Today Metaio is holding Inside AR in Munich, Germany.   Metaio (the picture above shows Metaio co-founders Thomas Alt and Peter Meier), is behind some of the best known commercial and industrial AR experiences of recent years.  But as important as the many AR projects they have executed are the AR tools that Metaio has made available to developers.  Metaio’s AR products and tools have played an important role in bringing AR to a wider public, and given many developers the opportunity to explore AR.

Inside AR is a great opportunity to see what these AR pioneers  will be up to in the coming months.   I could not make it to Munich this year.  But, fortunately, I had the opportunity to talk with Thomas Alt, recently.   In this conversation – see below, I got a chance to discuss what was going on inside AR with Metaio.

The Fall season is always jam packed with great events, and I wish I could be in two places at once.  But this week, I will be in my home town, NYC, attending Web 2.0 Expo which, reflecting the heat in the NYC tech community, is a sold out event with a very exciting schedule this year (more on some of the presentations that I will be attending later in this post).  If you missed out on tickets to Web 2.0 Expo, all Keynotes will be Streamed Live: TUES 9/28 to THURS 9/30, and keep your eye on @w2e and #w2e on twitter.

Meanwhile, I am missing Inside AR, which had some great speakers lined up, including fellow New Yorker, John Swords, partner and Ringleader at Circ.us.  Hopefully, Swords will share his experiences at next month’s ARNY Meetup which will be “joining forces with another vibrant community – NY Gaming – for an unforgettable night of Augmented Reality Games” on Tuesday, Oct 19th, 6:30 PM at AOL Ventures in New York, NY.

At the most recent ARNY @swords gave a brilliant talk on the possibilities for AR Game development on the newly available opensource Parrot ARDrone platform.  It was great to hear from social game guru @swords on his plans for Parrot ARDrone games, and more.  The picture below of an ARDrone camera view is from John Swords Flickr set.  Swords was flying it inside his garage because the winds outside were too strong.

Also, I kicked off what will hopefully be an ongoing discussion on, “Story Telling with AR and the Big ARNY a collaborative AR Game for NY,” with a few slides.  I have opened up the presentation document for collaboration, so please ping me if you would like to be added as a contributor/editor, and are interested in getting involved.

Ori Inbar, CEO and co-founder of Ogmento, Games Alfresco, ARNY and my co-chair on Augmented Reality Event 2010, suggested The Big ARNY – A Collaborative AR Game Development Project modelled after A Swarm of Angels last year at the First ARNY Meetup – so let’s make it happen!  I will be catching up with Ori in October about what Ogmento has been up to since they became the first VC backed AR Game company!

“Games allow us to see each other, for a moment, in a way that living in a city prevents” – Kevin Slavin

I believe that, AR, to get beyond the stage of “interface du jour” needs to offer us new ways to relate to each other and the world around us so that we can actually improve  and deepen our engagement with reality not just create experiences that are primarily optical  (see James Turner’s interview with Kevin Slavin “Reality has a gaming layer” on not letting “the pleasure of a game and the meaning of a game and the experience of a game rest primarily in the optics.“  And see my recent post, Urban Augmented Realities and Social Augmentations that Matter: Talking with Bruce Sterling, Part 2).

Two of the most inspired creators of urban games,  Kevin Slavin and Kati London of Area/Code will be speaking at Web 2.0. Expo tomorrow.   And you can be sure I will be at both these sessions. Loitering on the Motherboard, Kevin Slavin, is 2:35pm Tuesday, 09/28/2010, and Games that Know Where you Live, Kati London – is a keynote that will also be live streamed – 4:55pm Tuesday, 09/28/2010

Recently Kevin Slavin was interviewed by James Turner, on O’Reilly Radar.   This, Reality has a gaming layar, is a must read piece about a “world where games shape life and life shapes games”  (see @timoreilly). 

Interview with Thomas Alt

Tish Shute: Perhaps you could just start with your background Thomas because I think there’s a lot of newcomers to AR but you are really one of the first movers in commercial AR. How long you’ve been involved in this?

Thomas Alt: Actually I’m an ex-researcher in augmented reality. I started with me actually after getting my master’s work in engineering from the Technical University of Munich working for a big company called Volkswagen. And at that time,1999, we got a research grant for researching how augmented reality could change manufacturing processes in the automobile industry.

And from the research work there, I basically went back to school, did my PhD about augmented reality. And while speaking at a conference, I met Peter Meier who is the co-founder of the company who was also a master’s student writing his thesis about augmented reality. That was in 2002.

And so it really was in the very early days of augmented reality. And both Peter and myself we got really excited about the technology; we saw endless possibilities. We said, ‘OK. Let’s just found a company. We actually founded the company in early 2003 with virtually no money. As a matter of fact the founding capital of the company was 25,000 Euros and this 25,000 Euros were won in a case competition in Germany – a business plan competition.

Tish Shute: So you won 25,000 Euros on this case competition and that’s where Metaio started….

Thomas Alt: Exactly. And to legally found a company in Germany it takes exactly 25,000 Euros so that was the founding capital. We started pretty much like good old SAP started.  It wasn’t in a garage though it was a very small office and we basically built up the business through work, so we don’t have any investors or whatever. Right now we are 66 people located in Munich where our headquarters have been for five years. We have some presence in the US, and we have a venture company in Seoul, South Korea.

Tish Shute: Awesome. I just noticed how fast you’ve been growing. So right now, I’m going to ask a couple of questions about where you see the technology and the emerging industry going.

First, what are the platform of choice for Mobile Augmented Reality at the moment?

Thomas Alt: Obviously in the cellphone hardware space there’s a fierce competition going on. It’s yet to be defined what will be the prevailing platform right now, obviously it’s the iPhone is big now, right? But Android is catching on very, very fast.

Tish Shute: You have pioneered bringing a cross platform SDK for vision assisted AR to a wide community of developers with Junaio and with your partnership with Kooaba – a visual search company from Europe.

Thomas Alt: Yes, yes, and this is how we would, also in the future like to position ourselves with Junaio.  Junaio will be a platform, a technology platform, which will allow users to do whatever they want to do in augmented reality. The API of Junaio is huge in the sense you can do anything from outdoor gaming, to visual search, to normal, uh, lay out style, you know, find the next burger king a mile away kind of super impositions.

Tish Shute: The only licensing you pay is for unifeye right? When you want to use your tool kit right?

Thomas Alt: Yes and this is how we’re distinguishing it. Junaio is our consumer brand targeting newbie AR developers, with limited programming skills, while the Unifeye platform is really our B to B platform where B to B customers can create their individual AR experiences.

Tish Shute: Yes which is what my friend Patrick O’Shaughnessey, Patched Reality, did for the Ben and Jerry’s app he created using Unifeye.

Thomas Alt: exactly…

Tish Shute: It is a lot of work developing for so different mobile platforms isn’t it. Junaio is on Android and iphone but you havent moved Junaio to Symbian?

Thomas Alt: To be honest with you right now its a matter of priorities we have other things we want to do first. And from analyzing the user base, iphone was a big step Android was a big step and now we are pretty much seeing what is happening next. As you know Nokia going into different directions as far as their smart phone operating system goes, and so on and so forth.  There are also capacity constraints. And right now obviously the most – potentially not the most possible users, but the users most inclined to do AR on a day to day basis are the ones using the iphone and android devices. But obviously there are a lot bigger cellphone manufacturers out there.  But just you know even the mobile web users aren’t as strong as the users on the iphone and android devices?

Tish Shute: So what do you think the iphone 4 has that brought to the AR picture?

Thomas Alt: Very fast camera access, very good for marker recognition. If you go to the Metaio site you’ll find a movie where we show on the iphone 4 app for a real augmented reality Leggo peice – this is something which is very nice

Tish Shute: Yes I see that, yes that is nice, yes, yes very nice. The Unifeye SDK is really putting markerless AR into the mainstream.

Thomas Alt: Yesterday we launched the first, a err very nice shopping… shopping solution for , but that’s completely external.

Tish Shute: Oh yes – the augmented reality shopping for seventeen.com, i was going to ask you about that, because it is the first augmented reality online shopping using natural feature tracking.

Also I am very excited to see the gestural interface, awesome!

The seventeen augmented reality shopping app is a PC experience but are you working on developing gestural interfaces for mobile AR?

Thomas Alt: We are continually pushing the envelope of what’s possible with AR. Gestural interfaces for mobile AR is certainly the next step in taking what we’ve done on the PC and making it more portable by using the mobile platform. One thing to keep in mind here is the limitations of mobile platforms and size of the screen needs to fit and make sense for the user experience.

Tish Shute: I know you started off as an AR researcher (although as you mentioned earlier you have been working in commercial AR and building Metaio for a long while now.

So in addition to how we are progressing towards gestural interfaces for augmented reality, I would like to ask some questions about AR eyewear. We won’t really have hands free AR without eyewear. What is your projection on when we will see consumer AR eyewear? And, Do you have a any comments on those speculating that we will not see AR eyewear go mainstream for 20years?! What is Metaio doing to move eyewear technology along?

Thomas Alt: Well as you know, it’s always, you know on the technological roadmap, and we’re still doing research projects, in our AR research department. We have worked on things like calibrating eyewear for augmented reality. There is some nice development there.

But really, commercially, the whole thing with eyewear has never caught on on a level which would make it a valuable avenue, business avenue, at least for Metaio. So, I guess as an ex-researcher, it’s still a very interesting, a very good technology. And it would definitely change the marketplace radically when available. But as per right now, there are very few commercial applications.

Tish Shute: Are the obstacles to AR eyewear technological obstacles or is it just a question of a a business model. I mean is it realistic to see eyewear in the next 3 to 5 years at a price point affordable to consumers, where you really, truly can have eye tracking? You know, the whole problem there was with virtual reality and eyewear giving people a headache. How far have we come in terms of the technology?

Thomas Alt: Well, it’s not so much technological factors ’cause all fundamental problems are solved. It’s more a rather large corporation, I guess, would have to step up to the plate and say okay, do, let’s get all the state of the art in electronics and develop just a perfect HMD.

Tish Shute: Something Yohan Baillot’s company Simulation 3D is doing at is looking at is hooking up eyewear to smart phones.

Thomas Alt: Yes exactly that would be even better. Metaio has done a strategic move into this HMD space for augmented reality about a year ago by acquiring a bankrupt company. I mean, we had considerable IP around it from our research base but in the long term we still believe in it and we did a move about a year ago in buying what was left over from a bankrupt company including a lot of IP, which basically goes into the direction of mobile augmented reality but also mobile augmented reality in connection with head mounted displays.

There’s actually a press release about this but that’s about a year ago…

I know that the whole HMD thing… I mean, I’ve seen companies come and go. Metaio has worked previously, very closely, with Microvision of Seattle. We have worked with a German company, doing HMDs and we have worked with Vuzix.  We are still working with Vuzix, so we’re still consider it very valuable.  But right now, I mean, it’s just not a big part of our commercial pipeline, to put it that way.

Tish Shute: It was interesting what Bruce Sterling said in his keynote at ARE 2010.  He actually made a strong case for why smart phone augmented reality may be more interesting because it’s less immersive. I mean, he raised the question of the fact that if you really truly had AR eyewear and HMDs you’d re-enter the world of virtual reality or as he called it AR’s Gothic step sister VR would rise from the grave….

Thomas Alt: Yeah, well, that’s a cultural or even a philosophical question and we have discussed it a lot, especially in the industrial domain. Also will the deployment of HMDs come about from end consumers using it in their spare time, or from professional users using the idea in their work time?

Tish Shute: Do you think it surprised people who have been working in augmented reality research how much people have engaged with the idea of smart phones as the mediating device for AR, and that rather than having the always on experience that eyewear would give us, we use smart phones as a magic lens of a smart phone when we need to or want to. Some people were skeptical that anyone would want to hold up a little window to look at augmentations of the world – a magic lens. I mean, it wasn’t self-evident that that would be an experience people enjoyed, and it turns out that it was.

Thomas Alt: That’s actually a very good analogy. And also in my view, I mean, certain behaviors just change also, right? I mean, this is exactly what Apple’s trying with the iPad, right? You’re taking the iPad, and all of the sudden you’re not constrained to a laptop or whatever. And it’s truly a companion of the couch, in-bed Web, in the kitchen, and so on and so forth. So digital usage with the iPad, which is a different market, and I’m aware of that but as an example, the iPad has changed our behavior. And obviously, the augmented reality guys are hoping that something similar happens with AR.

Tish Shute: Which of course brings up the question, I’m assuming that some of the next generation of slates/ipads are going to have front and back cameras, GPS, and compass, right?

Thomas Alt: Actually we know that.

Tish Shute: You know that, yes. I assume that you know that, because are you working on some prototypes, and have you got some plans?

Thomas Alt: You have to understand that I cannot talk as I’ve talked as a researcher. It’s the rules, so I have to be a little bit careful about what I say. We very much think that a webpad, or whatever pad, you would want to call it is on some occasions very good device for AR.

Tish Shute: Yeah. But it is an interesting point with holding up a larger device, because you hands aren’t free, but the neat thing about the phone for augmented reality is that you really can do a lot with your thumb, as we’ve found and just the position of the phone. But, how will this work it with the two hands on the larger device?

Thomas Alt: Keep in mind, everyone’s talking about mobile augmented reality, but really where the case for augmented reality, at this point, is the strongest is in the installation business, it’s in the web business… Not necessarily only commercially, but also use case-wise. There are tons of museums out there which are using our augmented reality system in an installation fashion, and to communicate products better, and more efficiently, and so on, and so forth.

So, I know that the hype is clearly on the mobile augmented reality side, but there are many examples augmented reality experiences where holding up a larger device is not a big obstacle.

Tish Shute: Well this brings me to some questions about the future of mobile AR. My interview with Jay Wright focused on how we are now in a new period for AR bringing together computer vision, visual search into a mobile stack that is really optimized for AR. What do you see emerging in mobile AR as we move beyond compass, GPS, camera, accelerometer based AR into markless image-based AR. What will the new use cases and where will we see mainstream users getting in AR. Will AR games be the first mainstream AR experiences?

Thomas Alt: My partner is actually, first of all, one of my best friends, second of all, very emotional, third of all, very intelligent, and he said the other day something I think very valuable in this area. He said, basically think about Mobile Augmented Reality, Thomas. There’s really a very limited number of use cases which you can do if you look at these classical Point and Find applications, ok? But there are almost unlimited number of use cases when Augmented Reality becomes a day to day companion, ok? So what he meant is, ok, I’m looking at my normal day… I’m looking at the city, I’m walking throughout this, I’m coming home, I’m having dinner basically. I can deploy Augmented Reality in a pure POI search fashion perhaps not even once. Ok when I’m travelling it’s a different story, but in an ordinary day I might use a POI search not even once.

But where this ultimately leads, you know, is even in the 15 minutes I’m having breakfast, I’m using AR – looking at the cereal box with my cell phone, I’m taking part in a sweepstakes or whatever. So from that we draw the conclusion that as a general strategy for Junaio, we should basically throw as much technology as possible into Junaio, make it halfway self-explanatory, and just give people the possibility to come up with ideas on how to deploy augmented reality continuously.

We have actually got a creative team from an Art School working on that, and just, you know, with very little programming skills coming up with things you can do with Augmented Reality on a day-to-day level. And it could be a scavenger hunt game, in the city, with monsters flying around, it could be the normal POI routine, it could be marketing purposes, and so on and so forth. And I think that’s really the roadmap, and this is a little bit similar on a more technical level, to what Qualcomm is doing, ’cause they’re floating out possibilities or capabilities I want to call them, and Metaio is doing that, but on a higher level [re the tools] meaning on a Junaio level.

Junaio is a capability platform. It is also a way for Metaio to demonstrate the capabilities of our technology. We will offer all the possibilities for AR and more that we have already demonstrated on PC augmented reality.

Tish Shute: What is the business model for Junaio? Are you encouraging developers to develop business on your platform ?

Thomas Alt: Junaio is our end consumer platform and our business model is similar to the way Google structures its business model. We work with OEMs, content partners, brands, and developers to offer free content to our end users. Where we do charge is on the advertising side, more specifically contextual and location based advertising. At the current stage, we are focused on building the content base, fostering our developer community, but in the near future, we will be introducing advertising channels.

First of all you have to have very good use cases in the platform basically. And then to put a business model on top of that from a technology stand point is not hard – its a pay channel. Its all prepared for this.

Tish Shute: You have quite a broad base as a company don’t you – you do everything from industrial AR, marketing to technology licensing and more?

Thomas Alt: Basically, there’s a lot of things people don’t see us. There is also the Unifeye PC SDK and we have a client base and partners who are sourcing software from us, and we are doing great pieces. I mean the hype of augmented reality is really coming to a peak. There are lots of pieces that are not even talked about any more. China’s GQ magazine launched with AR from Metaio, the biggest AR campaign anywhere – there are a lot of potential readers in China. And um, so that’s our business model… we have our IP, our patents and so on. And on this we can move on onto the mobile platform whenever it’s advisable or feasible.

Tish Shute: Right. Yeah. I mean uh, you’re very fortunate to have this base built on uh, years of developing IP. What are the most important areas of AR that Metaio holds IP and patents in, in your view?

Thomas Alt: there’s sleepless nights in that too…

So far we’re extremely excited about what’s going on with Junaio, it’s one of our big, big success stories. But we are sensible and trying to experiment because, you know, analogies from the past won’t really work in my view for Augmented Reality in a sense, that, you know, you better bring for a new system to fly, for a new technology to fly, you better bring a very concrete use case to the table, ok? And a well-defined use case. And we are, right now, with Junaio, in a state where we are checking out what could be such a very defined use case.

Tish Shute: So how many users does Junaio have now?

Thomas Alt: Let’s put it that way, we are, especially in the last 2 months, we are very satisfied. But we are not disclosing that, because users, and we’re seeing that from the competitive landscape, always needs 1 page of description what exactly a user is.

You understand what I’m saying? So this is why, ’cause we don’t want to up or downplay things, we are very careful saying, with users. Because I mean we have people who are actually also commercially very interested in Junaio…  We go through with them and discuss what exactly a user is. Cause there’s more then…a download is not a user. An app or something on your phone is not a user, basically, in my opinion.

Tish Shute: I am still waiting to see someone do something with AR and the Four Square API, or now the Facebook Places API. Do you see an interesting potential in the marriage of the rapidly emerging location based social networking space and augmented reality?

Thomas Alt: Definitely. Augmented reality offers a way for users to find information around them easily. Adding in the social networking component such as geo-tagging, rating, commenting can enhance the user experience and create engagement beyond just viewing the information. For example, within junaio, an average user can create their own personal channel and geo-tag photos or leave text messages at different locations. They can create a virtual tour of San Francisco and share it with their friends. By connecting the social side with good content, the augmented reality experience becomes more fun and interactive.

Tish Shute: And, of course, there’s the Junaio API. Are you beginning to see developers use that?

Thomas Alt: Yeah exactly, I mean if you go to Junaio.com, you can get a login, you have an API description. And the way it works is, that you bascially set up a call, which contains the information you would like to have in your individual channel. You submit it to us, it will get checked for profanity and other things, basically. And then we admit it to Junaio basically. The API is huge.   You can also use Junaio indoors.

This is very relevant. And there’s a tool chain for that, and so on and so forth. You can do mission-based search with Junaio. It’s in there, it’s called Junaio Glue. And there will be another very interesting feature coming up in a couple of weeks. And you can just do it, you can do a scavenger hunt, a game, normal POI search, and so on and so forth. And it’s all active. And that’s, what’s sometimes difficult for us to communicate, is it’s really a capabilities platform, but on the other hand it’s obviously very good to developers. And I mean on the developers side there’s huge interest.

Images  from Mitsuo Iso’s Denno Coil (Click to enlarge), the game “Metroid Prime,” and Terminator.

Thomas Wrobel, Sophia Parafina, Joe Lamantia, Matthieu Pierce, and I will lead a  session tomorrow for AR DevCampNYC introducing the AR Wave Project.  Thomas, Joe and Matthieu will be participate via skype (10am to 11.30am EST), and Sophia Parafina and I will both be at AR DevCampNYC at the The Open Planning Project office (TOPP).  The PyGoWave crew will be introducing PyGoWave via LiveStream.

At 1.30pm EST to 2.30pm EST there will be a shared PyGoWave/AR Wave session with Mountain View (if bandwidth permits).

The skype conference will be at ardevcampnyc .  To participate in Wave,  please join the public Wave,  AR Wave: AR DevCamp Session.  There is also a AR Wave Wiki up now – see here.

