reasons legal, financial and trust. Until we can find a good way of distinguishing the capable passionate amateur from the novice.

What is the role of the Telco in all of this? They currently carry all the traffic and data that the internet spawns. But this is set to grow exponentially, we are told. Clearly the telcos could and probably will continue to provide the pipes along which this data runs. There is a point of view that telcos need to change their model and provide alternative platforms and models for this to work better. There is also the view that a mediator for storing all this personal and proprietary data might be a good thing. But who would that be? Apparently Google and Telcos are trusted more than governments. Hardly surprising. There’s no doubt that a data broker will be close to the heart of this, but a mediator as a repository is a different model altogether.

There is also there the idea of an “Intranet of things”, which just implies that not all data needs to go worldwide and to everybody. There can be plenty of localized networks. Agricultural examples were shared where sprinkler systems and irrigation controls can be worked locally and can respond to the weather conditions.

In the world of Augmented Reality, while many might argue that it’s all about the data, it would make sense to focus on the visualization – simply because the former is just the Internet anyway. What AR brings is easier and easier ways to match information with context. I’m not a fan of pure “push” models, for anything, really, but opt-in streams and pull models can certainly have a huge impact on our lives. An example: earlier, if I was heading for a meeting and had forgotten or was unsure about the address, I would get to the area, open up my laptop on the street corner, check my email and try to locate the place. Then I could do the same on my phone, if my email had been downloaded to the phone. But I would still need to put together the data from my phone with my surroundings, in my head often, unable to read a house number. Now, I could select the address, point my phone camera at the buildings around me and read the numbers of all the buildings. I could be directed to the address a la satnav, and if the person I was meeting had granted me temporary persmission, I would also know whether he/she had reached, was in the building, or on their way, or perhaps where in the building I was supposed to go. A temporary door pass would be available on my phone and I could navigate myself to a meeting room. Yes I know there are plenty of security issues, but I think the point is clear.

At an individual, organizational or societal level, again the discussion will rage about intrusion, security and privacy on the one hand and technology vs business models on the other. I’ve already explained my stand on “push vs pull”. For privacy, read point 1 above. And of course, the business models will emerge. The driver for many of the technologies is either cost or revenue. No getting away from this. Could the beneficiaries be advertisers?  Product companies? Services companies? Chip makers? Utilities? Perhaps all of the above, depending on who gets it the privacy-utility trade-off right.

You might argue some of this is not augmented reality. I agree. But a slightly broader definition of what constitutes “augmentation” of reality leads us down very exciting pathways of thought. Architecture itself is a form of augmentation. And layering data, changing the utility of a space, expanding our interaction with a physical object, these are all augmentations of a kind. It was argued that architecure and urban design will change as we move down the path of augmented reality and the IOT.



Ken demonstrates his version of augmenting reality

Post the event, the conversation moved to the a pub off Brunswick centre where we were given some great demos of AR toys and we agreed that a bottle of wine might still be the cheapest way of augmenting reality at present!