Dimitri Darras (avatar Dimitri Illios) is working on streaming the AR DevCampNYC sessions into Second Life,  SLURL here.

Thomas has done a very nice introduction and FAQ below.  This should help people new to this project to get up to speed quickly.

There are already several Waves that show the history of this project including: AR Wave: Augmented Reality Framework Development,  AR Wave Use Cases, PyGoWave AR Tech Discussion,  AR Wave Augmented Reality Wave Development, AR Wave / Muku Organization and Admin.

Also I have several posts for people interested in more of the background, including: The Next Wave of AR: Mobile Social Interaction Right Here, Right Now!, AR Wave: Layers and Channels of Social Augmented Experiences, Total Immersion and the “Transfigured City:” Shared Augmented Realities, the “Web Squared Era,” and Google Wave.

Thomas uses the term Arn (augmented reality network) which is one of the candidate names for the project, Muku (crest of a Wave) is another suggestion.  Thomas’ intro and FAQ below can also be found here.

What is the AR Wave Project?

In simple terms its a protocol for storing geolocated data on Wave servers that’s currently being developed.

We believe this will help lay the foundations for an open, universally accessible, and decentralised system for shared augmented reality overlays which various clients can connect to and use.

This AR Network should spark a lot more rapid adoption of AR technologies, give existing browsers more functionality, and provide the network infrastructure, allowing many of the fictional depictions of AR to become a reality one day.

The AR Network.

When we speak of a future AR Network, we mean one as universal and as standard as the internet. One where people can connect from any number of devices, and without additional downloads, experience the majority of the content.

Where people can just point their phone, webcam, or pair of AR glasses anywhere where a virtual object should be, and they will see it. The user experience is seamless, AR comes to them without them needing to “prepare” their device for it.

The Arn should be an inclusive and open platform where any number of devices can connect to, and anyone can make and host their own location-specific models or data.

It should allow people to communicate both publicly and privately, and not have their vision constantly cluttered with things they don’t want to see.

This is our vision, and we think a Wave protocol will help it become a reality.

Why Wave?

Wave allows the advantages of both real-time communication, as well as the advantages of persistent hosting of data. It is both like IRC, and like a Wiki. It allows anyone to create a Wave, and share it with anyone else. It allows Waves to be edited at the same time by many people, or used as a private reference for just one person.

These are all incredibly useful properties for any AR-experience, more so Wave is open. Anyone can make a server or client for Wave. Better yet, these servers will exchange data with each other, providing a seamless world for the user: a single login will let you browse the whole world of public waves, regardless of who’s providing or hosting the data. Wave is also quite scalable and secure: data is only exchanged when necessary, and will stay local to just one server if no one else needs to view it.

Wave allows bots to run on it and thus allowing blips in a waves to be automatically updated, created or destroyed based on any criteria the coders choose. Wave even allows the playback of all edits since the wave was created.

For all these reasons and a few more, Wave makes a great platform for AR.

How?

In basic terms, we will diverse a standard way to geolocate a bit of data and store it as a Blip within a wave.

This data could be a 3d mesh, a bit of text, or even a piece of audio.

Then various clients on various devices could logon, locate, interpret and display this data as they see fit.

Click on image above to enlarge.

A typical example of this might be holding up your phone and seeing messages written by your friends and family in the locations which they are relevant.

You could see an arrow hovering over the café your meeting a friend at, notes above their flat saying if they are in or out, or messages by shops telling you to pick up the particular brand of cereal they like.

This data would be personal to just yourself and whoever you invite to share that wave with.

Other forms of data could be public, like city-maps, online games, or historical landmarks being recreated. Custom views of the world with data for entertainment, commercial, environmental or informative purposes.

The possibilities with geolocated data are endless, as are the various ways to display and make use of them.

One of the things I’m most passionate about is people being able to see many different types of data, both public and private at the same time and from many different sources at once.

For instance, if your playing a AR game, why shouldn’t your chat window be viewable at the same time?

If you have skinned your environment with a custom view of the world, why shouldn’t you also see mapping or restaurant recommendations?

The ways to present these layers of data and toggle them on/off in the most intuitive and flexible ways would be a task for the client markers, and I’m sure we will see many innovations in those areas.

But by using Wave it at least provides the framework for having multiple information sources controlled by many different people yet accessible, and user-submittable, via the same protocol.

Who?

This idea first sprouted from a paper I route focusing on the potential for IRC to be used for AR;

http://www.lostagain.nl/testSite/projects/Arn/AR_paper.pdf

I suggested near the end Wave might be a better alternative (using Google Wave was an idea Tish Shute, Ugotrade, brought up in response to the Arn prototype design on IRC), and it quickly became apparent that Wave was a very suitable medium.

Since then, there was a lot of interest, and numerous people have offered to help.

In particular, recently, the PygoWave team is helping us out, as they have an existing server supporting c/s protocol, which is currently being actively developed.

Where?

You can join the general discussion here;
Augmented Reality Wave Development

Technical side here;
Augmented Reality Wave Framework Development

When?

There’s lots still to do, and we are at an early stage.

Our current targets: (last updated 11/12/2009)

• Getting reading/writing of prototype ARBlips to the PygoWave sever. (the PygoWave team have already made a standalone client and have the protocol for this sorted!)
• Establishing a minimal spec for ARBlips to be later expanded.
• Writing a very simple prototype online client showing how to store/retrieve the data.
• Expanding client to work for some use-cases.
• Establish a logo/branding for the project.

Other FAQs.

Where’s the catch?

While we believe Wave is highly suitable for development, it has the drawbacks of being a new system with just a few servers worldwide, which (at the time of writing this), have not yet been federated together yet.

Naturally, as a new technology, its likely to have some growing pains. And building a new technology on other new technology will multiply that somewhat. The first pain is the lack of a standard client / sever protocol. PygoWave have stepped in to the rescue a bit here, by being not just one of the most developed Wave server other then Google, but also leaping ahead with support for Json based c/s interaction. Google has stated they want community to take the lead on on a c/s protocol, so we are hoping they will adopt a Json variant, or a XMPP one and add it to the spec. We hope in much the same way as POP3/IMAP have been a standard for email server interaction, a similar one will develop for Wave.

In the meantime we plan to keep the code for writing ARBlips somewhat abstracted so as to make it easy to adapt in future.

As for the newness of Wave and other potential problems it will bring, we aren’t that worried as its built on XMPP, which has proved reliable already.

The other catch is we are unfunded, which slows development down considerable as we have to fit it around our other jobs.

I’m making my own AR Browser, and am slightly interested in maybe supporting you.

We are naturally very keen for support, and particularly for those with skills and visions to give feedback on the proposed protocol. Specifically: what do you want stored in a blip?

That’s what’s important at this stage.

We don’t see the Arn as a replacement for existing browser systems at the moment. We don’t want to restrict innovation or development in this fast developing market as we are very impressed at what’s been achieved so far. In many ways our task is small in comparison to what’s already accomplished.

However, we do believe the Arn will make a good addition to existing browser systems. It will allow users contribute data and have social features without having to worry about accounts or hosting.

It will still be quite some work to support; new GUIs will need to be developed to make it easy to submit data from the devices, as well as to login to waves.

However, we hope over time to build a set of example libs to make the read/writing of ARBlips as as easy as possible to implement in your software.

Perhaps a good way to think about it is existing AR Browsers are like word-processors, supporting the Arn will be like adding support for *.txt, but doesn’t limit what you can do with your own format.

Eventually we do hope ARBlips hosted on Wave will become the majority of AR data, and its functionality will be analogous to the internet is today. We truly believe in the long run a standard is essential.

But for now we think merely getting a baseline format established for how AR data can be communicated will increase user-ability, usefulness, and help the market grow.

Can I help?

Sure.

We particularly need people with technical skills in relevant fields. (both gwt/javascript web programming and c++(/qt)standalone programming help very welcome!).

But we also welcome people just with vision to help focus use-cases and to conceptualise what we want to be able to do with the system.

Please either join the relevant AR Waves or Wiki

We are especially interested in those with JSON and Comet experience. Specifically those with the abilities to make standalone applications to read/write to a sever using these methods.

What type of data will a AR Blip store?

This is still actively being decided, but essentially its a physical hyperlink.

A connection between a physical location (or object, see below) and a piece of data.

Specifically, we are thinking about the following fields;

Location in X,Y,Z,
Coordinate System used for the above,
Orientation,
MIMEType [the type of data stored]
DataItself [either a http link for 3d meshs and other larger data, or an inline text string if its just a comment]
DataUpdateTimestamp [so clients know if its necessary redownload]
Editors [the user/s that edited/created this blip]
ReferanceLink [data needed to tie the object at a non-fixed location, such as an image to align it to an object in realtime],
Metatags [to describe the data]

Are you purely tying stuff to fixed geolocations?

Certainly not
As part of of the spec we wish to be able for people to be able to link data to dynamically moving objects, trackable by image or other methods.

The idea being that one day someone could link a piece of text or 3d mesh to an image on a t-shirt they are wearing, or perhaps link a dynamically updating twitter feed, or perhaps provide information on a product (based on its logo).

There’s a large number of possibility’s for image-based linking alone, and that’s not even considering possibilities like linking RFIDs, or other forms of less precise but invisible binding data.

We need a lot of feedback from those companies already doing markless tracking. What types of images do you need, idly to link a mesh to an object? is one enough?

Summary of AR Wave Work to Date

Purpose: To provide an open, distributed, and universally accessible platform for augmented reality. To allow the creation of augmented reality content to be as simple as making an html page, or contributing to a wiki.

Specific Goal: To establish a method for geolocating digital data in physical space (or linking it to physical objects) using wave as a platform.

(For justification as to why we are using Wave see: our faq )

Wave as a platform

We are developing on the PyGoWave server at the moment but the goal is to be compatible with all Wave servers

PyGoWave has already achieved an important aspect in enabling the project in being a waveserver with a working and well documented server protocol. This allows both standalone and webbased clients to interface with it already.  See - The PyGoWave Qt-Based Desktop Client

This is one of the reasons why we have chosen to develop for the Pygo server at this stage.

However, the overall goal of AR Wave is to have a framework compatible with all servers using the Wave Federation Protocol. As more wave servers get c/s protocols then ARblips (the data needed to geolocate objects) could be posted and retrieved from various servers using the same client software. For this a standard should emerge. Just as websites don’t have to be hosted on specific servers, neither should AR data need to be hosted on specific wave servers.

In order to reach our goal, there are a few very achievable steps involved – see below.

Feedback

We are still actively seeking feedback, so feel free to join the Wave discussions, and see the history of how the specifications of the protocol evolved. You can also read the justification for some of the choices already made. Note a new discussion for AR DevCamp will be begin at AR Wave: AR DevCamp Session

This will, of course, only be the first draft of the specification, and it is sure to develop much in future.
The important thing now is to make working prototypes while maintaining flexibility.

So what do we need to do?

Steps :

* Establish the overall method – Done.

Each Wave will be a layer on reality which an individual or a group can create.  Each Blip in this Wave refers to either a small piece of inline data (like text) or a remote piece of larger data (like a 3D mesh) as well as the data needed to pin-point it in either relative or absolute real space.
We call these blips: ARblips. They are simply blips that stored the data necessary to augment a single object onto a specific bit reality.

It is up to the clients how they interpret and display the data. They could interpret it as a simple 2d list of nearby objects, or as an advanced 3D overlay, whereby multiple waves from different sources could to be viewed at once. What’s important is that there is a standard way to link the digital data to the real world space.

* Establishing the specification for the ARblip – In progress
We have a good idea of what’s needed to be stored in an ARblip, and we have hammered out a rough format.
The data might be stored as blip-annotations, but this has yet to be finalised.
A rough outline of the type of data stored can be seen in this c++/qt header for ARblip data can be seen at the end of this document.

* Storing and retrieving these pieces of ARblip data on the PyGo server – In progress.
The Pygowave team has made some excellent libraries that should make reading and writing data on the PyGoWave server very trivial for those with c++ skills.
This, however, is a real critical step, so more developers with C++ skills are very welcome!

* Making the above client mobile, and using a devices gps device to place the data. – Not started.
The next step would be to port the code to a mobile phone and use it’s gps-input  to post geolocated data and view what others have posted. This would be a fairly simple and not to useful app in itself. However, it would mark the first time anyone could post AR data and anyone could view it, all using open-source infrastructure.
As a bonus, because we are using wave infrastructure, the updates to any ARblip should appear in near realtime.

* To continue with the proof of concept, we would like to have simultaneous wave input from a PC
and mobile phone at the same time. – Not started.
For example, someone could post a pin on Google maps API and have that data posted to a ARBlip in a wave. Someone logged into that wave on their mobile device would then see the data posted appear.
More so we hope that when the Google map pin is dragged about, the mobile phone viewer, with just a few seconds lag, will see its location updated in real time.

We hope to make a modest yet practical app at this stage.

* After all this, we can go onto the interesting things:
3D data, camera-overlays, data fixed to objects and many more.  There’s plenty of existing software using these features (such as Wikitude, Layer) and some that are even open source software (like Gamaray and Flashkit). The open source code can give us a leg-up. However, we prefer to establish the protocol first. So naturally, these fancy features aren’t a priority for us. Rather we think our energy is better spent establishing the protocols and infrastructure so that other people can build more advanced bit of software easier.

However, once our primary goals are established, we will look to make a open source augmented reality browser ourself which will surely feature many of these features.

Overall, we hope once we have a simple proof of concept, there will be many groups, both existing and new, wanting to use this Wave system for their own apps, games and data.

Conclusion:
Really it’s now all about growing the community. We hope as soon as we show how great Wave can be for augmented reality, that lots of individuals and teams will start making their own clients to read/write geolocated data.
Overall we don’t think anything we make will be that impressive in itself. That’s not our goal.
We instead hope that our project will enable AR-content to be made as easily as web content. That games, information and apps will be able to be created without the creators having to worry
about the infrastructure behind it.

Technical information -

Current ARBlip header file

(below is a c++/qt header file for an ARBlip object that should illustrate the data being stored)

{

public:

arblip();

~arblip();

arblip(QString,QString,double,double,double,int,int,int,QString);

QString getDataAsString();

QString getEditors();

QString getRefID();

QString getXAsString();

QString getYAsString();

QString getZAsString(); bool isFaceingSprite(); 

private:

//ID reference. This would be a unique identifier for the blip. Presumably the same as Wave uses itself.

QString ReferanceID;

//Last editor(s)

QString Editors;

int PermissionFlags = 68356;  // default 664 octal = rw-rw-r–

//Location

double Xpos;   // left/right

double Ypos;   // up/down

double Zpos;  // front/back

//Orientation

// names, ranges and directions are taken from aeronautics.

// If no orientation is specified, it’s assumed to be a facing sprite.

// Roll: rotation around the front to back (z) axis. (Lean left or right.)

// range +/- 180 degrees with + values moving the objects right side down.

int Roll;

// Pitch: rotation around the left to right (x) axis. (tilt up or down)

// Range +/- 90 degrees with + values moving the objects front up. (looking up)

int Pitch;

// Yaw: rotation around the vertical (y) axis. (turn left or right.)

// range +/- 180 degrees with + values moving the objects face to its right.

int Yaw;

bool FacingSprite; //if no rotation specified, this should default to true

//if set to true when a rotation is set, then it keeps that rotation relative to the viewer

//not relative to the earth.

//Data format

QString DataMIME;

QString CordinateSystemUsed; //The co-ordinate system used. This should be a string representing a Open Geospatial Consortium standard. This could be earth-relative for gps co-ordinates, or in some cases relative to the viewer, for data to be displayed in a HUD like style.

//Data itself

QString Data;

QString DataUpdatedTimestamp; //Time the Data was updated changed

//Note; A seperate timestamp should be used for updates that dont effect the data itself.
//(such as if a 3d object moves, but its mesh isnt changed)

//Data metadata QMap<QString, QString> Metadata;

};

Click on the image below or here to watch this presentation and others from Momo13

Recently, I talked to Ori Inbar (above), formerly senior vice- president at SAP.  Ori is on a mission to make augmented reality commercially successful not in 5, 10, or 15 years, but now. Ori is the founder of Pookatak Games – a video game company, “with a vision to upgrade the way people experience the world.” Ori will be participating May 20th, in O’Reilly’s Where 2.0 panel, “Mobile Reality” -  an event not to be missed IMO.

The taste for computing anywhere anytime has entered human culture via the iphone and is spreading like chocolate cake and pizza at a preschool party (see why the iPhone changed everything).  And while the full flowering of the next step is yet to come – computing anywhere, anytime by anyone and anything (“the internet of things”), our love for these first devices capable of being mediating artifacts for ubiquitous computing (Adam Greenfield) is a vital first step to free us from our tethers to computer screens, and fulfill the promise of augmented reality.

If you need more convincing on the pivotal role augmented reality will play as the web moves into the world, check out Tim O’Reilly’s recent comments in this video clip posted on Augmented Times and here early last year.

From another perspective, the gloomy specter of economic and environmental catastrophe  is driving a movement to “infuse intelligence into the way the world work’s.” But the challenge for a smart planet is not just about making environments smart, it is about using smart environments to enable people to act smarter (see my interview with Adam Greenfield).

We need a rapid upgrade in both the way the world works, and the way we experience the world.

((Note:  It is time to read (if you haven’t already) Bruce Sterling’s Caryatids (Cory Doctorow’s book of the year for 2009) “as a software design manual” (see Julian Bleeker) because Caryatids reveals the Gordian knots of human folly, greed, compassion and desire entwined in near future designs for technologies to save the world.))

Ori Inbar, worked with Shai Agassi (Shai is now leading the world changing Better Place ) driving Netweaver from a mere concept to a “major, major business for SAP.” So Ori has already been through the cycle of working in a very small startup and growing it into a billion dollar business.  He has both the experience and the passion to realize his vision for augmented reality.

At Pookatak, he explains :

“We design “reality experiences” that make users’ immediate environments more significant to them. We wish to free young and old from getting lost in front of the screen. By delivering the world’s information to people’s field of view, and by weaving real world objects into interactive narratives, we help people rediscover the real world.”

Pookatak will release their first game this summer. Currently it is under wraps. But Ori gives us some glimpses of what is to come in the interview below.

In addition to founding Pookatak, Ori is involved in a broader effort to move augmented reality forward. On his blog, Games Alfresco – he recently welcomed a new partner, Rouli Nir, Ori has focused his eye of wisdom on every significant recent advance in Augmented Reality (check out this essence of Ori’s thinking in a fast paced video presentation for WARM ‘09).

Also Ori is one of the organizers of the interactive media track at ISMAR 2009.  At ISMAR this year, Ori explained, “we are trying to bring in people that develop interactive experiences for consumers, beyond the traditional attendees coming from a research perspective.”

In the interview below, Ori explains much of his thinking on how augmented reality will become commercially successful.  Enjoy it, think about it, and share it. And most importantly, if you can, get involved with ISMAR 2009.

Ori  has inspired me to participate in ISMAR this year.  Ori pointed out:

The call for papers is on, and this year it targets well beyond the typical research papers audience and into interactive media and art folks.

There are plenty of opportunities such as:

Art Gallery

Demonstrations

Tutorial

Workshops

It’s a huge opportunity to shape the emergence of augmented reality.

Interview With Ori Inbar

Making Augmented Reality Commercially Successful

Tish Shute: You are considered a key trail blazer in AR and you have the go to blog for augmented reality!  What are the most important lessons you have learned researching, writing, and developing AR in the last couple of years?

Ori Inbar: You need to have a vision. You need to know where this is going to go in ten or fifteen or twenty years. But you’ve got to start with something really simple that makes use of the technology you have on hand. And do something that is practical, that people will like, and something they would actually want to buy. Its as simple as that. I’m currently looking at what we could do with existing technology. First of all, you have to put it in front of people. Right now most people have never heard about the term augmented reality. Go into the street, and ask 100 people about it, maybe 2 would know about it. So you need to put it in front of people because most people think it’s still science fiction or a special effect you see in movies, not something you can experience in real life.

Tish: It seems to me to that for augmented reality applications to become popular with existing technology the key breakthrough would be getting people to hold up their phones. What are the obstacles to getting people to use their mobile devices like this?

Ori: There’s a really nice cartoon by Tonchidot (below) – the Japanese company behind the Sekai Camera. It’s an illustration showing the evolution of man, from ape to man (holding a cell phone looking down), to the developed man holding a device like a camera – in front of its eyes.

Which is exactly what you’re talking about. People ask, “are people going to walk with this like that all day long?” Probably not. I mean you have to build it in a way that doesn’t require them to hold it like that all the time. People are used to this gesture with the ubiquitous digital cameras. I tested one of my prototypes on a two and a half year old girl. She had no problem holding it just like she holds a camera.

Tish: Blair MacIntyre mentioned, “The problem with the mobile phone as a AR device is a problem of awareness,” i.e., you have to have a way of letting people know when there’s something interesting wherever they are. One of the issues regarding this is if you get too many alerts, then you tune them out.

Ori: First of all Blair is one of the people in academia that get it. Because he looks at it from an experience perspective. Not just as an interesting technical problem to solve. Let’s start with getting people to enjoy this new experience. The AR demos so far were mostly eye candies, and mostly for advertising – the GE AR ad created a lot of buzz; but you look at it for 10 seconds and you forget about it.  You need to build something that people would want to experience over time and would be willing to pay for. I think that’s the big test, right?

Now in terms of having a ubiquitous experience where you’re continously connected, it doesn’t have to be an overwhelming experience. Just like some of the social media tools we’re using today, we decide when to connect, and we filter out the trash. You could get alerts only for things that really matter to you, not for everything that happens in your immediate environment.

There will be many layers of information, and it’ll be up to you to pick the ones you want to experience. The real benefit is that you get the information in your own field of view and in context of where you are or what you do.

Tish: So what are you working on these days?

Ori: We are working on a little app that targets a very different audience than what you’d expect: pre schoolers. We think we can encourage them to get away from a PC or TV screen and learn something while playing – in the real world. You’ll hear more about it as soon as this summer. Nuff said.

But, it is a small application that will run on the iPhone. People ask how many pre-schoolers own iPhones? Well, their parents do.

Tish: Yes there are certainly many New York kids with iPhones – my kid now has my old iphone.  He has pretty much switched from playing games on his DS to the iPhone. I noticed in your WARM video you place a big emphasis on AR as something that will get kids away from screens and engaged with reality.  This is something parents will approve of!

Ori: Yes I saw something really interesting at my kids’ party one day; they were all sitting around the room – looking down at their own DS screens.  You could play the DS anywhere, but kids would usually play it on the sofa, looking at the screen, isolated from the world. With an iPhone and a camera, and the application we’re producing, reality becomes part of the game. Yes that makes it all of a sudden much more interesting for parents. Because kids are spending so much time in front of the screen, all of a sudden they’re something that will encourage them to interact with real objects, real things. Every parent I’ve talked to loves that idea.

Tish: Yes that is what is cool about the work of Kati London – I think I saw someone say this on Twitter, “Kati puts the computer in the game not the game in the computer.”

Ori: Yes, kids are spending more time in front of games and the computer because it’s more interesting. It captivates them with “game pleasures ” that tap into their brain’s dopamine circuitry – constantly seeking reward and satisfaction. So you’re not going to be able to tell them to go back to playing in reality without these pleasures. We have to study these mechanics from games and bring them into reality. It’s about programming real life; and augmented reality helps you achieve that.

Here’s an example: cause and effect; in a game when you do something you always get an immediate effect. You’re good, you get a reward. You’re not good, you get a cue to improve. In real life you do things and you could wait 2 or 3 years until you actually get feedback (if you’re lucky). Augmented Reality allows you to bring these mechanics into the real world. I think that’s going to help kids rediscover reality, in a new sense, which is what every parent is dreaming about.

Tish: I don’t know how much you can say about your app. But in regard to doing augmented reality on the iPhone.. there’s no compass. Is this a limitation?

Ori: True, no compass yet. But the camera gives you a lot of information that you can interact with. When you run the application, you see the world in front of you, and if the app can recognize real life objects – it can put virtual elements on top of it.

Tish: But not with any accuracy unless you’re using markers. Are you using markers?

Ori: We’re using natural feature recognition. It doesn’t have to be an ugly looking marker. It can be any image.

Tish: So you’re using image recognition. Are you working with one of these image recognition startup companies (list here )?

Ori: We’re working with one of those. What’s unique about it is it runs very nicely on any cell phone, and on the iPhone it works the best. For this first app, it doesn’t really matter where you are physically; the geolocation is not part of the experience.

Tish: For a truly engaging AR experience we will need more of a backend than is currently available?

Ori: I call the backend the cloud, where you have all this information and ways to access it from anywhere. Actually I think it’s become pretty mature today. If you look at the different elements required to enable an augmented reality experience to work, you have – first – the user whose always in the center. Then you have the lens. The lens can be an iPhone, or glasses, even a projector. The lens allows you to watch, sense and track information in the real world: people, places, things. Then in the backend you have the cloud where you store and retrieve information.

So if you look at the maturity of these different elements, I think the cloud is in pretty good shape. Because there’s so much information we’re collecting and storing. Anything from Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, all that kind of stuff, it’s a lot of useful information you can access from anywhere using APIs. And a lot of it is also starting to include geolocation information. Take Loopt or Google’s friends service that allows you to see where your friends are and what they’re doing. There’s tons of information out there and it’s pretty easy to access it. Now what do you do with it is the question?

Wikitude is such a simple and brilliant application and nobody thought about doing it until this guy from Salzburg did. It doesn’t have any sophisticated visual tracking. It knows your position and it’s simply looking at the angle you’re pointing to. Based on these parameters it brings information from Wikipedia that pertains to your field of view. So most of it was already there. It’s just a matter of connecting the pieces in an experience that is valuable for people.

Tish: It is the uptake of even a very simple technology that puts the magic in it.

Ori:  Yes, take Twitter. If you go to its homepage it looks like a very simple boring app but it is something that is both enjoyable and very useful to people.

Why you should participate in ISMAR 2009

Tish: I know that you are involved in organizing  ISMAR (picture above from Ori’s post on “ISMAR 2009: The World’s Best Augmented Reality Event…,“) and there is a call out for papers and for volunteers, can you tell me more about it?

Ori: Yes, we hope to have the first ISMAR where we practice what we have just discussed: let’s build on all the research invested so far and instead of thinking only about 5-10 years from now, let’s see what we can do today. So we are bringing people in from other disciplines – artists, interactive media developers and people from the entertainment industry.  The goal is to use the technology to make something interesting for people – again, something that people would buy, and making it commercially successful.  Many people either don’t know about ISMAR because in the past it was a pure engineering-orientated event and people  from a commercial perspective of AR weren’t attracted to it.  The Chair of the Event this year is based in Florida and he is going to bring in a lot of people from the entertainment industry such as Disney. I think this will transform this event into something more like SIGGRAPH – more of an industry event.  As one of the organizers of the interactive media track we are trying to bring in people that want to build applications for consumers.

Tish: In terms of AR applications what are the flagships today?

Ori: There are very few because it’s just the beginning. There’s one tiny studio in France called Int 13 . They’ve created maybe the first commercial game running on a mobile device using AR technology. It’s called Kweekies. It was one of the contenders for the Nokia Mobile innovation awards. They were one of the ten finalists, but they didn’t win it. It’s looks really cool. It’s somethng that runs on your desk, with a marker. Many AR folks say markers are the past, markers are ugly. But it’s still a cool experience. I think people will go for it.

Tish: Yes I think we will have to look to small companies that are free to think creatively to lead the way.  It seems many games companies are tied up pulling off huge big budget projects and enterprise is still catching up on how to use social media!

Ori: Yes, last year I was in the game development conference (GDC); there was no mention of augmented reality – not on the exhibition floor, none of the sessions, nobody talked about it. I was stunned. Then this year, there was a little a change. There were like three demos on the exhibition floor, Metaio, Vuzix and a Dutch company called Beyond Reality.  And then there was Blair’s talk, which was very very cool. The room was packed with people. And after the talk there were dozens of people lining up to talk with him about the topic. There was definitely interest, but still on the very edge. The video game industry is still a hit driven business and publishers spend upward of 20-30 million dollar to create the best AAA game possible. They just can’t take the risk. So it’s going to come from smaller companies, from outsiders coming in with a vision and understanding on how to put the AR pieces together to create a totally new experience.

Tish: But the basic tool set is there isn’t it?

Ori: I talked to some folks at the games developer conference, many folks with MMO background, and they have great ideas about AR. It’s great to see different people with different views on what’s needed first. “Joe the Programmer” had this idea of creating a small piece of hardware that you can put in every house and provide accurate geospatial information in your home. That could  open up many opportunities for AR experiences in homes.

Tish: Don’t you think we have enormous resources in terms of image databases that provide a great basis for augmented reality.  I was talking to Aaron Cope at ETech about The Shape of Alpha – Flickr’s vernacular mapping project using all the geotagged photos in Flickr. That is such cool project. Aaron will be speaking at Where 2.0 also.

Ori: Think of Google Earth. Google Earth leveraged communities to basically map all the major cities around the world into 3D models. And that is an essential step to be able to do augmented reality outdoors. Because if you had to model everything from scratch, it wouldn’t be realistic.

Augmented Reality and Becoming Greener.

Tish: I am really interested in how AR interfaces might be useful to some of the emerging energy identity/metering projects like AMEE and WATTZON because I think it is very important that people have very intuitive, immediate, and enjoyable ways to relate to energy data so they can make greener choices.

Ori: Back in the day I had an idea to build an Augmented Reality application to become greener. You look at things around your home with the camera and it  recognizes its green gas footprint and makes recommendations to reduce it.  I guess it was a bit too early to do that based on visual recognition alone…you’d need  additional sensors that would provide related information about what you are looking at.

Tish: Well as there is more interest in Green technology do you think we may see VC interest in some green AR projects now?

Ori: I talked to some of the investment folks, Angels as well as VC’s about AR and they had no clue what it is. There’s a need for a whole lot of education. And there are no proof points (as in successful investments in this domain), and counter to popular belief – they don’t like risk so much…

Tish: And consumer adoption must lead the way, right?

Ori: Just like with every emerging technology in history, people never bought the technology, they bought the content, the apps, the benefits that came on top of the technology. Whether it was VHS winning over Beta Max, or BluRay winning over HD. It’s always because of more/better content. Look at the video game console war: Xbox, and Nintendo did better than Sony just because they had more and better games. Even Windows was a success thanks to its applications. People bought it for the applications not the OS. The content is the first to drive demand.

Tish: One of the challenges to giving people new ways to relate to their energy consumption is that you can just have them looking at graphs of how bad they have been in the past you – that may make them feel bad but that doesn’t necessarily give them ways or motivation to change. There perhaps needs to be more immediate relationship to the data to facilitate change. I think the mantra for optimization of anything from energy usage to supply chains is timely, actionable data?

Ori: There are a lot of ideas about measuring information and displaying it to people. For example, the Prius hybrid car, one of its interesting features – which is kind of game like – is a constant display of your current fuel consumption. That alone changes how people drive because they try to beat the “Score” and as a result conserve more fuel. That model can be applied to our homes…

Tish: Yes that is something I am very interested in. I have been following several projects in this area – one of my favorites is the Arduino, Current Cost/Tweetawatt, Pachube integrations I saw at Homecamp.

You joined a start up with Shai Agassi which was bought out by SAP right? He has a brilliant approach with Better Place.

Ori:  I think what’s really unique about Better Place’s approach is that he doesn’t require people to change their behavior. People are still going to have their own cars. They’ll be able to drive as far as they want, and for the same (or lower cost). Its not necessarily about a new technology, electric cars have been around for a long time but there was no way people were going to be limited by the 50 or 70 mile range and Better Place is solving that problem. With its infrastructure of charging spots and battery switching stations, drivers are going to be able to drive anywhere. And it’ll be similar to having to stop once in a while to refuel your car. The price maybe even lower than what you pay today for your transportation needs – and you’ll stop generating green gas. It’s a clever way of taking technology to a whole new level without changing the behavior of people.

Tish: Better Place is a classic example of things as a service isn’t it?  It is basically a utility company.

Ori: It is similar to a phone carrier model.  You pay for a membership that gives you access to the car (equivalent to the phone) and electricity (equivalent to the phone line) for the same price of fuel cost today. And as bonus you get to save the world.

How the iphone changed the game for AR – and the iphone versus Android

Picture from Ori’s post, “GDC 2009: Why the iphone changed everything”

Ori: And back to AR, you have to take the same approach, because nobody’s wants to don those huge head mounted displays or backpacks. You have to take advantage of people’s current behavior: they already carry their iPhones or similar devices.

Tish: As we discussed, you just have to get people raising up their phones and looking through them when that is a useful thing to do. Both Wikitude and Nathan Freitas’s graffiti app were enough to get me interested in the evolutionary step of raising my phone! Nathan’s graffiti app is nice. You leave a marker for your graffiti so other people can find view/add their own – a nice primal experience like pissing on the lamp post to let your pack know where you’ve been.  Also the graffiti app taps into a long history of  NYC street culture around tagging and graffiti art (see my interview, “Is it OMG finally for Augmented Reality?”).

Ori: The app store has fundamentally changed the mobile gaming industry. Last year they were in shambles. There was no growth. Everybody was complaining, “we can’t handle it, there’s a million phones, and you have to test it on each phone. And carriers suck, they don’t care about sharing and promoting your content. Everything was bad. This year mobile gaming is the hottest thing. And it’s all because of the iPhone. It changed the game.

Tish: How do you think Android is going to get traction against the iphone?

Ori: Well the number one thing is the form factor – the iPhone is just much cooler than the G1. Its OK but it doesn’t have the same feel. People thought it was going to be easy to clone the iPhone but none of the attempts succeeded so far.

Tish: How much does it matter for AR not being able to runs things persistently in the background on the iphone?

Ori: Actually they have add a such a capability in OS 3.  You can now make use of a background service.

Tish: OS 3 will open up new possibilities for AR?

Ori: The access to the video API is still not public.  But there is a new Microsoft application – Microsoft Tag that makes use of that API which means it is probably OK to use it.

Tish: (I ask Ori for his card and he shows me how to read it with my iphone.) Oh nice you have an AR card, of course!

In Search of Pong for Augmented Reality

Tish: So how will AR begin to, as Blair’s friend put’s it, “facilitate a killer existence,” particularly as we are probably looking at some new and perhaps pricey hardware?

Ori: You could take the Better Place approach. We’re going to give you a great experience and we’ll include the devices as part of that experience for the same price. Let’s say you subscribe to an AR experience  which offers access to multiuser, support, and all the information you need wherever you go – exactly according to the vision. You pay for a subscription on a monthly basis and included in that cost we give you a better device that offers a  better AR experience. It’s following the phone carrier approach, but in a good way.

But first of all we do need our Pong! I was sitting with a couple of AR game enthusiasts at the GDC and we were asking ourselves, “how do we create the first pong for AR?”

Was Pong a multiplayer game? Not necessarily! Did it connect to the network? No! We have to create the first dot in a long line of dots that will bring us to our destination.

Tish: You haven’t seen a Pong yet have you?

Ori: Not yet. I mean there’s maybe a handful of games and apps out there, but I don’t think any of them is a Pong yet. Still, it’s getting closer.

Tish: Kati London is doing some very interesting work on bringing games into reality, isn’t she?

Ori: Yes, she works with Frank Lanz at Area/Code. He teaches at NYU and has designed games for the “Come Out and Play” festival here in Manhattan. And a lot of these games are actually low tech.

Tish: Yes I have a big alternate reality game blog brewing that I haven’t had time to write yet!

Ori: The city is the gameboard is their slogan. It’s going to be a great playground for AR games. The city becomes a theme park. The city could become an even bigger touristic attraction. People will come to the city to be part of these games. So you’re having thousands of people running around the city playing all sorts of games from laser-tag style to history adventures, to treasure hunts.

Composing Reality

Tish: So why haven’t you focused on one of these kinds of games with your company?

Ori: We have a couple of scenarios along these lines that we’re planning for 2010-11. But first focus on what’s possible today.

Tish: And what’s stopping you from doing those kind of games today?

Ori: Many things. The devices are not there yet, location services are not accurate enough, ubiquitous sensors are not  there yet.

Tish: You think alternate reality gaming needs more “ubiquity” than is currently available?

Ori: Not necessarily. People are doing alternate reality games with no “ubiquity” at all. But my interest is to add the visual aspect. I believe humans are mostly driven visually.

Jane McGonigal said in a talk at GDC, that AR would allow us to program reality, which is exactly how I look at it. Once you can recognize things, some of it with WiFi and RFID and all sorts of sensors. But visual sensors is always going to be the ultimate way to recognize things. And once you recognize things and know what they are, and can pull information about those things (or people and places) from the internet, you can program it (visually). You could program it to be fictional, like in a video game, or it could be programmed as non-fictional, like a documentary. And that allows you to do things that before were unimaginable.

Tish: But you can’t forget the visual, it is primary the connection to peoples’ primary sensory relationships.

Ori: Yes, it’s like you go to a grocery store and you pick your vegetables, a lot of it is by sight and by touch. And what if you could also see just by looking at it that it’s from a local store, and that it’s organic?

Tish: It goes beyond overlays really?

Ori: By the way, I don’t like the term ‘overlay’. I know that’s how it looks: you either overlay or superimpose, but I’m still searching for a better term. A term I prefer to use is “composing reality”. Just like painters, they use brushstrokes and colors and compose a painting. We need to take the real element and the virtual element and compose them into something new. It’s not just about slapping one on top of the other.

Tish: yes I think the idea of dashboards is not so appealing.

Pookatak Games

Tish: Do you want to explain the evolution of your company? You have an interesting history of success with high end enterprise applications.

Ori: Since I was a kid I wanted to invent and create things. When I discovered software, that was a really cool way of actually creating things from nothing. From thin air; and you can do it very quickly. That’s what brought me into software. But I was always looking for the intersection between technology and art. Looking for ways to bring these things together. In the early nineties virtual reality was doing it. It had the appeal of cutting edge technology that can be combined with art. But then, as we all know, it crashed. So I joined Shai Agassi’s startup (who is now doing Better Place) back in the early nineties. I was one of the first employees in his startup which was developing multimedia products. I was leading the development of one of its flagship product. At some point we realized the technology could be great for an enterprise environment.

It was a really great experience. First going through this cycle from a very small startup and growing into this multi billion dollar business. I was responsible for defining and marketing SAP’s platform, which was called Netweaver. It was just an idea when we joined SAP and by the time I left it was a major, major business for SAP. I learned about the challenges of building a platform. No matter what purpose you’re building it for, it typically has similar rules. It’s definitely not just about the technology; the content that comes with it is really key to making a platform successful.

The third part of this platform trifecta is the community. If you don’t build a community, you won’t get the critical mass required for adoption. It may be your own platform but it’s not necessarily the people’s platform. That experience is very key to what we’re doing today. Now, a new industry is being born on the basis of a remarkable technology. But to drive adoption, first we’ll need good content. The content will be created using today’s technology with internal tools developed to simplify the process. Next step would be to make the tools used internally – available to other developers. Help scale the industry, enable innovation on a larger scale. That way we have a chance to create a platform. So it isn’t really just about my company. I’m so passionate about augmented reality, I want to it to become a healthy and successful industry for the next 5, 10, 15 years.

Tish: Yes I am so ready to be liberated from the sitting behind a computing screen! And I know that all this hardware is murdering the environment.

Ori: There’s ‘s the book by Rolf Hainich which is called “The End Of Hardware. ” It’s about hardware for augmented-reality. Once you use goggles or other AR interfaces you eliminate the need for screens, laptops, etc. It’s going to be great for the environment. You have read Rainbow’s End, right? According to the book in few years there will barely be any (visible) hardware. At least it’ll have a much smaller footprint for the environment. And it’ll touch every aspect of life, everything you do. It’ll change the way you interact with the world.

The Illusive Eyewear for Immersive AR.

Friend of Ori’s in San Francisco wearing retro AR goggles (from Games Alfresco, Ori’s roundup of GDC 2009)

Tish:OK lets talk about goggles.

Ori: Goggles are going to happen, we want to be hands free.

It’s going to happen because it’s just a more intuitive way to use this technology. But above all it has to look cool. Because if it’s not, if it’s a big headset, then maybe a small percent of the population might use it, but most people won’t. It has to look like an accessory, like new cool eyeglasses that you just must wear.

I recently talked to a friend, who runs an industrial design firm, and has experience in designing such glasses for companies like Microvision and Lumux. He says that when you try to bring the images so close to our eyes – there are some really hard problems to solve. Otherwise it can become really annoying and cause dizzyness.

But I’m optimistic. I believe it’s going to happen 3 to 5 years from now. It’s already starting now: Vuzix announced goggles that will be available this year. Some AR apps that are going to take advantage of next year. Initially only a fraction of the population will use it. And that’s going to help advance it and make it better and better. But it’s going to take time until it reaches the mass market.

Tish: In virtual worlds we have seen, I think, a lot of mistakes in terms of reinventing the wheel and producing too many proprietary versions of the same thing and not enough concerted effort on standards and open platforms that could create a vibrant ecosystem.  How can augmented reality not make the same mistakes?

Ori: There are some early AR open source efforts ARTookit, ARtag but it is not a movement yet.  One of the things we’re trying to do at ISMAR this year is to put together  discussions around key industry issues, such as standards. Some people say it’s too early, you have to have a defacto standard to start from. But pretty soon it’s going to be too late. Just like with virtual worlds, all of a sudden you have all these islands that don’t talk to each other. Why get to that point if we can plan to avoid it? Let’s start thinking about it right now. On the other front there are devices. There are pockets of people working on adapting devices for AR, second guessing the hardware companies. Why not get them together with the Intels and Nvidias of the world, and discuss what this device should be able to do. And then compete to make it happen.

Tish: How much luck are you having with this discussion part?

Ori: People are very interested in doing this. We proposed these panels for ISMAR. And I’ve got some key people already on board. They have tons of input, they want to get involved. We’ll see how much we can actually get out of it.

Tish: In virtual worlds it was a while before vibrant opensource communities developed.  OpenSim has I think been the breakthrough community in this regard.

Ori: You have to think about the elements up front. The dream job is to architect the industry. Say we agree on the required pieces. Then we could help the right companies succeed in delivering the pieces. Next, we have to collaborate so that these pieces talk to each other. And eventually these communication methods will become defacto standards and most developers will adopt it.

Tish: So I’m going to put you in the role. You’ve got your dream job. You’re going to architect this community. So what are the key pieces and where would you like to see the open source communities take hold first?

Ori: Open source will not be exclusive. It’s going to live side by side with proprietary technology.

The key pieces? You have the user at the center. And the user interacts with a lens. The lens includes both the hardware and the software. And then the lens senses and interacts with the world, which includes people, things and places. And these people-things-places emit information – about who they are, where they are, what they’re doing, etc  – which is then stored in the cloud.

And then you have the content providers, the people and companies, composers who weave AR experiences through the pieces we mentioned before. These composers need a platform that glues these pieces together. Pieces of the platform will be on the lens, and in the world, and in the cloud. If you manage to remove the frictions, and connect these pieces into an experience that people like – then you have a platform. What the platform does it reduces the overhead and accelerates innovation.

Tish: Another problem virtual worlds faced in their development was their isolation from the world wide web.  Will augmented reality avoid this plight?

Ori:  Yes, I believe the key, like you said before, is not to reinvent the wheel. The cloud is already there.  Take Wikitude for example, all Mobilizy had to do is build  a relatively simple client app, connected to wikipedia, and all of a sudden it offered a wealth of information in your field of view.

I think we can learn a lot from web 2.0. For example, in order to have a ubiquitous experience like Robert Rice and others are striving for, you’ll need to 3d map the world. Google earth like apps are going to help but it is not going to be sufficient. So let’s leverage people. Google became successful in part by making people work with them.  Each time you create a link from your blog to my blog their search engines learn from it.  So let’s find ways to make people create information that can be used for AR.

Ori Inbar directed Wiki Mouse – a WIKI Film co-created by a swarm of movie makers around the world.

Adam Greenfield’s new book, The City Is Here For You To Use, is coming soon (photo above by Pepe Makkonen is from Adam Greenfield’s Flickr stream). Adam told me:

“I’m aiming at a free v1.0 PDF release on 05 June 2009, with the book shipping as quickly thereafter as humanly possible. There will be a version zero or public alpha in about six weeks.”

I am not good at waiting for books I really want to read to arrive. But, on the upside, it brings out my already pretty highly developed investigative instinct. So when Adam very generously agreed to do an interview, impatience turned into delight in tasting what is to come. And Adam is encouraging this kind of engaged anticipation. He writes (see post) that The City Is Here For You To Use, is shaping up:

“as something of an unbook avant la lettre. It’s why we’ve [Nurri Kim and Adam Greenfield] always insisted on keeping you in the loop as to the book’s fitful progress, it’s why I take every opportunity to test its ideas here, it’s why I make explicit the fact that your response to those ideas is crucial to their evolution and expression. And it’s why, even though the process is inevitably going to result in a static, physical document as one of its manifestations – and hopefully a very nice one indeed – we’ve committed to offering a free and freely-downloadable Creative Commons-licensed PDF of every numbered version of The City, from zero onward.

You buy the book if you want the object. The ideas are free.”

I found the opportunity to ask Adam questions about some of his subtle renderings of technology, culture, and being in urban environments challenging and very illuminating.  Although I definitely get the feeling I am asleep at the wheel on some of the critical areas he is thinking and writing on.

Knowing the depth and range of Adam’s thought in his seminal book, Everyware, and his blog, Speedbird, before I began the conversation I asked Adam to point me to some of his posts that reflect key ideas he is working on at the moment (Adam has recently posted The City Is Here: Table of contents).  Adam directed me to these three posts.

Antisocial networking

More songs about context and mood

Messenger, space, messenger body, messenger mesh

I may ramble and diverge, as is my nature, but these posts inspired many of the questions I ask.

Adam is currently head of design direction for service and user-interface design at Nokia and living in Helsinki, so I did not have the opportunity to do the interview in person. But I have glimpsed Adam’s world through his Flickr stream and some of these images have found their way into this post. But I suggest you browse Adam’s photography for yourself. I cannot do justice to the thousands of nuanced perceptions of cities, networks and publics you will find there. In the meantime, here are three glyphs of Adam Greenfield that I liked a lot.

“My favorite shoes,” “My favorite chair” and photo by Adam Greenfield, “Favoriteplace”

A Conversation (in gdoc) with Adam Greenfield

Tish Shute: Could you explain a little about the evolution of your thoughts on urban environments, ubicomp and interaction design? What shifts in your thinking have taken place over the last few years re the dawning of the age of ubiquitous computing? It is a couple of years now since Everyware, what aspects of the uptake of Everyware have most surprised, disappointed or inspired you? Which of the many thesis you discuss in Everyware have become the most crucial for The City Is Here For You To Use?

Adam Greenfield: You know, there’s a little passage in the liner notes to the second Throbbing Gristle album that I always think of when I’m asked questions along these lines. As part of their stance, they’d adopted the dry tone of a corporate annual report, and the preamble began by saying, “Since our last report to you, many things have changed. Indeed, it would be foolish to assume that it could be otherwise.” And I think that’s just exactly right: the world keeps moving, and the positions we’d staked ourselves to not so long ago may no longer be correct, or even relevant, to the one we find ourselves inhabiting now.

So, first, I think it’s important to cop to all the places in Everyware where I just outright got things wrong. There’s a passage in Thesis 50, for example, where I unaccountably mock the idea that “the mobile phone…will do splendidly as a mediating artifact for the delivery of [ubiquitous] services.” OK, this was admittedly written in a pre-iPhone world – and was correct for that world – but you can really see my parochialism showing here. It took the iPhone to make the proposition as blazingly self-evident to me in North America as it had been for quite some time to folks in Europe and Asia.

Having said that, though, I think I’m justified in taking a little pride in what the book got right. The broader trends the book set out to discuss – the colonization of everyday life by information processing – well, take a good look around you. And so one of the points of departure for the new book is taking everything posited in Everyware as a given: the urban environment, and most everything in it as well, has been provisioned with the kind of abilities you mention. So what now?

How do you go about designing informatic systems so they don’t undermine the wonderful things about cities? How do you design cities so they can incorporate networked informatics to greatest advantage? How, especially, do you accomplish these things when the disciplinary communities involved barely speak the same language? And how do you keep everyone’s eyes on the prize, which is the ordinary human being asked to make sense of these new propositions? These are the questions The City Is Here For You To Use sets out to address.

Adam talking about the “Le Long Ici” in Paris (also see Adam’s post, “The long here and the big now”)

TS: You mention that the hardest parts of  producing The City Is Here For You To Use wasn’t “keeping on top of all the emergent manifestations of urban informatics, or even developing a satisfying spinal argument about their significance” but getting the voice right.  It seems that now is the perfect time for a book that would really speak to a wide audience.  But also it seems that the city that is here for you to use is manifesting quite differently in different parts of the world?  You seem to be somewhat of a nomad, Japan to NYC to Helsinki.  Can putting together different views of urban informatics give us more depth perception on the emergence of ubiquitous computing?

AG: There’s no question in my mind that the long-term experience of everyday life in Tokyo, New York, and now Helsinki has been an invaluable asset to me, as I imagine it would be to anybody interested in thinking or writing about the networked city. It’s given me a certain amount of parallax, you know? And that, in turn, throws a really interesting light onto how the selfsame technology can appear in substantially different guises in different social contexts.

But explaining those things – those complicated, delicate negotiations – getting them right, doing them justice, doing so in a way that doesn’t dumb anything down, and still remaining accessible? It’s a challenge, let me tell you. You want to remain approachable and humane, but you also want to explain things like different jurisprudential takes on property, or how advocates of RESTful architectures think that REST is the reason why Internet adoption spread as rapidly as it did. If you want to enjoy even one chance in a hundred of getting your message across, you’ve got to start with an understanding that those subjects are MEGO territory for most people – whether they hail from Shibuya, Shoreditch or San Pedro.

Everyware icons: Information processing dissolving into behavior (Icons inspired by Timo Arnall; design by Adam Greenfield and Nurri Kim).  [Adam notes on his Flickr page that he tweaked these icons as section headers for Everyware]

TS: Could you explain more about what you term “onto” and “ontome” and how this differs from spimes and spime wrangling?

AG: You know, I never did get to develop that idea as much as I would have liked. In my mind, at least, “ontome” referred to the totality – the global environment of addressable, queryable, scriptable objects. (An “onto,” then, would be any given such object.) I guess I was looking for words that would do two things: allow us to distinguish between the instantiation and the class, and leave us with a better word than “spime.”

TS: When you say better word than spime this is this because….

AG: Euphony, primarily. : . )

TS: When I first used the Android app,  Wikitude, on Broadway, NYC – a street I have traveled thousands and thousands of times, and it offered up new information about itself, it was definitely an “OMG this is big!” moment for me. Like the first time I clicked on a screen and Amazon sent out a book in the early nineties (something so ordinary now it seems impossible that it was exciting but I remember it was to me!). But if I understand your post here correctly, isn’t Android with compass the first easy-to-use context-aware mediator for wrangling onto, ontome and spimes?

AG: Wikitude sure looks pretty impressive, and maybe even useful. But I would never, ever call it “context-aware.”

To my mind, at least two more things would need to happen before we could comfortably think of it a “context-aware spime wrangler.” First, the buildings and other public objects around you would actually have to be spimy – they’d have to report something of their past and current state to the network. And then, some application running on your phone would somehow have to cross-reference that state information with some fact about your current state of being, and deliver you relevant information.

So, let’s take your Wikitude example. You’re walking down Broadway and you pass an unfamiliar building, and for whatever reason you want to know more about it. Your phone pings the building’s dynamic self-description, and it replies to the effect that Andy Warhol had his Factory there between 1973 and 1984. If Wikitude chooses to share this particular piece of information with you, and not some other potentially germane factoid from the building’s history, on the strength of the fact that “The Velvet Underground and Nico” was in your last.fm playlist? That would constitute some small measure of context-awareness.

But you see how hard we had to try just to come up with an example, how forced it is, how so-what. And I have to say that – short of some infinitely supple system that really could model your innermost desires ahead of real time, and present appropriate responses to them – most so-called “context-aware” applications and services are like this. They’re either trivial, or wildly overambitious.

Maybe we don’t need for things to be context-aware for them to be useful, anyway. Certainly a great many objects in the world are starting to report their own status, and many more will do so in the fullness of time. And for the most part, all you’ll need to avail yourself of them is a Web browser running on a device that knows where it is in the world. An iPhone or an Android device will work splendidly – I called the iPhone “the first real everyware device” the day it came out and I was able to play with it for the first time – and in that way, the answer to your question is “yes.” Not to be longwinded or anything. ; . )

This Object has imperceptible properties. [Adam notes on his Flickr page: “This is a custom RFID-enabled transit pass that Timo Arnall had made up for me here in Seoul. I’ve (clumsily) tagged it with the icon that Nurri and I developed to represent just such emergent situations as this in the everyware milieu – that there’s no way for anyone to understand that this object has puissance beyond the obvious simply by examining it.”]

TS: It seems that  we are just at the beginning of understanding how to create networks of spimes (e.g. Pachube). Gavin Starks of AMEE (”the world’s energy meter”) once suggested to me that AMEE could be described as a facilitator of networked spimes (everything will have an energy identity). I think you may be familiar with AMEE because you keynoted next to Gavin at Xtech 2007.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on AMEE?

When you discussed onto and ontome in this post, you noted:

“The greater part of the places and things we find in the world will be provided with the ability to speak and account for themselves. That they’ll constitute a coherent environment, an ontome of self-describing networked objects, and that we’ll find having some means of handling the information flowing off of them very useful indeed.”

Is the idea of “energy identity” that AMEE proposes an ontome? 

AG: See below for a précis of my feelings regarding environmental/sustainability initiatives, AMEE included. Uh…is AMEE an ontome? No. There’s just one ontome, and it’s coextensive with what folks now call the Internet of Things. It sounds like individual AMEE sensors would be “ontos.”

But I think the difficulty we’re having is a pretty good indicator that the terminology is more trouble than it’s worth. Sometimes a coinage, as satisfying as it may be lexically, just doesn’t work for people. These days I’m trying to get out of the neologism trade.

TS: I know when Usman Haque talks about Pachube he talks about spimes and spime wrangling. I asked Usman for his thoughts on spimes and onto/ontome and he gave me some comments.

Usman Haque: I think I had somehow missed the conversation about onto and ontome but backtracked through blog posts to piece it together (unfortunately some posts at v-2 and Studies & Observations no longer exist!). There are a couple of things that have made me uncomfortable about the word ’spime’: (a) the fact that it might be too easy to confuse with an “object”. A ’spime’ should also encompass relationships between things, and not just the “thingness” itself. (b) the sound of it (as Adam noted above). But then I am reminded of that horrible gooey interface used to plug into people in eXistenZ – it somehow seems appropriate that it should be a horrible gooey word, and not something that can disappear politely… So I like onto/ontome because it speaks to my first concern about ’spime’; but my second concern, it turns out, is not the problem I thought it was, and so onto/ontome might be… ahem… too euphonic! On the question of this thing people are calling the “Internet of Things”, I’ve tried in lectures to reframe it as the “Ecosystem of Environments”. Further, Vlad Trifa makes a delicious point that just as ‘web’ is different from ‘internet’, so too should we consider the “Web of Things” rather than the “Internet of Things”, something I agree with.

TS: It seems like this point about the difference between “the web of things” and the “internet of things” is pretty important?

AG: The parallel distinction between Web and Internet sure is! They’re two completely different things, right? And http is far from the only protocol that runs over the Internet. Now, as to what Vlad means by extending this particular distinction to the domain of networked objects, I don’t yet know, I haven’t had time to check it out. But sure, in principle I’d totally be willing to go along with the idea that there’s a meaningful distinction between two environments named that way.

No information is collected here; network dead zone

TS: I was just going over Greenfield’s principles of ubiquitous computing.  I am not sure that I see any current manifestations of ubicomp that hold to these priniciples yet?

AG: Oh, sure there are. Look at the work Tom Coates has done on Yahoo!’s Fire Eagle; look at Dopplr. And look at some of the steps other, less compassionate developers (e.g. Facebook) have been forced to take by their own users.

Look, those principles are just codifications of common sense and basic neighborly virtues, expressed in language appropriate to the domain of application. The best, smartest and most ethical developers have never needed guidelines to do the right thing. But especially inside companies and other complex organizations, people who want to implement compassion in their design of a technical system may occasionally find it useful to have some color of authority to invoke in their struggles. That’s all those five principles are there for, and I’m well satisfied that people have been able to use them that way.

Boffi’s take on the smart home- photo by Adam Greenfield

TS: In your post, More Songs About Context And Mood, you suggest a direction for interaction design that you point out is not far from Yvonne Rogers’ ideas in “Moving on from Weiser” about a switch in goal of ubicomp from Weiser’s vision of calm living (”computers appearing when needed and disappearing when not”) to engaged living – ubicomp technologies not designed to to do things for people but to help people engage more actively in things that they do (ensembles, ecologies of resources).

You also suggest interaction designers should be:

“parsimonious about the interaction design challenges our organizations do take on, with an eye toward reducing the complications of context (and the attendant opportunities for default, misunderstanding, misfire, time-wasting, and humiliation) to some manageable minimum.”

As you have pointed out, “we don’t do “smart” very well yet.” But paradoxically smart grids, smart homes, smart products etc. etc. are ubiquitously coming to market right now.

Yvonne Rogers suggests interaction designers should be:

moving from a mindset that wants to make the environment smart and proactive to one that enables people, themselves, to be smarter and proactive in their everyday and working practices

What areas might interaction designers most productively direct their attention towards?

AG: You note that things called “smart homes” and “smart products” are coming onto the market, and that sure would seem to be the case. But as to whether or not these things are genuinely smart, we don’t have anything more to go on than the marketing department’s word. I think you can already see that I tend to take language very seriously, and I really don’t uses like the “smart” here, or the “aware” in “context-aware.” They overpromise, they cannot help to set us up for failure and disappointment.

You know what I’d really like to see interaction design wrestle with? I would love to see a rigorous, no-holds-barred examination of the complexities of the self and its performance in everyday life, and how these condition our use of public space (and personal media in public space). I would love to see the development of ostensibly “social” platforms informed by some kind of reckoning with issues like vulnerability, dishonesty, the fact of power dynamics. In other words, before we deign to go about “helping” people, wouldn’t it be lovely if we understood what they perceived themselves as needing help with, and why?

I’d also pay good money to see talented interaction designers turn their efforts toward tools for the support of deliberative democracy, for the navigation of complex multivariate decision spaces, and for conflict resolution.

Locative is a mood – photo by Adam Greenfield

TS: I know you said this would take too long to explain but I couldn’t help noticing that you seem to be, perhaps, skeptical about the role of everyware can play in sustainable living and yet, it seems at the moment, in the hacker and business communities at least, the role of everyware in reducing carbon footprint/energy management etc, is the great green hope?

Will everyware enable or hinder fundamental changes at the level of culture and identity necessary to support the urgent global need – “to consume less and redefine prosperity?”

AG: I’m not skeptical about the potential of ubiquitous systems to meter energy use, and maybe even incentivize some reduction in that use – not at all. I’m simply not convinced that anything we do will make any difference.

Look, I think we really, seriously screwed the pooch on this. We have fouled the nest so thoroughly and in so many ways that I would be absolutely shocked if humanity comes out the other end of this century with any level of organization above that of clans and villages. It’s not just carbon emissions and global warming, it’s depleted soil fertility, it’s synthetic estrogens bioaccumulating in the aquatic food chain, it’s our inability to stop using antibiotics in a way that gives rise to multi-drug-resistance in microbes.

Any one of these threats in isolation would pose a challenge to our ability to collectively identify and respond to it, as it’s clear anthropogenic global warming already does. Put all of these things together, assess the total threat they pose in the light of our societies’ willingness and/or capacity to reckon with them, and I think any moderately knowledgeable and intellectually honest person has to conclude that it’s more or less “game over, man” – that sometime in the next sixty years or so a convergence of Extremely Bad Circumstances is going to put an effective end to our ability to conduct highly ordered and highly energy-intensive civilization on this planet, for something on the order of thousands of years to come.

So (sorry again, Bruce) I just don’t buy the idea that we’re going to consume our way to Ecotopia. Nor is any symbolic act of abjection on my part going to postpone the inevitable by so much as a second, nor would such a sacrifice do anything meaningful to improve anybody else’s outcomes. I’d rather live comfortably – hopefully not obscenely so – in the years we have remaining to us, use my skills as they are most valuable to people, and cherish each moment for what it uniquely offers.

Maybe some people would find that prospect morbid, or nihilistic, but I find it kind of inspiring. It becomes even more crucial that we not waste the little time we do have on broken systems, broken ways of doing things. The primary question for the designers of urban informatics under such circumstances is to design systems that underwrite autonomy, that allow people to make the best and wisest and most resonant use of whatever time they have left on the planet. And who knows? That effort may bear fruit in ways we have no way of anticipating at the moment. As it says in the Qu’ran, gorgeously: “At the end of the world, plant a tree.”

Biowall! - photo by Adam Greenfield

TS: In your post “Antisocial Networking,” you make some telling comments on the sorry state of social networking systems.

But you do also state:

Which of your concerns is social networking more central to than you might wish and why?

AG: Well, you know I’m interested in social interaction, interpersonal behavior, and in how these things play out in networked environments. There’s virtually no way for me to avoid dealing with Facebook, as wretched as I think it is.

Facebook is pretty hegemonic, in that its reach and influence extend further than the universe of people who use it. I bump up against it constantly, in a few different ways. People send me links I can’t access, because I’m not on Facebook. People spend time and energy trying to convince me that I’m really missing out, because I’m not on Facebook. The last few months, there’s even been a few people who feel justified in expressing some kind of exasperation, that they’re really pissed off…because they can’t find me on Facebook. It’s become the sovereign interface to any kind of life in public, and as a result a great many people don’t question its modes, tropes and metaphors.

So when it comes time to build some kind of situated interpersonal mediation framework, some kind of intervention in the fabric of the city, those are the tropes they reach for: accounts, profiles, friend counts, friendings and unfriendings, nudges and pokes. And as a member of a team tasked with the design of such systems, as a potential user of them, and certainly as someone exposed to the social rhetoric flowing downstream from their use, you bet these tropes become central to my concerns.

But what if we admitted that Facebook and the whole paradigm it’s built on are broken? What would things look like if we started from a more sensitive understanding of the interaction between self and others? Say, the understanding Erving Goffman was offering us as far back as the late 1950s? Then you’d understand the need for provisions like a “backstage,” a place to swap out one mask for another, the ability to present oneself differently to different communities and networks. That’s what I’m interested in exploring.

TS: Social networking systems in their current form are crude and express a very narrow bandwidth of human relationship. But already people are connecting everyware’s networked social acts to existing social networking systems. At the ITP winter show there was kickbee – networked fetal communication (and tweetmobile which used twitter as an acctuator for an ambient display) and green everyware (energy monitoring) is showing up in a number forms on existing social networks. But rather than just hooking up everyware to these existing flawed social network systems, does everyware require a reimagining of networked social interactions and social networking systems?

AG: That’s a great question, and I think the answer is clearly “yes.” It’s one thing to confine the consequences of that brokenness to the Web, and entirely another to let it bleed out into the world.

Does that mean any such reimagining is going to happen, that people will somehow refrain from plugging real-world outputs into these terribly flawed frameworks? Not a chance in hell. It’s too late to put a fence on that particular cliff. But maybe there’s still time to park an ambulance in the valley below.

“A graphic representation of a portion of the Earth’s surface, as seen from above” – photo by Adam Greenfield

TS: I saw you tweet that you met Usman Haque from Pachube recently. What do you find most interesting about Pachube and EEML? Will you design a project for Pachube to push the conversation further?  Did Usman ask you to take a role in the future of Pachube. How does Pachube enable the vision of The City Is Here For You To Use? I could go on for ever with questions,  so please do tell!

AG: OK, I should probably reiterate that my fundamental interest is in people, and in what they choose to make and do with technology, not the technology itself. For the last few years, I’ve particularly been trying to understand how people interact with each other and with the urban environments around them when those environments have been provisioned with the ability to gather, process and take action on data. And this is how I come about my interest in what Usman is up to with Pachube, because those “gather,” “process” and “take action upon” functions are generally accomplished by different systems, designed by different groups of people, at different times and to different ends. What Pachube aims to do is make the difficult and not-particularly-glamorous work of connecting these pieces a whole lot easier.

Think of it as a step toward enabling the ontome, this so-called Internet of Things we’ve been talking about, the same way basic protocols like HTTP and HTML enabled the wildfire spread of the Internet we’re familiar with. What Pachube offers is a way – a relatively straightforward and self-explanatory way – to plug any given compatible input into a similarly compatible output. So if you’ve got an air-quality sensor or a soil-pH sensor or a personal biometric monitor, you can plug it into Pachube, and someone else can grab the data those things generate and use it to drive a visualization, or the state of a physical system like a window, or whatever else they can imagine. It’s as close as anyone’s yet come to providing a plug-and-play backbone for the creation of responsive environments.

And I think it’s absolutely brilliant that it’s designed to work with Arduino and Processing, two lightweight, open-source frameworks that hobbyists and researchers (and even one or two more serious developers) around the world are already using to build things. (Arduino’s a kit of parts for doing basic physical computing – using data to drive lights, motors, and other actuators that have effect out here in the world – while Processing is a very accessible language to do dynamic and interactive graphics for screen-based media). Given both its openness and modularity, and its willingness to build on top of the very popular frameworks that already exist, I’m very excited to see what people make of and with Pachube.

I have to be honest and admit that personally, I couldn’t really care less about the environmental angle, for reasons that I went into at embarrassing length above. What I’m engaged by in Usman’s work is the idea that Pachube is helping to create an open platform for people to share data more readily. And while, no, he hasn’t explicitly asked me to take any particular stake in things, I’m always happy to lend a hand in whatever way would be most useful. I think it’s a project worth supporting.

As to how Pachube enables some of the ideas in The City Is Here, the answer has to do with the book’s call for every “public object” – every lamppost, bus shelter, commercial façade, and so forth – to support an open API. Something’s got to string all those objects together, present them to people as resources to be taken up and used, and Usman’s offered us a critical first step in that direction.

TS: Usman suggested, it might be interesting to ask you about “the tension between ‘could’ and ’should.’

Usman Haque: There are a whole bunch of things that we “can” do, technologically speaking; how do we decide what we ’should’ do, as we find ourselves in an age where we can build almost anything we can imagine…? particularly with reference to technology/privacy/security triumvirate. e.g., leaving aside that the majority of the world is *not* in the technology ‘paradise’ that we’re in, here in the west, only a small fraction of people are currently producing the technology that the rest of us use; one aim is to get people more engaged in the productive process, but, in a sense that will also mean the whole wide ecosystem of technology will be even bigger, both “good” stuff and “bad” (that qualification firmly placed on how it’s used), as opposed to now when we can focus on quite specific things that government & industry are doing and saying “that shouldn’t be happening….”. part of this relates to something adam said on his blog  in the comments (see here).” 

AG: I think the first part of answering that question has to involve figuring out who “we” are in any given situation. A “we” composed of seven Helsinki-based Linux developers would most likely arrive at very different answers than the United States Air Force Materiel Command or Samsung’s board of directors, right? So clearly, a first challenge is getting to some kind of pragmatically useful alignment between those local and occasionally even painfully parochial perspectives with what’s best for the Big We. And this challenge is only going to become more vexing as the ability to imagine, design, build and deploy informatic componentry gets more and more widely distributed. In this respect the spread of simple, modular, low-barrier-to-entry tools only makes things worse!

The primary issue that I can see here is that the inherent clock speed of technical development is so very much faster than that of any meaningful deliberative process “we” might bring to bear on it. A concomitant concern is that the sources of technical innovation and production are now so widely distributed that you can be reasonably certain that somebody, somewhere will implement any given technically feasible idea, no matter how offensive, poorly thought-out, socially disruptive or frankly stupid. A public toilet you have to SMS to unlock and use? A “Friend Finder” visualization with high locational precision and no privacy features whatsoever? A first-person rape-simulation “game”? A clunky brown iPod knockoff? Somebody thought each one of these things was worth the time, expense and effort to actually go about making it. They exist.

But I’m pretty old-fashioned in some ways, in that I think the good old Habermasian idea of the public sphere still has some life left in it. And I think it should be self-evident by now that there’s no necessary contradiction between even the newest (cough) “social media” and the formation of such a sphere. So you’ve provided a forum, and in it I get to express my belief that these things are stupid and pointless and probably should not have been built. And if somebody gets all het up about that, they can argue right back at me in comments. And eventually one or another of these positions begins to tell, in terms of regulation, legislation, and other tools of the juridical order, in terms of protest campaigns or organized boycotts or litigation…in terms of nonexistent sales!

There’s nothing new in any of this, of course, though indubitably some of the dynamics are amplified or accelerated by e-mail, Twitter and YouTube. My main contention is that informatic technology now has such deeply pervasive implications, and for things like presentation of self that previous waves of technical development barely touched, that “we” as societies need to be very much more conscious of the consequences before committing to any one course of action.

I should also point out that I do not, at all, believe that we’re “in an age where we can build almost anything we can imagine,” though I might buy “…two or three of almost anything we can imagine.” On the contrary, as I implied above, I think the global constraints on our ability to operate freely are already becoming quite evident, and will continue to grow teeth over the next few decades.

TS: Also Usman  added …

Usman Haque: ..where Adam said: in this regard, I very much *do* have a problem with “just showing up.” — something I feel that as well. but i always wonder: What happens when one appears to be mandating participation…?

AG: Look, I happen to have a strong – maybe some would say obnoxious or hyperactive or overdeveloped – sense of personal responsibility and accountability. I think one is basically committed to some measure of responsibility for the commonweal simply by surviving to the age of majority. The choice of how, particularly, to discharge that responsibility can only be yours and yours alone, but it can’t be ducked or gotten around without severe and entirely predictable consequences. So to Usman I’d respectfully suggest that I’m not the one mandating participation. Life is.

TS: It seems we have grown accustomed to striking a Faustian bargain on the internet today -  in order to share and distribute parts of our identity we are expected to give up key information to one site to store and disperse our data. I took part in a discussion with David Levine, IBM and Eben Moglen on privacy last year.  And Eben Moglen gave a succinct description of the elements of privacy and how they have been treated in the American Constitution that is, I think, relevant to unpacking some of the challenges of ubiquitious computing. Here are some extracts from that conversation where, Eben notes:

there are three elements that are mixed up in privacy and we tend not to notice which one we are talking about at any given moment.

There is secrecy – that is the data should not be readable by or understandable by anybody except me or people I designate. There is anonymity which is the data can be seen by anybody but about whom it is should be knowable only by me or people that I designate. And there is autonomy which isn’t about either secrecy or anonymity but which is about my right to live under circumstances which reinforce my sense that I am in control of my own fate. And this form of privacy is actually the one we talk about in the constitutional structure when we talk about the right to get an abortion or use birth control.

“Anonymity” is a condition that is a deep structuring characteristic of the internet as you, Lessig and others have commented on.  And frequently we are promised (questionably) “secrecy” or anonymity as privacy protection by services handling our data on the internet.  But Eben (one of the US’s great constitutional lawyers) points out that “autonomy” is a key form of privacy in the  US constitutional structure that is often compromised in situations where our digital selves may constrain our non-digital selves.

The real issue here is about the forcing of choices on us…digital aspects of identity can quickly acquire an inflexibilty that constrains our non-digital selves.

I see again and again the ways in which people now find themselves unable to make certain life choices easily because there digital self has acquired an inflexibility that constrains their non-digital self.

As we go beyond the end to end internet and we lose the structuring characteristic that has privileged anonymity: How do you see these three elements of privacy, anonymity, secrecy and most importantly autonomy, being worked out in a networked world beyond the end to end internet?

Are there any new structuring characteristics that could privilege autonomy? (which Eben indicates is linked to having a flexible identity).

AG: If we accept for the moment a definition of autonomy as a feeling of being master of one’s own fate, then absolutely yes. One thing I talk about a good deal is using ambient situational awareness to lower decision costs – that is, to lower the information costs associated with arriving at a choice presented to you, and at the same time mitigate the opportunity costs of having committed yourself to a course of action. When given some kind of real-time overview of all of the options available to you in a given time, place and context – and especially if that comes wrapped up in some kind of visualization that makes anomaly detection and edge-case analysis instantaneous gestalts, to be grasped in a single glance – your personal autonomy is tremendously enhanced. Tremendously enhanced.

But as to how this local autonomy could be deployed in Moglen’s more general terms, I don’t know, and I’m not sure anyone does. Because he’s absolutely right: Bernard Stiegler reminds us that the network constitutes a global mnemotechnics, a persistent memory store for planet Earth, and yet we’ve structured our systems of jurisprudence and our life practices and even our psyches around the idea that information about us eventually expires and leaves the world. Its failure to do so in the context of Facebook and Flickr and Twitter is clearly one of the ways in which the elaboration of our digital selves constrains our real-world behavior. Let just one picture of you grabbing a cardboard cutout’s breast or taking a bong hit leak onto the network, and see how the career options available to you shift in response.

This is what’s behind Anne Galloway’s calls for a “forgetting machine.” An everyware that did that – that massively spoofed our traces in the world, that threw up enormous clouds of winnow and chaff to give us plausible deniability about our whereabouts and so on – might give us a fighting chance.

TS: The concept of autonomy is signaled clearly in the title you have chosen for your next book, The City Is Here For You To Use, and is a theme of all your writing!  While you talk about many of the possible constraints to presentation of self and potential threats to a flexible identity that ubicomp poses, your next book signals optimism. What are your key grounds for optimism?

AG: It’s not optimism so much as hope. Whether it’s well-founded or not is not for me to decide. I guess I just trust people to make reasonably good choices, when they’re both aware of the stakes and have been presented with sound, accurate decision-support material.

Putting a fine point on it: I believe that most people don’t actually want to be dicks. We may have differing conceptions of the good, our choices may impinge on one another’s autonomy. But I think most of us, if confronted with the humanity of the Other and offered the ability to do so, would want to find some arrangement that lets everyone find some satisfaction in the world. And in its ability to assist us in signalling our needs and desires, in its potential to mediate the mutual fulfillment of same, in its promise to reduce the fear people face when confronted with the immediate necessity to make a decision on radically imperfect information, a properly-designed networked informatics could underwrite the most transformative expansions of people’s ability to determine the circumstances of their own lives.

Now that’s epochal. If that isn’t cause for hope, then I don’t know what is.

Newson Obamanook – photo by Adam Greenfield, “The fact that it was one of the happiest days of my adult life may have colored my appreciation of this space. A bit, anyway.”

TS: In your writing you seem to imply that we will not find answers to our new relationship with Everyware by transposing the internet onto things for convenience’s sake but rather like the bike messengers -  we must explore the rich and complex terrain of the city that is ours to use in a give an take relationship.  Through our own exertions we find- how “anything reasonably smooth and approximately horizontal can become a thoroughfare,”  rather than be served up the city as something for us to consume.

You seem to be suggesting our city becomes ours to use because of the way we use it in our personal journeys -like “the messenger subconsciously maps the contours of an economic geography – known sources and sinks of courier assignments, or “tags” – and a threat landscape, this latter comprised of blind corners, cable-car and metro tracks, and traffic lanes.

But bike messengers are the lone ranger of our big cities. Others surf the city in tribes that ride the roiling tides of highly networked information together. How are the “natural” gestures of these tribes, e.g. day traders, who yoked to the tracings of a hive mind, part of the city that is here for us to use?  I thought the comment @ginsudo made shortly after joining Twitter and setting up TweetDeck particularly poignant:

“watching Tweetdeck is like watching stock market of your personality ebb and flow. needs analytics to maximize inherent self-involvement.”

But, for many of us our work has more in common with the day trader than the bike messenger, and are we pretty hooked on the ever growing possibilities for “contact” and identity sharing/construction, social media has produced  (with all the”Here Comes Everybody,” C. Shirky, benefits and risks).  Early theorizing of a “calm,” invisible” ubicomp seems out of synch with the excitable, active, engaged, contact driven, “users” that are watching stock market of their personality (or personal brand) ebb and flow.

How will these excitable/exciting processes of contact and identity sharing that have captured of a pretty large segment of popular imagination (not confined to the West -services like Gupshup does much of the same curating, linking and distributing of identity that web based social media does in SMS) be/ or not be part of The City Is Here For You To Use?

AG: Let’s remember that ubicomp itself, as a discipline, has largely moved on from the Weiserian discourse of “calm technology”; Yvonne Rogers, for example, now speaks of “proactive systems for proactive people.” You can look at this as a necessary accommodation with the reality principle, which it is, or as kind of a shame – which it also happens to be, at least in my opinion. Either way, though, I don’t think anybody can credibly argue any longer that just because informatic systems pervade our lives, designers will be compelled to craft encalming interfaces to them. That notion of Mark Weiser’s was never particularly convincing, and as far as I’m concerned it’s been thoroughly refuted by the unfolding actuality of post-PC informatics.

All the available evidence, on the contrary, supports the idea that we will have to actively fight for moments of calm and reflection, as individuals and as collectivities. And not only that, as it happens, but for spaces in which we’re able to engage with the Other on neutral turf, as it were, since the logic of “social media” seems to be producing Big Sort-like effects and echo chambers. We already “maximize inherent self-involvement,” analytics or no, and the result is that the tools allowing us to become involved with anything but the self, or selves that strongly resemble it, are atrophying.

So when people complain about K-Mart and Starbucks and American Eagle Outfitters coming to Manhattan, and how it means the suburbanization of the city, I have to laugh. Because the real suburbanization is the smoothening-out of our social interaction until it only encompasses the congenial. A gated community where everyone looks and acts the same? That’s the suburbs, wherever and however it instantiates, and I don’t care how precious and edgy your tastes may be. Richard Sennett argued that what makes urbanity is precisely the quality of necessary, daily, cheek-by-jowl confrontation with a panoply of the different, and as far as I can tell he’s spot on.

We have to devise platforms that accommodate and yet buffer that confrontation. We have to create the safe(r) spaces that allow us to negotiate that difference. The alternative to doing so is creating a world of ten million autistic, utterly atomic and mutually incomprehensible tribelets, each reinforced in the illusion of its own impeccable correctness: duller than dull, except at the flashpoints between. And those become murderous. Nope. Unacceptable outcome.

Uncanny Valleys - Adam comments,”Our apartment in NYC as rendered in Google Earth, with realtime traffic, weather, daylight and shadow as well as geodetic, street grid and service overlays. Camera view is South; that’s First Avenue just left of center-screen.”

TS: Smart phone’s are now drawing everyware data into the system and the net is reaching into who YOU are, WHERE you are, WHAT you are doing, WHAT is around you, etc..

Nathan Freitas says Android: “seems to be the platform most likely to socialize the idea that sensor data could be a piece of every application.” (Android APIs for a wide range of sensor data.)

What in your view will be the most likely platform, Android or what?, to socialize the idea that sensor data could be a piece of every application?

AG: An open platform. A platform with lots of hooks and ways to plug things into it, a strong developer community, a shallow learning curve and/or an easy-to-use, high-level development environment.

I don’t have a dog in this race, mind you. I couldn’t care less who gets there first.

TS: New location based services, e.g., Xtify and ViaPlace, are offering us ways to share location data across lots of different applications (eg Xtify and a dating application like MeetMoi ). In return for services that allow us to share information, we must give up key information up to one site to store and disperse (although there are many differences in approach to our data, from the Twitter stance “show but don’t own” as opposed to Facebook’s stance – “in order to show we must have rights to it”). But the basic model of Twitter – to provide a white noise platform for people to build service on top off seems to be being transposed to location based services. Obvious questions arise like what happens to our data in a start up like MeetMoi if they go belly up?  Apparently in the dot.com bust data was the first thing to go on the auction block in bankrupcy cases.

Also, I suppose it is hardly surprising (if disappointing to me) that some of the early location based services are trying to get mindshare by picking up on the glue celebrities give to mass culture. At the last New York Tech Meetup, OMGICU demoed a rather terrifying new pre-launch location based “participatory celebrity gossip application” which seems to combine all the worst features of social media with celebrity stalking, plus a narrative to change the notion of celebrity itself by “turning D listers into A listers.”

Hopefully location based applications  will not get stuck on “stalker, stalker, stalker” apps like OMGICU .

David Oliver, Oliver Coady gave me a good question: “How does timeliness and location-independence change our ideas of social media?

And how can we design new architectures that can reinforce the sense that I am in control of my own fate?

AG: But we’ve already come so far in terms of turning D-listers into A-listers! On a daily basis, I’m exposed to almost as many cues insisting I attend to nonentities and dullards like Robert Scoble as those insisting I attend to nonentities like Madonna or Thomas Friedman. It’s gotten ridiculous.

Now, how does timeliness and location change our ideas of social media? It makes them dangerous!

Look, even a proud Z-lister like myself – I’m a public person only in the most debased and degraded meaning of that word – I’ve had experiences that shook me up, like having someone approach me while I was quietly hanging out in the back of St. Mark’s Books, and wanting to strike up a conversation based on some talk they’d seen me give a year or so previously. Now part of learning to deal with this kind of thing is shrugging it off, being grateful and flattered that someone thinks you’re interesting enough to single out for that kind of attention, or chalking this up to Sennett’s observation about the constitution of urbanity. Or doing all three at once.

But let’s remember that at the end of the day, a “social network” is nothing but a group of arbitrarily distributed human beings joined by a communications channel, and those people have eyes and ears. The degree to which they recognize some shared interest gives them significance filters. If social capital accrues to those in the network who are able to claim some connection with a “celebrity,” no matter how fleeting, then such connections are going to be mobilized, made explicit. And now say the network has been provided with the tools allowing it to plot the appearances of those putative celebrities in space and time, and what do you get? You get a circumstance in which it is very, very difficult to maintain any membrane between the private self and the world, for anyone who’s even remotely a public figure, whether they particularly want to be a public figure or not. You get network effects that amplify those locational traces, and further undermine any possibility of anonymity, even anonymity-by-suspension-of-interrogative-awareness (which is a clumsy way of referring to that blasé matter-of-factness around famous people that most big-city folks eventually develop).

Am I letting myself off the hook? Not in the slightest. I passed Terence Stamp on the street not so long ago, and you bet I Twittered it. My only excuse was that I Twittered it to a closed loop of no more than a few dozen people. But then, who knows what those few dozen people will turn around and do with that fact, on the open networks to which they in turn belong? And that, too, is my responsibility.

I’m not sure there’s anything to be done about any of this but cultivate our own urbanity, learn to say “so what” when we happen to find ourselves next to Philip Seymour Hoffman in the line at Whole Foods.

TS: Zittrain in The Future of the Internet: And How To Stop It, foregrounds “generativity” and a generative devices (as opposed to appliances) as the most fortuitous starting point for: “tools to bring about social systems to match the power of the technical one.”

Are appliances a threat to the city that is here for you to use? How can generativity ensure The City Is Here For You To Use as Zittrain argues it has ensured, even if imperfectly, that the internet has been here for us to use?

AG: You know, I haven’t read the book, I’ve only heard him give the talk, so it’s certainly possible there’s a subtlety to the argument that I’m missing. But I’m not sure Jonathan isn’t simply wrong about this notion of generativity. Not that the concern is misplaced, but that he’s insufficiently trustful in human agency. Is a car “generative,” by his definition? Certainly not. And yet look at all the cultural production that goes on around “the car,” look at all the assemblages people make with cars, from Beach Boys songs to ghost riding the whip, from J.G. Ballard novels and Herbie the Love Bug to Tokyo Drift.

Or probably more to his point: look at the Japanese mobile-phone market – seemingly one of the most locked-down and unpropitious circumstances imaginable for the production of culture, in technical terms and Zittrain’s both. And yet fully 50% of the bestselling books in Japan last year were written on mobile phones. Not read, which would already be impressive enough (if “impressive” is indeed the word): written. What does that imply for his argument?

So, yes, I think there are grounds for concern in that we don’t allow technologies and frameworks to appear that unduly limit the scope of human creativity. Code is still law. But I also think people are quite amply able to reach into what would appear to be the least propitious technologies and tell their own stories with same.

TS: One aspect of Everyware that seems in need of some visionary yoga is the how we will relate to pixels anywhere.

In Urban Computing and its Discontents you mention how our technological trajectories often make it seem as if we seem to get fixated on particular scenes in movies, e.g., Minority Report. You point out that so many ambient informatics projects seem simply “to expand the reach of signage and advertising in dense urban spaces….as if we’ve become transfixed by the scene from Minority Report where heterosexual cop John Anderton is on the run from his colleagues.”

Ideas from the Minority Report continue to hold sway in designs as we saw in the recent MIT demo of SixthSense at TED.

But visions of augmented reality were pretty high profile in this years Super Bowl commercials this year (including a highly anthropomorphic imagining of ubicomp that was a kind of WoW mashup with a Pixar movie).

What recent movies/commercials have produced scenes mostly likely to be are new fixation fodder for ubicomp and why?

AG: I don’t think I’m qualified to answer that, actually. We don’t have a TV, so I don’t see much in the way of commercials, and most of the films I wind up seeing are the kind that play at Anthology Film Archives. What I can say is that science fiction is currently suffering in toto from an inability or disinclination to posit future scenarios that are any weirder or more visionary than those emerging from other sectors of the culture. And that would be fine, except sf has traditionally been the place where we wrestled with the imaginary.

We need that set of tools, badly. If for no other reason than something I glean from personal experience: essentially my entire professional career has simply been the leveraging of ideas and concepts I originally wrestled with in the encounter with William Gibson and Bruce Sterling when I was 16. Today’s visionary sf means tomorrow’s halfway-competent generalist.

Nurri Kim in the waiting zone – photo by Adam Greenfield

TS: My AR friend, Robert Rice, who is working on a markerless AR platform, notes that data visualization is one of the critical elements of AR in terms of “make or break.” Robert says, “even with the ultimate in ubiquitious data from everything, without good data vis it will all be useless”

Also something Cory Doctorow said to me last year has really stuck in my mind. When I asked him what happens when Cyberspace everts, he talked about a reverse surveillance society:

Cory: Well this is like Spook Country the new Gibson novel – What happens when cyber space everts – hmmm? I’m not sure I have anything very pithy to say on that EXCEPT………
Apart from all the traditional kind of overlay reality stuff, if there is one thing I am actually interested seeing from a virtual world migrating to the real world its instrumentation.
I think lot of things that are characteristic of very successful internet based business is that they are extremely finally instrumented so like Amazon knows in aggregate on a second by second basis how their site is being used by people and they can twiddle the dials in real time.

As users of the world we have very little access to that kind of instrumentation. We don’t even know how the tube is running. The tube knows how the tube is running and we kinda of don’t. I would be really interested in seeing that. You’ve seen Joi Ito’s WoW interface right. Have you seen it …

Joi Ito’s WoW interface seems a long way from the calm, invisible imaginings for ubicomp by early ubicomp visionaries?

AG: Well, he’s got a particular kind of neural wiring. And there’s not a thing that’s wrong with that, except that I’d never, ever want to assert that what’s appropriate for Joi Ito necessarily is or should be understood to be appropriate for anybody else. The point of calling for open systems and frameworks is to allow us maximum scope of diversity in the ways we choose to interface with the world’s richness and complexity.

TS: What new imaginings/possibilites do you see when pixels anywhere are linked to everyware?

AG: Product placement. Commercial insertions and injections, mostly.

Beyond that: one of the places where Mark Weiser logic breaks down is in thinking that the platforms we use now disappear from the world just because ubiquitous computing’s arrived. We’ve still got radio, for example – OK, now it’s satellite radio and streaming Internet feeds, but the interaction metaphor isn’t any different. By the same token, we’re still going to be using reasonably conventional-looking laptops and desktop keyboard/display combos for awhile yet. The form factor is pretty well optimized for the delivery of a certain class of services, it’s a convenient and well-assimilated interaction vocabulary, none of that’s going away just yet. And the same goes for billboards and “TV” screens.

But all of those things become entirely different propositions in everyware world: more open, more modular, ever more conceived of as network resources with particular input and output affordances. We already see some signs of this with Microsoft’s recent “Social Desktop” prototype – which, mind you, is a very bad idea as it currently stands, especially as implemented on something with the kind of security record that Windows enjoys – and we’ll be seeing many more.

If every display in the world has an IP address and a self-descriptor indicating what kind of protocols it’s capable of handling, then you begin to get into some really interesting and thorny territory. The first things to go away, off the top of my head, are screens for a certain class of mobile device – why power a screen off your battery when you can push the data to a nearby display that’s much bigger, much brighter, much more social? – and conventional projectors.

Then we get into some very interesting issues around large, public interactive displays – who “drives” the display, and so forth. But here again, we’ll have to fight to keep these things sane. It’s past time for a public debate around these issues, because they’re unquestionably going to condition the everyday experience of walking down the street in most of our cities. And that’s difficult to do when times are hard and people have more pressing concerns on their mind.

Citywarecrash – photo by Adam Greenfield, “An occupational hazard for urban screens.”

TS: I know in Everyware you mentioned that architects have play an important visionary role in imagining ubicomp and I know you work closely with your wife, artist Nurri Kim.  Robert Rice asked me the following question – which I will in turn ask you: “In terms of augmented reality do you think virtual worlds and virtual reality experts / leaders / are good pioneers for thought and guidance on AR? Or, should we look for new leaders, or where are new leaders emerging? Is the tech similar enough for the old crowd to be useful or is it different enough to be a disadvantage coming from the old models?.”

AG: I should make it clear that I have absolutely no interest in virtual worlds or virtual reality. The so-called virtual worlds I’ve experienced seem sad and really rather tatty – eversions of the most predictable adolescent fantasies of unlimited power, reinscriptions of all the usual politics – and completely lacking in just about everything that makes life resonant, meaningful and awe-inspiring. And anyway, to paraphrase J.G. Ballard, ordinary, everyday life is now far more vividly and fantastically weird than anything you’ll see in Second Life. I mean, Garry Kasparov was heckled by a radio-control dildocopter, Joe the Plumber’s off to Gaza as a war correspondent, a sea of dust-covered BMWs waits in the long-term parking lot at Dubai International for owners who are never, ever coming back.

Look to virtual worlds for insight into the hard work of negotiating the actual, with its physics, its entropy, its suffering, with all its constraints? Oh my goodness gracious, no.
And look to leaders? Never. Leaders are for followers, and who wants to be that? I don’t mean you can’t take inspiration and insight from the work of others – not at all – but use your own imagination, take some personal risk, do your own damn work.

Now, having said that. This opposition of virtual and physical worlds strikes me as increasingly a false one, as it does many people. The hard-and-fast distinction between “the real world” and virtual environments make less and less sense, as righteously satisfying as making it can sometimes seem. There may be attributes of this physical environment that are impossible to see or make use of without access to the networked overlay, and those attributes may in time come to constitute the primary wellsprings of a given place’s meaning. And if you’re offering me some insight that I think could be of utility in resolving the challenge of making this overlay accessible to all, equally, I’ll gladly accept it, no matter what domain or disciplinary background you claim as your own.

Am I aware of any such insight coming out of virtual worlds? No. As Bryan Boyer notes, “If you want to start talking about some serious cross-disciplinary pollination then you better take both sides of that disciplinary divide seriously. When your ubi- runs into my building with its boring HVAC, mundane load paths, typical finished floors, plain old foundations, etc., the transformative powers of comp are bracketed pretty seriously by the realities of the physical world.”

The Cloud Gate has landed – photo by Adam Greenfield, “Tell me this doesn’t look *just* like the descriptions of “stasis fields” in 70s SF. In fact, the picture looks practically CGId to me.”

TS: Some people thought the whole world would have been plastered with RFID by now.  But before that has happened markerless AR seems to be in our sights.

If I understand it correctly marker versus markerless AR has quite different implications for how the cyberspace of ubicomp evolves?  I asked Robert Rice (he is developing a markerless AR platform) to explain some of the differences.  He said:

Robert also pointed out to me that markerless AR may prove even more problematic for privacy:

Do you have any thoughts about the different roles that markerless versus marker techinologies will play in AR and Ubicomp?

AG: I need to admit that I’ve never until this moment heard the phrase “markerless AR,” although I’d think it’s more or less self-explanatory to anyone who’s been following this stuff. Let me make the distinction explicit, shall I, for anyone who hasn’t been? And you or Robert can correct me if I’ve gotten it wrong.

Augmented reality means that I have some mediating artifact that provides me with a visual overlay on the world. This could be a phone, it could be a windshield, it could be a pair of glasses or contact lenses, doesn’t matter. And you’re going to use that overlay to superimpose some order of information about the world and the objects in it onto the things that enter my field of vision – onto what I see. So far, so good: that’s AR 101.

Now where does that information come from?

What you’re calling marker-based AR implies that there’s some reasonably strong relationship between the information superimposed over a given object, and the object itself. That object is an onto, a spime, it’s been provided with a passive RFID tag or an active transmitter. And it’s radiating information about itself that I’m grabbing, perhaps cross-referencing against other sources of information, and superimposing over the field of vision. Fine and dandy.

But there’s another way of achieving the same end, right? Instead of looking at a suit jacket on a rack and having its onboard tag tell you directly that it’s a Helmut Lang, style number such-and-such from men’s Spring/Summer collection 2011, Size 42 Regular in Color Gunmetal, produced at Joint Venture Factory #4 in Cholon City, Vietnam, and packed for shipment on September 3, 2010, you’re going to run some kind of pattern-matching query on it. And without the necessity of that object being tagged physically in any way, you’re going to have access to information about it. But this set of information isn’t, necessarily, what the object itself, or its creators or merchandisers, want you to know about it; it could be derived from online discussion fora or review sites, or blog posts, or whatever. All there needs to be is a lookup table, essentially, that tells you where to find information about any object in the field of vision whose identity can be established.

Do I have that right? And if I do, then as I understand it, the distinction is primarily a pragmatic one: it’s just easier to get to an augmented world, by far, if we don’t actually have to go to all the trouble of tagging everything in the world with its own dedicated RF transponder. Easier, and cheaper, and quicker, and more environmentally sound besides, because the relevant traffic is in bits not atoms.

Unless I’ve missed something, you don’t, then, get the distinction between classes of objects and instances of same. Sometimes, when there’s a 1:1 correlation between the two, that’s not going to matter: I’m walking down the street in Madrid, and my glasses or whatever can easily recognize that this building is the Caixa Forum. There’s only one of it, and I can get a positive ID via pattern recognition. But for some edge cases – twins and lookalikes, mostly – the same thing is generally true of people.

But other times it will matter. Is this specific watch a real, $10,000 Panerai or a $50 Kowloon fakery? How has this black 1998 Honda Civic over here differ from this other one in terms of its use and maintenance history? Does this O-ring gasket need to be replaced? I don’t see how you extract data from specific instances of things without the necessary sensor instrumentation, transmitter, etc., being coextensive with the object in question or very closely colocated with it over time – in the terminology you’re using, a “marker.”

So using these terms, I’d say that “markerless” AR comes first, is relatively easy to deploy, and generates not-insignificant value. But – again, unless I’m missing something – there are some things that it won’t ever be able to do, and for those things you need some provision for self-identification and self-location.

Ultimately I think it’s a distinction without a difference, from the user’s point of view. People will care much more about the source of whatever information shows up on their overlay than the precise technical means used to get it there.

The surrender to cynicism – photo by Adam Greenfield

TS: Much early thinking around ubicomp seems to have come from visionary architects and engineers but recently I was at the O’Reilly Tools of Change for Publishing Conference (publishing in the Digital Age) and I met several book futurists.  It struck me how ubicomp from the perspective of the book created some interesting questions for how particular material cultures will shape and be shaped by Ubicomp differently.

I noted, Google seemed well down the path to holy grail “converting images to original intent XML.” And Peter Brantley talked about machine parsed books.

At TOC there were many suggestions about how books might manifest as everyware. (Although it did not seem that many people felt books had a special relationship to time and history and would not vanish as one of the great metaphors of calm and solitary enjoyment in our culture soon).  Books as everyware will, it seems, include, amongst other things:

books that read books

books that read context

context that reads books

books that read me

books linked to mobility – timeliness and location independence

books that are not books

books becoming babble

books bubbling up from the babble

There is an Institute of the Future of the Book. Will all former material cultures require their own institutes of the future to guide their cultures into everyware?  Do you think books transition into everyware is especially significant and why?

AG: But all objects have a relationship to time and history, no?

TS: Yes! What I meant to convey really was the idea that many people expressed at TOC that books had a privileged relationship to knowledge in our culture that was valuable and related to some aspects of their current form, and that books as everyware, e.g. machine parsed books, and more sociallly generated forms would not replace that entirely.

AG: Gotcha. Well, I certainly agree that books constitute an interesting category unto themselves – I’ve held onto my physical books, and in fact still spend a fortune buying new ones, where I stopped buying music on discs a long, long time ago. But I don’t think this state of affairs can or should obtain forever.

Lately there’s been a good amount of thought around the notion of “unbooks,” which I regard as a container for long-form ideas appropriate to an internetworked age. By building on some of the tropes of software development, mostly having to do with version control, open-endedness and an explicit role for the “user” community, unbooks can usefully harness the dynamic and responsive nature of discourse on the Web. At the same time, you preserve the things books are really good at: coherence, authorial voice and intent.

The important part is in acknowledging two points which have usually been understood as contradictory, but which are actually nothing of the sort: firstly, that the expression of ideas in written form has something to learn from the practices that have evolved around the collaborative creation of dynamic, digital documents over the half-century-long history of software; and secondly, that certain ideas require elaboration in the reasonably strongly-bounded form we know as a “book,” and cannot meaningfully be shared otherwise. A third point, concomitant to the second, is that despite recent technical advances, screen-based media still cannot, and may not ever fully be able to, deliver the extratextual cues and phenomenological traces that support, inform and extend the meaning of written documents.

The unbook lets you have your cake and eat it too. So, for example, when we publish The City Is Here, one of its manifestations will be a static, physical document – and hopefully, if we do our jobs well, a very nice one indeed. But even before that, you’ll be able to download a Creative Commons-licensed PDF of every numbered version of the manuscript, from zero onward. Bottom line: you buy the book if, and only if, you want the object. The ideas are free.

TS: David Brin sees two futures:1) the government watches everybody, and 2) everybody watches everybody (the latter he calls “sousveillance”).  My friend Ben Goertzel says “hooking AI up to a massive datastore fed by ubicomp is the first step toward sousveillance?” What do you think the role of AI in ubicomp will be?  Is it worth thinking about what is the first important “AI meets AR” app is?

AG: I don’t believe that artificial intelligence as the term is generally understood – which is to say, a self-aware, general-purpose intelligence of human capacity or greater – is likely to appear within my lifetime, or for a comfortably long time thereafter.

Having said that, your friend Ben seems to be making the titanic (and enormously difficult to justify) assumption that a self-aware artificial intelligence would share any perspectives, goals, priorities or values whatsoever with the human species, let alone with that fraction of the human species that could use a little help in countering watchfulness from above. “Hooking [an] AI up to a massive datastore fed by ubicomp” sounds to me more like the first step toward enslavement…if not outright digestion.

Sousveillance - the term is Steve Mann’s, originally – doesn’t imply “everybody watching everybody” to me, anyway, so much as a consciously political act of turning infrastructures of observation and control back on those specific institutions most used to employing same toward their own prerogatives. Think Rodney King, think Oscar Grant.

TS: I have one last question from Usman Haque.

Usman Haque: insofar as a lot of what adam describes as desirable could be said to constitute pretty radical socio-political change (or perhaps… “adjustment”) i would be really interested to know how his current work @ nokia is or isn’t able to gel with the themes of his writing. in some senses there’s quite an undercurrent strongly challenging corporate practices, in other senses it could be seen as gentle nudges. how does adam see it? and how about the nokia behemoth? does he have success nudging nokia towards the kind of world he would like to see (i imagine the answer is ‘yes’ otherwise he wouldn’t be doing it…) but i’d love to know more about the limits/challenges.

AG: I am told that Henry Kissinger, on his first trip to China in 1971, asked Zhou Enlai whether he thought the French Revolution had or had not advanced the cause of human freedom.
Zhou thought for a moment, pursed his lips, and replied, “It is too soon to tell.”

Wilfred Pinfold, Director, Extreme Scale Programs for Intel, and the Supercomputing Conference general chair, is working with some Intel colleagues to make a project called ScienceSim the centerpiece of a special workshop event at the SC09 conference (see Supercomputing Conference, an ACM and IEEE Computer society sponsored event).

Recently, I interviewed Wilf Pinfold (see interview below), Mic Bowman (also see my previous interview here), and John A. Hengeveld (see interview below). I wanted to find out what are the underlying goals of this SC conference program?  Why are members of the SC community being encouraged to participate with the ScienceSim environment? What projects are beginning to emerge? And, what are Intel’s goals in giving infrastructure support to further the conversation between high performance computing and collaborative virtual worlds?

The vision of creating new ways to collaborate and interact with big data does seem to be one of the more significant steps we can take at a time when we find many of our most complex systems roiling and threatening total collapse. As Tim O’Reilly has pointed out – from financial markets to the climate, the complex systems we depend on for our survival seem to be reaching their limits.

But,  how can we get from the place we are now – see this example of an n-body simulation in OpenSim, to the point where we can collaboratively steer from our visualizations big data simulations of climate change, financial markets, or the depths of the universe.  The picture opening this post is a:

Frame from a 3D simulation of gravitational waves produced by merging black holes, representing the largest astrophysical calculation ever performed on a NASA supercomputer. The honeycomb structures are the contours of the strong gravitational field near the black holes. Credit: C. Henze, NASA

Wilf Pinfold explained to me part of the reason to begin a dialogue on collaborative visualization at SC ’09 is that super computing communities (that tend to be highly skilled and visionary) have played key roles in internet development in the past. Wilf pointed out,  key browser technology  developed out of these communities in the early days of the internet – see this wikipedia entry that gives  a background on the role of NCSA (National Center for Supercomputer Applications).

The hope is, while there are many obstacles to overcome, the super computing community has both the skills and motivation to find solutions to creating collaborative environments capable of the kind of rapid data movement that scientific/big data visualization needs. Solving the problems of realtime collaborative interaction with big data will  have many ramifications for the way we understand virtual reality, the metaverse, virtual worlds (all these terms are becoming increasingly inadequate for cyberspace in the age of ubiquitous computing, an argument I will make in another post!).

There have already been a number of blogs on ScienceSim (see Virtual World News, New World Notes, Vint Falken, and Daneel Ariantho). There have also been Intel blogs – see this post by John A. Hengeveld (a senior business strategist working with Intel planners and researchers to accelerate the adoption of Immersive Connected Experiences). And Intel CTO Justin Rattner’s post announcing the project this November.

But to blow my own horn a little, I think i was the first to blog the encounter between OpenSim and Supercomputing (an encounter I to some degree provoked by making the introductions) see this post.  So I have been following the ScienceSim initiative with great interest.

Very shortly after N-Body astrophysicicsts Piet Hut and Jun Makino, creators of  – GRAPE (an acronym for “gravity pipeline” and an intended pun on the Apple line of computers) – a super computer that will become one of the fastest super computers in the world (again), met Genkii – a Tokyo based strategic company working with OpenSim, the first N-body simulation appeared in OpenSim.  And in a matter of weeks  this video went up on YouTube – the result of a collaboration between MICA and Genkii.  But the nirvana of being able to create visualizations using real time data from super computers that can be steered from a collaborative environment is still a ways off.

Super computing communities tend to be geographically very dispersed and researchers often find themselves far from simulation facilities so there is both the motivation and skills to pioneer new tools for collaborative visualization. I know that astrophysicists certainly see their value (Piet Hut has some profound ideas on this). Astrophysicist Piet Hut and others  (see here for more) have been pioneering the use of VWs for collaboration.  There are two Virtual World organizations, both founded by Piet Hut and collaborators, that are currently exploring the use of OpenSim for scientific visualizations.  One is specifically aimed at astrophysics, MICA, the Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics, and the other is aimed broadly at interdisciplinary collaborations in and beyond science, Kira, a 12-year old organization focused on `science in context’.  As of last week, there are two weekly workshops sponsored jointly by Kira and MICA that explore the use of OpenSim, ScienceSim, and other virtual worlds.  One of them is “Stellar Dynamics in a Virtual Universe Workshop” and the other is “ReLaM: Relocatable Laboratories in the Metaverse.”

MICA was founded two years ago by Piet Hut within the virtual world of Qwaq Forums (see the paper “Virtual Laboratories and Virtual Worlds”). The Kira Institute is much older: it was founded in 1997.  Later this month, on February 24, Kira will celebrate its 12th anniversary with a presentation of talks, a panel discussion, and a series of workshops.  See the Kira Calendar for the main event, and the Kira Japan branch for a special mixed RL/SL event in Tokyo.  During both events, Junichi Ushiba will give a talk about his research in which he let paralyzed patients steer avatars using only brain waves.

Other early adopters of ScienceSim include Tom Murphy, who teaches computer science at a Contra Costa College. Prior to teaching, Tom spent 35+ years working for supercomputer manufacturers. Tom said:

it is very natural for me to find significantly new ways to visualize and interact with scientific mathematical models via ScienceSim and the OpenSim software behind it. ScienceSim also allows us to interact with each other and teach students in new ways.

Also Charlie Peck, chair of the SC09 Education Program, (his day job is teaching computer science at Earlham College in Richmond, IN), is working with Wilf Pinfold, Tom Murphy and others “to explore how 3D Internet/metaverse technology can be used to support science education and outreach.”

Cristina Videira Lopes, University of Irvine, is doing very interesting work  on road and pedestrian traffic simulations. Crista is also the creator of hypergrid in OpenSim,

People Meet People Meet Data: A Conversation With Mic Bowman

Screenshot of ScienceSim from Daneel Ariantho

Tish: How does this work on ScienceSim  fit into a wider dialogue on linked data? Where people meet people meet data, and where data meets data?

Mic: Yeah… that’s hard by the way.  Open integration of data (and more interestingly the functions on data) is very hard if it comes from multiple, independent sources.

That’s the people part. For example, if Crista can build a model of the UCI campus somebody else builds an accurate model of several cars and another expert provides the simulation that computes the pollution generated by those cars in that environment…its bringing people together to solve real problems, no matter how far apart physically.

Tish: You mention three different simulations here. Could you explain why it is difficult to integrate data from multiple sources?

Mic: integrating data from multiple sources has always been one of understanding & interpreting both the syntax & semantics of the data. Even relatively simple things like multiple date formats require explicit translation. More complex formats, like the many formats data is represented for urban planning, are barely computable independently let alone in conjunction with data from other sources (each with its own representation for data). Its often the expertise & the collaboration of bringing people (and their bag of tools) together that solves these problems.

Tish: and in this case the bag of tools is high performance modeling..?

Mic: high performance modeling, rich visualizations and data. Its the three that matter… data, function, and interface.

Tish: Some people have a very hard time wrapping their head aropund the fact that anything that seems related to Second Life can do this.  Can you explain more about the difference between SL and OpenSim?

Mic: OpenSim potentially improves data & function because it can be extended through region modules. Region modules hook directly into the simulator to provide additional functionality. For example, a region module could be implemented to drive the behavior of objects in a virtual world according based on a protein folding model.

We need to work on additional viewer capabilities to address the user interface limitations.

Tish: Yes Rob Smart’s (IBM) recent data integrations with OpenSim (see here) are impressive. Re viewers one of the biggest objections to virtual worlds is the mouse pushing and pc tied interface.

Mic: There are great opportunities for improving the interface

Tish: Yes I really like where the Andy Piper’s experiments with Haptic Interfaces for OpenSim lead, see Haptic Fantastic! And I think that we will have cyberspace ubiquitous in our environment, not just stuck on a pc screen, sooner than we think.

Mic: Mic’s opinion (not Intel): until we get souped up sunglasses with HD screens embedded (or writing directly into the eye) there will always be a role for the PC/Console/TV).  But, it isn’t about the device… its about the services projected through the device… sometimes you’ll want a very rich experience… sometimes you’ll want an experience NOW wherever you are.

Tish: I think people are only just realizing that VWs will be a now and wherever you are experience very soon.

Mic: That’s the critical observation the virtual world is not an application you run… its a “place”… and you interact with it where you are or maybe interact through it. Speaking for Intel… it is the spectrum of experiences that are critical to support.

Interview with Wilfred Pinfold

Picture from National Science Foundation – “Climate Computer Modeling Heats Up.”

Tish Shute: I know your day job for Intel is in High Performance computing. Could you explain to me a little bit more about what you are working on in this regard – a mini state of play for high performance computing from your perspective?

Wilfred Pinfold: My title is Director, Extreme Scale Programs. This program drives a research agenda that will put in place the technologies required to make an Exa (10^18) scale systems by 2015. The current generation of high performance computers are Peta (10^15) scale so this is a 1000x increase in performance and this increase will require significant improvements in power efficiency, reliability, scalability and new techniques for dealing with locality and parallelism.

Tish: The nirvana in terms of linking supercomputers to the collaborative spaces of immersive virtual worlds is to be able to create visualizations using real time data from super computers in collaborative VW environments, and ultimately for researchers to be able to collaborate and steer their simulations from their visualizations.  Where are we at now in terms of scientific data visualization in VWs? And what are the current obstacles to using realtime data from super computers?

Wilf: Being able to steer a simulation from a visualization requires both a visualization interface that allows interaction and a simulation that operates at a speed that is responsive in interactive timeframes. For example a weather model that predicts the path of a hurricane would need to operate at something close to 1000x real time. This would run through a day in ~1.5 minutes allowing an operator to run the simulation over several days multiple times with different parameters in a single sitting to understand the likelyhood of certain outcomes?

Tish: Do you see a networked online collaborative virtual world being capable of being a visualization interface that allows meaningful interaction with the hurricane scenario you describe in the near future (next 6 to 18 months)?

Wilf: I was using the hurricane example to explain the usage model not an imminent capability. Hurricane Simulation: Accurate hurricane simulations require multiscale models able to resolve the global forces working on the storm as well as the microforces that define precipitation. We can build useful weather models today that run faster than real time (anything slower is not useful for prediction) but we are a long way from the ideal.
Visualization: There are excellent visualizations of weather systems but I have not yet seen a virtual world that can track a simulation and allow the scientist or team of scientists to see what is going on at both the macro scale and zoom in to see precipitation conditions. Today’s supercomputers are much better at this than they were a few years ago but they are a long way from ideal.

Tish: Open Source Virtual World technologies are pretty diverse in their approaches, Croquet, Sun’s Wonderland and OpenSim are quite different and have different strengths and weaknesses. As you have become more familiar with OpenSim, what have you found about the technology that particularly lends itself to this project – ScienceSim (Mic mentioned Crista’s hypergrid code for example, modularity is another feature often cited).

Wilf: We have found OpenSim’s client server model is well suited to the visualization model and the ability to put the server next to the supercomputer producing the visualization data is critical. We are however very interested in other environments and encourage papers, demonstrations and research on any of these platforms at the conference.

Interview with John A. Hengeveld

Tish Shute: OpenSim’s dependence on Second Life based viewers is sometimes cited as a limitation, and sometimes as a strength. What are your views on this?  What would a strong open viewer project directed at science applications bring to the picture?

John Hengeveld: There may be more than one strong open viewer project required for opensim compatible experiences.  The strength of the Hippo viewer, for example, is availability and its weakness is the size of the client.  We would love a ubiquitous, client.. that runs on all platforms, but each hardware platform brings tradeoff and restrictions of its own.  Today, probably all of the folks innovating in the space can deal with the size of a very fat rich client ap.. they have big computers anyway.  But as we get into more 3D entertainment and augmented reality applications.. virtual mall, collaboration apps.. etc… there is a great deal of room to optimize for the specific experience.  Balancing visual experience with bandwidth and compute performance available .. tying into standard browsers, etc… people have done some of this work.. and I think all of it adds to the usefulness of these worlds.

Tish: Integrating highend game engines and OpenSim opens up new possibilities. But licensing issues have been an obstacle. Could a project like ScienceSim get a non-commercial license on a high end game engine?  What would that bring to the picture?

John: Anything is possible. Game engines can give a great deal of design power for high value experiences, but the programming of these experiences must be simplified.  Mainstream adoption in enterprise can’t be premised on the programming model of studio games… that’s a big step to get over I think.  There are very interesting possibilities when we take that step tho.  Simulation, training, agents of various types (I just finished watching “The Matrix” for like the billionth time… I think agents are cool…)

Tish: Where does Larabee fit into the picture of ScienceSim and next generation virtual worlds?

John: We are all very excited about the Larrabee architecture and its application to work loads like next generation virtual worlds, both in the client.. delivering immersive reality.. and someday potentially in a distributed architecture simulating and producing these worlds.  For Intel CVC is an all play.  Atom will be used in strong mobile clients.  Core will be used in Enterprise PCs, Laptops and Desktops   Xeon will be simulating these environments and handling the data communication, and Whatever we brand Larrabee… will be enabling compelling visual experiences. Oh.. and our software products (Havoc, tools and others) will be building blocks in knitting all this together.  Larrabee is a part, but there are a lot of other pieces in our vision…

Tish: If the kind of rapid data movement that scientific visualization needs is achieved in virtual worlds, this will be quite a game changer for business applications of VWs too. Also it will blurr the boundaries between what we call virtual worlds and mirror worlds. It seems to me this kind of rapid data movement is a vital step towards what Mic described to me as Intel’s vision of CVC: “Connected Visual Computing is the union of three application domains: mmog, metaverse, and paraverse (or augmented reality).” It almost seems to me that if you achieve your goals for ScienceSim you will change how we think about virtual worlds in general? What do you think?

John: I certainly hope so..  Part of our goal is to stimulate innovation in the technology and usage models that will enable broad mainstream adoption of CVC based applications (what we categorize as immersive connected experiences).   By tackling the scientific visualization problem, we hope to find the key technology barriers and encourage the ecosystem to solve them.

Tish: To me virtual worlds and augmented reality should be complimentary and connected experiences. How do you see this connection evolving?

John: We certainly see them as related.  In the long term, there are many common building blocks.. but they aren’t united per se.  Its about the user experience, and in some usages these two are almost identical…  in some.. they don’t look or feel at all alike… the viewer is distinct by a lot.  Our approach is to enable building blocks that people can quickly build out usages that are robust.

Tish: What is Intel’s vision for ubiquitous mobile computing and an internet of objects?  How can high performance computing be an enabler for this vision?

John: Mobile computing is a central part of our life, culture and community in economically enabled economies.  It feeds the data of our decisions, it connects us to entertainment, it is the access point to our soapboxes, pulpits, economy and families.  This creates a massive increase in data, a massive increase in interactions, transactions and visualizations.  While many HPC applications will be behind the scenes (finance, health, energy, visual analytics and others), HPC will emerge as a part of a scale solution to serving some of this increase… particularly that part where interactions and visualizations are complex or compelling.. or where scale enables the usage per se .. I talked about my love of agents earlier.. and some of that comes in here.  Compute working behind the scenes to help managed the data complexity, manage some of the base interactions between ourselves and technology.  The other thing we talk internally about the “Hannah Montana usage” where millions of people use their mobile devices to access and participate (using the sensors in the device) with an interactive live concert.  When Mylie hears the applause of a virtual interactive audience… and can scream back at them.. we’re there.  Access to ubiquitous compute will be mobile, and interactive experiences will be complex.. and HPC can help make that real.  Watch out for the mental trap that HPC is always high end super compute clusters tho… the “mainstream HPC”.. smaller clusters… high threads, etc… will play a key part in all of this as well.

Interesting that John ended on this point as this just came in from Wired.

Google Street View Hacking

This Google Street View Hack (via @timoreilly) will get my nomination for a Hacking the World Award this year, if there is such an award.

A parade (the screenshot opening this post), a marathon, a mad-scientists laboratory, a sword fight, and more (see The Infonaut Blog) were staged all along the route of the Google Street View truck by artists Robin Hewlett and Ben Kinsley working in conjunction with the local community and Google Street View.

The Google Street View Hack suggests at a myriad of possibilities for anyone with their eye on the prize for a great world hack for 2009.  In my mind’s eye, I imagine the Google Street View truck’s trek across the planet triggering local environmental street action carnivals wherever it goes.

Local energy conservationists, “passive house” architects, retrofitters, could turn the arrival of  Google Street View into an occasion to create projects for a sustainable future – a traveling StreetCamp (see my post on HomeCamp ’08 here).  As Google Street View intends, surely, to go everywhere,  this would be a global hack for sustainable living that crossed the bounds of the physical and the virtual.  And the vast public record of Google Street View would became a generative engine and global resource for sustainable living.

Working together on the noble aim of sustainable living

- this is my (and many other people’s) big theme for 2009.

A Hacking the World award should also go to  Pachube – “patching the planet” – for demonstrating that instrumenting the world is not merely a Sci Fi  fantasy anymore.  By facilitating “interaction between remote environments, both physical and virtual,”  Pachube demonstrates (see diagram here) how we have only just begun to dip our toes into the many new opportunities we have to work together to save energy, rethink our culture of consumption, and to reboot our failing economy under a new sustainable operating system.

Energy awareness unlike the glut of information we have in entertainment and games suffers from a dearth of information. We really have very little idea about what we are consuming and the waste we are producing.  So more Hacking the World Awards should go to projects like AMEE – creating the world’s energy meter, and Wattzon – your personal energy meter, for giving us new ways to understand and work with energy data.

Many people and organizations, given the information, will change their behaviours. But the cultural changes necessary for sustainable living are deep and old habits die hard (see this disturbing report on the recent return to SUV buying in November as soon as gas prices fell!).

A  Small Community of Volunteers Can Bring Change on a Global Scale

Picture above by Benjamin Ellis, “HomeCamp – The Throng,” from his Flickr stream.

One of my favorite “instrumenting the world” projects to date and another top contender for a Hacking the World Award is HomeCamp ‘08 (see my previous post).  HomeCamp brings together a community of creators and enthusiasts of  “smart stuff,” creating a wikiculture for the noble cause of sustainable living.

The key to whether “instrumenting the world” empowers people and changes our lives for the better will be the capacity our systems of instrumentation have for what Jonathan Zittrain in “The Future of the Internet: And How To Stop It:,” defines as generativity, i.e.:  “the system’s capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences” ( Zittrain, 2008).

Generativity is the “secret sauce” that makes the difference between, for example, Wikipedia and its all but forgotten predecessor – the “written by experts” Nupedia.

Jonathan Zittrain writes:

Wikipedia stands for more than the ability of people to craft their own knowledge and culture.  It stands for the idea that people of diverse backgrounds can work together on a common project with, whatever its other weaknesses, a noble aim - bringing such knowledge to the world. (p.147)

At Web 2.0 Summit, Jonathan Hochman (Known as Jehochman on Wikipedia), shared with me his insider perspective as a Wikipedia administrator. The full interview with Jonathan is later in this post.

Jonathan comments on the role of wikiculture in sustainable living:

“Sustainable Living requires everything to become more efficient. Incentives need to line up with conservation priorities. This requires a radical change to the way we govern ourselves. Command economies, whether commanded by politicians or capital, lead to huge inefficiencies.”

And surely, if we have learned anything in 2008, we have learned that very bad things happen when the complex systems of modern life are left in the hands of a few people motivated solely by the urge to make profit.

Hacking Design and Planning Processes for Real Estate and Transportation with Virtual Worlds

This great machinima by Azwaldo Vilotta shows the progress so far on the Wikitecture 4.0 project, ‘Re-Inventing the Virtual Classroom’ for the University of Alabama.

Though still a niche market Virtual Worlds are growing at a steady pace.  As I mentioned in my previous post, energy hungry avatars themselves will be a target for optimization in 2009.  But as my personal power usage breakdown from Wattzon shows, cutting down the amount of flying I do in 2009 would be far more effective in reducing my carbon footprint than deciding not to log into Virtual Worlds!

Note: Read Write Web’s recent post, “Report Enterprise Virtual Worlds More Effective Than Web Conferencing.  Also check out Web.Alive, and Immersive WorkSpaces and Dusan Writer’s post on “ThinkBalm,The Immersive Internet and Collaborative culture,”

My friend Melanie Swan points out in her Top Ten Computing Trends for 2009, that Virtual Worlds not only have the power of the 3 Cs (communication, collaboration and commerce) but they are fast expanding into rapid prototyping, simulation and data visualization.

My Hacking the World, 2008, Awards for Virtual World innovation would go to three potentially world changing projects for sustainable living:

1) Studio Wikitecture, (see “Reinventing the Virtual Classroom” for The University of Alabama).

2) Oliver Goh’s work on “The Path to Sustainable Real Estate.”

3) Encitra, a company recently co-founded by Crista Lopes and Christer Lindstrom focused on improving urban planning processes, starting with transportation, using virtual worlds (see my previous post here for more).

The latter two projects are being developed in OpenSim – the open source project that should also get a Hacking The World Award for creating an open modular architecture for virtual worlds that is unleashing all these new possibilites for integrating physical and virtual worlds.

The 2008 code contributions to OpenSim of special note re world hacking are Crista Lopes’ OpenSim Hypergrid – see Justin CC’s blog for full details on “What is the hypergrid?,” and David Levine’s work (IBM), in collaboration with Linden Lab (see Architecture Working Group), on interoperability (see my earlier post here).

Both these projects expand the frontiers of interoperability for virtual worlds although they “slice the problem from different ends,” as David Levine put it.  The emphasis in the LL/IBM approach is on security so assets are not moving yet.  In Crista’s solution you can have assets but the security issues are not addressed yet. But this work is vital to expanding the usefulness of virtual worlds and both projects should get Hacking the World Awards IMHO.

I asked Jon Brouchoud (full interview upcoming) what he thought were Studio Wikitecture’s most important successes to date:

“I think the greatest success has been in proving, on some level, that everyone has important knowledge that can inform and improve the design of a building, not just architects.  If we can continue building on that success, I hope we can eventually start to hack the traditional design process, and find ways to harness the wealth of knowledge held by the general public, instead of ignoring or avoiding it, as is most often the case.”

Harnessing the “Smart Stuff” to the Noble Cause of Sustainable Living

Robert Scoble’s, The Interview of the Year: Tim O’Reilly, is not to be missed. Tim O’Reilly discusses the key trends for 2009 that are bubbling up at O’Reilly Media.  And, Yes, Tim O’Reilly, as the guru of Hacking the World, gets the “Distinguished Thinker – Hacking The World Award of 2008!”

Tim O’Reilly’s trend list includes:

1) big data- vast peer produced data bases in the cloud accessible by mobile devices

2) “smart stuff” – sensors and robotics and hacking on stuff for fun and not for profit

3) Green Tech

4) Advances in Biological/Life Sciences.

And, in Robert Scoble’s interview, there is a nice titbit of history re his attendance of early Foo Camps.  Foo Camp is the wiki of O’Reilly conferences and a lineage holder to my favorite Hacking the World event of 2008, HomeCamp ‘08.

But what will be the “secret sauce” for these big ideas  – the generative engines that harness to the noble cause of sustainable living these vast peer produced data bases and all the creative “smart stuff” hackers across the globe are creating?  What will motivate the mass adoption of Green Tech and sustainable living?

What can Wikipedia teach us about how generative systems and bottom up approaches can change the world?

Jimmy Wales (interview coming soon!)  writes in his recent personal appeal for support for Wikipedia.

At its core, Wikipedia is driven by a global community of more than 150,000 volunteers – all dedicated to sharing knowledge freely. Over almost eight years, these volunteers have contributed more than 11 million articles in 265 languages. More than 275 million people come to our website every month to access information, free of charge and free of advertising.

To answer questions on a how to create a successful wikiculture for sustainable living, an insider’s view of Wikipedia may be a good place to start.

Interview With Jonathan Hochman on Wikipedia.

The picture on the left is from the Wikipedia article, Gamma-ray Burst, that Jonathan Hochman is currently working on.  It is a drawing of a massive star collapsing to form a black hole. Energy released as jets along the axis of rotation forms a gamma-ray burst. Credit: Nicolle Rager Fuller/NSF

The picture on the right, Jonathan at Web 2.0 Summit, is taken by me. Jonathan was part of the, Defending Web 2.0 from Virtual Blight, panel.

Known as Jehochman on Wikipedia, he serves as an administrator and as a leader in addressing online harassment, disruption and sock puppetry. He is also the founder of Hochman Consultants, an Internet marketing consultancy, and the director of Search Engine Marketing New England, a regional conference series.

Tish: Second Life and Wikipedia are the two great experiments in collaborative co-creation what do they have to teach us about the future of the internet?

Jonathan: Yes, Wikipedia and Second Life are key social spaces.  Some people have been seeing Second Life as the beginning of Web 3.0 – a wrap around environment where you can almost experience another life. Wikipedia is sort of another example of this.

All the problems that exist in the real world are mirrored right into that little universe.  For example, the Armenians and the Turks are at each others throats and the Japanese and the Koreans are going at it, the Palestinians and the Israelis, and the “Troubles”  … all the conflicts are imported into Wikipedia.  People are fighting over the content of these articles. They want to have it their way because these are first ranked in Google and they have a big impact in public opinion.

There was a huge fight on the waterboarding article a while back. Some guys from Little Green Footballs – they are a very conservative reactionary type of media. They are trying to change the article to say that water boarding might not be torture – change it to say it is probably not so bad.  Crazy stuff. They were trying to water it down.  And it is very clear, from every source out there, that waterboarding is torture.  We did a study and there are 115 sources that say waterboarding is torture. You simulate drowning – you simulate killing someone – that is a violation of the Geneva Convention and everything else. People were fighting, fighting, fighting!

One of the things I did was to try and clear people out who were being disruptive.  We actually had to go to arbitration over that article. It is like the supreme court of Wikipedia. There is a panel of 15 arbitrators.  They hear the case. There is evidence, arguments and decisions. It is really like a simulated law suit. You get all the experience of a simulated law suit with the real threat that you could be banned. If they don’t like what you are doing they can actually ban you or restrict you from topics.

So it is really fascinating how this social space Wikipedia becomes a very real platform though it is in a virtual world for real world disputes.  Most disputes are over the definition of things.  If you have a you suit most disputes are about how things are defined. And Wikipedia has become the defacto definition of things in the real world.  People want to know what are “The Troubles.”  If you go to Wikipedia you find out  The Troubles are a dispute over Northern Ireland.  What the article says has a profound impact on public opinion.

Tish: So who is on the court of Wikipedia?

Jonathan: They are volunteers. these people work two or three hours a day to run this court.  There are all kinds of projects.  There is a WikiProject Spam which has people who can write computer programs to statistically analyze Wikipedia projects – not only Wikipedia. But all of them are looking at the links and reporting them and banning those people who are abusing or gaming the system.

Tish: You were on the Stopping Virtual Blight Panel at Web 2.0 Summit – what are the most important things to think about on this topic?

Jonathan: Yes we were talking about how to defend the web against virtual blight. The thing I find interesting about Wikipedia is that because it is the eighth largest web site and possibly the second largest web site comprised of user generated content after YouTube. The problems that exist in Wikipedia are larger and more detailed than any other site.  For whatever problem someone has for their social media site or their Web 2.0 site these problems already exist in Wikipedia and the solutions are there and they are transparent. You can actually see the history of what’s been done.

If there is, for example, a problem on Digg – some problem with sock puppetry or vote stacking – it happens, it goes away.  You don’t get full disclosure.  With Wikipedia you can actually go in and look at a dispute and watch it unfold.  You can watch the arbitration cases that are filed, the arguments, the decisions, the logic, the rationale.  You can see the successes and the failures and the different things people have tried to control blight. For example, we tried to resolve this dispute one way but it was a disaster, so we have tried something else and that worked.

Wikipedia is a large laboratory for social media. Wikipedia and the large universe around it Wiki and WikiMedia projects that individuals, enterprises and put together like Commons.  Wikimedia Commons is a repository of publicly licensed images that anyone can take and reuse. They have sound and they have video, and all of this stuff is being stitched together now.

So if you go to the article on Obama  you can probably now hear his acceptance speech because that is public domain – its been stitched into the article.  If you go to the article on Richard Nixon – his resignation speech – you may even hear his conversation with the astronauts when they landed on the moon.  So this becomes a giant repository of all our culture and knowledge.  When I design a website, a lot of times I go to Commons to find images I use for free.  I don’t want to pay for an image I can get for free. 

Tish: And the Commons images get contextualized in Wikipedia too.

Jonathan: Some of these articles are fascinatingly detailed. If you want a quick summary of the Dr. Strangelove, the article is fantastic.  It is enjoyable, a pleasure to read.  I was reading about S.A. Andree’s North Pole balloon expedition of 1897. Some guys from Sweden decided to fly a balloon over the North pole.  They managed to get aloft then they flew over the icepack for 24 hrs then they crashed.

They unloaded their stuff and hiked back across the ice toward the island they had launched from. They ended up being on the ice pack for three months before they finally holed up in an ice cave and starved to death.  There weren’t found until thirty years later!  There was a camera with these guys and the frozen pictures taken 30 yrs earlier.  They developed the film and those pictures are now on Wikipedia.  It is just a fascinating thing!

Tish: Do you see real time collaboration beginning to play more of a role in Wikipedia – whether virtual worlds or just voice/IM — how could real time collaboration change the wikipedia editing process?

Jonathan:  The Presidential candidate articles were being edited very rapidly yesterday. There are certain real time problems.  Some of the more interesting problems are when you get two administrators who “get into it.” One administrator says I am blocking this user and the other one says I am unblocking him, and the other one “NO I am blocking him!” And so on…… And everyone says, “Stop fighting. You are not allowed to do that!” And they both get their powers stripped. People do get very heated over the silliest things. Wikipedia does have some mailing lists attached and there are some IRC channels. So there are some real time elements.

Tish: What is the role of avatars in Wikipedia?

Jonathan: In Wikipedia you have a user page and many users are anonymous.  They create an avatar and they personalize it and show themselves in ways they want to show themselves through an avatar. In many ways it is a lot like Second Life.

Some users have created second accounts – or a humerous second account. Bishzilla – a Swedish lady who is in tremendous command of the English language and has a razor sharp wit.  She has created this secondary account – almost like in a baby language.  Her avatar is a dinosaur that is not very bright that goes around frying people. Bizarre what people do! People may be editing a topic like an interest they have – e.g. Pokemon that they don’t want associated with their professional avatar. Or people may be editing a topic about hot political issues.  There have actually been some death threats issued to people over stuff they have been putting into the encyclopedia.

Tish: So avatars are important in Wikipedia.

Jonathan: Absolutely because people may be going in and editing articles that they may not want their friends and family to know they are editing.  One editor may say to another, “Stop putting stuff in or I will come and kill you!” Well then we have to ban them.  We have to call the police.

Tish: Can you build reputations on multiple avatars?

Jonathan: You are allowed to use multiple avatars as long as they don’t cross paths.  You can’t have two avatars editing in the same area beacuse you are going to be giving yourself double weight commenting on a discussion.


Tish: How do you know when this is happening?

Jonathan: You can watch the style of a users editing.  You have to watch behavior.  And if you have enough evidence through behavior that suggests accounts are controlled by one person you can go and request a technical check.

There are some uses who are called Checkusers who are able to access information desired from the server logs and check the technical characteristics of these accounts to see if they are using the same IP address.

Tish: So if you want to understand avatar interaction on the web it helps to understand Wikipedia.

Jonathan: Yes it is a fantastic way to understand how avatars work in some aspects, and also how to deal with community dynamics.  We have some very strong willed people – people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s – who are very successful in business.  They have plenty of money and spare time and they are doing this as a hobby. And some of these people can really butt heads.  You can have a problem when you have an editor who has been writing fantastic articles but also happens to be rude and chew other people out and tell them to f**k off if they are not behaving. What do you do?

Tish: Sounds a bit like Second Life!

Jonathan: The person is a great contributor to the community but they are telling noobies to f**k off, so you can’t allow that.

What do you do?  Vested contributors are a major problem to some of these sites. They are vested in the community but they start misbehaving. You can’t block them, because if you block them there is a huge upsroar from all their friends and it causes a cataclysm.  It requires very careful diplomacy to deal with some of these situations.

Tish: How many Wikipedia volunteers are there now?

Jonathan: Think of a Venn Diagram – a big circle. The total number of contributors are about one million different people that contribute.  But there are probably about 5,000 active editors  that are consistently and regularly contributing.  And within that kernel there are fifteen hundred people that have administrator access and probably only eight hundred of them are active.  People have a natural life span with the community.  People come an typically stay for 6 months to 3 years.  Usually after that they become bored, disillusioned or get into a conflict with someone.  There is a natural tendency for people to stay for a while and move on. Some people stay longer, a few, but the majority will move on at some point.  So it is a lot of fresh faces moving in.

Tish: What lessons of trust does Wkipedia have to teach us about new projects like AMEE that aims to aggregate the world’s energy data?

Jonathan: Well you have to know who is releasing the data. Who is creating the data? The beauty of Wikipedia is that you have an edit history so you can see exactly who has done what.  So you can judge whether this person is trustworthy or not.  That’s a huge problem on the web today.  We don’t have enough identification information.  When you see a web page you don’t necessarily know when that page was created and by whom, or how many revisions it has had.  Sometimes you can glean information by checking it.  If you see typos and errors you may decide that that page probably didn’t receive as much attention as it should have, and probably it is not that good.

Typos are an interesting thing.  People always try to figure out how Google ranks web pages. Matt Cutts was here from Google today.  And he was talking about spam.  But Matt also did a blog post about how he was in an airport once, and how he has a policy – when you are reading a document as soon as you come to the first error just stop because if the author hasn’t taken the care to make everything correct, you don’t need to read it. So he was in the airport, there was a sign, he came to a typo and stopped reading it. Somehow he got in trouble for not reading the sign and not having the information.  But it is interesting to think whether Goggle is looking for for typos, misspellings, broken links and using that as a signal of quality to rank pages.

Tish: Aaaagh typos might bring down your page rank!!!  That certainly is a scary thought for a blogger like me who likes to write impossibly long posts that are hard to check………

“Smart Planet: Andy Stanford-Clark’s time has really come. His career of work in lightweight brokers and sensors is now going to pay off,” twittered James Governor (@monkchips), Redmonk, recently.

The picture opening this post (from Andy Piper’s Flickr stream} was taken during Andy Stanford-Clark’s talk at The Inaugural HomeCamp (for more photos see Flickr “homecamp08″).

HomeCamp ’08 was organized by Chris Dalby and Dale Lane and sponsored by Current Cost and Redmonk. A video of Andy Stanford-Clark’s talk, by Andy Piper, is up on Viddler. Also see Andy Piper’s post abut CurrentCost meters and most recently about running his CurrentCost meter’s graphs on his iphone.

Ambient displays were a hot topic at HomeCamp see here and here for some good examples.

I first wrote about IBM Master Inventor Andy Stanford-Clark’s Home Automation project June of 2007.  At that time relatively few people were playing with home monitoring. But now the lynch pin of Andy’s work - MQTT and RSMB – Really Small Message Broker, is available free on IBM AlphaWorks for anyone to download and play with.

This puts a key tool into the hands of developers and mashup artists ready to explore the possibilities of home automation as a generative technology that can bring the power of participatory culture to the urgent task of creating sustainable living.  Andy points out:

“Lots of people can start playing with home energy monitoring, social aspects of the data sharing, home automation, ambient displays, etc. The powerful thing about messaging middleware like MQTT, is that you don’t have to worry about how to get the messages from A to B: you can focus on how to capture the data, and what to do with it when it gets to the other end.”

The full interview, that I did with Andy last week, is later in this post.

Also recently, I did an interview with Gavin Starks, founder of AMEE. As a neutral data aggregation platform, “AMEE’s vision is to enable the measurement of the “Carbon Footprint” of everything on Earth.”  A press release last week announced that a “collaboration between O’Reilly Alphatech Ventures (OATV), Union Square Ventures (USV) and The Accelerator Group (TAG) will enable AMEE to expand its reach by enhancing its data, and extend globally.”

The combination of a neutral aggregation platform and MQTT and RSMB can enable new forms of data sharing to meet broader sustainability goals (see my interview with Gavin for AMEE’s direction re privacy and data sharing), and the kind of ecological intelligence that Larry Brilliant, Google.org,  talked about at Web 2.0 Summit.  Dan Goleman’s new book: “Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything,” will come out in April, 2009. (see my previous post).

There is already a virtual worlds integration to AMEE by Jim Purbrick of Linden Lab!

Links For HomeCamp ’08

Chris Dalby has a list of blog posts about homecamp in his HomeCamp Review.

Homecamp by Dale Lane
Home Camp Unconference – inspired me by the thoughts
The Inaugural Homecamp
Home Camp Deman Shifting
Homecamp from Phoebe Bright
Homecamp ’08
HomeCamp Event: Andy Stanford-Clark’s View

Virtual HomeCamp

In 2007, I published the picture below (thanks Annie Ok as Destroy Television for SL pics) which shows:

On the right the virtualization of Andy’s RL house which is part of a Second Life Real Life Home Automation project. The pictures in the bottom row shows Mrs Stanford-Clark’s Real Life Llamas on the left and their virtual counterparts on Second Life on the right. Real and Virtual Llamas are linked through GPS and MQTT so people can “track the trek” when the llamas are out on a walk (see this IBM podcast).

I am currently working on a Virtual HomeCamp which will probably be nomadic from meetup to meetup but will kick off in Andy’s virtual house in Second Life. Andy Stanford-Clark, Adam Frisby (one of the founders of OpenSim ), and Chris Dalby have all agreed to talk (more presenters to come!) at the first Virtual HomeCamp.

Charles Crinke, OpenSim has offered Virtual HomeCamp a patch of land on OSGrid, and to give a talk on interesting home automation projects to get started in OpenSim. Charles has a cornucopia of great ideas!

And Kyle Gomboy (avatar G2 Proto) of the Microsoft Developer Community has set up an OpenSim on ReactionGrid that virtual HomeCampers can use to develop projects related to participatory culture and sustainable living.

The interview with Andy Stanford-Clark in this post gives Virtual HomeCampers some great ideas for good projects “that matter” to work on.

If you have a Second Life or OpenSim venue and you would like to offer your sim for a meetup – please let me know! Meetups will need to be streamed to the web as there is already a dynamic and rapidly growing HomeCamp community. See:

HomeCamp Wiki

HomeCamp Blog

HomeCamp on Upcoming

HomeCamp on Facebook

Google Group Discussion

FriendFeed Room

Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Avatars and Getting Energy Awareness to the Masses

As Andy notes:

“We need to get energy awareness and energy saving to the masses; and by saying “you can reduce energy by interacting in a virtual 3D world”, just isn’t going to cut it for all but a very small fraction of the people we need to get to.”

But, perhaps, some of our phenomenal OpenSim developers will push the envelope and produce the code that will make open source virtual worlds one of the most important future contributors to sustainable living. And, hopefully, Virtual HomeCamp will leverage both the collective intelligence of the web and the real time presence plus rapid prototyping capabilities unique to immersive 3D virtual worlds, to explore new ways to get energy awareness and energy saving to the masses in the short term as well as the long term.

And yes we will have to address the topic of those energy-hogging avatars!!!

Adam Frisby has been doing some interesting work with OpenSim that has the potential to reduce the energy consumption of VWs. And Michael Osias, IBM, told me:

“We operate the IBM grid [100 OpenSims] on almost all virtual machines with Xen. Recently, we migrated the opensim appliance into the IBM Research cloud appliance catalog.”

So I will definitely be calling on Michael and Adam to present on how server virtualization and cloud computing can reduce the carbon footprint of avatars.

Setting Up Your Own Home Automation Hub

There is an amazing choice of home automation technology becoming available now. Recently Nokia announced their home automation ecosystem – available in late 2009. And I recently saw The Apple Macintosh Z – Wave Home Automation System. If you don’t already, start checking out Automated Home for lots of good ideas and smart devices.

In the interview below, Andy describes how he achieves some impressive energy consumption reduction with some very affordable and readily available hardware, a little detective work, and a tip from his son to examine the energy consumption of the home automation set-up itself. And with the newly “available for free download” Really Small Message Broker from IBM AlphaWorks, IBM has made available a cool way to give creative home automators a free vehicle to broker and share their data and integrate home automation in all the exciting ways we can come up with.

The pictures below (see here for enlargements) are the before and after shots of a streamlining effort Andy made on his own home automation setup.

Andy said:

“I’ve moved my entire home automation system from the pile of equipment shown in the first photo, to a single Viglen MPC-L with a load of USB serial connections (second photo).

The pile of equipment I replaced is: A Cisco wireless access point, an IBM ThinkPad, a  Linksys NSLU2 SLUG, an Arcom Viper, and an Arcom Field Sentry I/O box.

Moving to the Viglen and turning off all that lot, has replaced 50W of always-on standby power with 10W, i.e. 40W less, or about £40 a year!”

See Chris Dalby’s post, Viglen MPC-L Useful Commands and Tips.

Interview With Andy Stanford-Clark

Tish Shute: I just got a good question for you from Gavin Starks AMEE, “if the Stern report is going to be out by 100% by 2020, and we have to start seeing an actual reduction of 10% per annum starting next year: What would you do, personally?” (See The Climate Safety report, backed by IPCC).

Andy Stanford-Clark: Oh, man! Now you’re asking the tough questions!

We have to change attitudes, otherwise just a few people making a noise about this stuff isn’t going to make any significant difference – and the way to change attitudes is by starting to make people aware of just how much energy various things we have, and things we do, take. But it needs to be something in each person’s home, that’s not “in your face”… something more subtle – “ambient”… otherwise people reject it out of hand.

Also, people are suspicious of the power companies asking us to use less power: “what, give you less money?? Surely there’s a catch?” This is a real problem. Someone phoned one of the power companies here and accused them of sending her an energy monitor that would suck electricity out of the wall socket at night, to INCREASE her bill! If that’s the kind of thing we’re up against, it’s going to be a long journey!

Tish: So what it the best way to change attitudes  – have you seen projects like Wattzon?

Andy SC: Yes, projects like Wattzon are exactly the kind of thing that start to make people realise the true cost of wasting energy.

Personally, my family has reduced our home electricity bill by 30%, which is great! But my neighbours didn’t, nor the other 4 billion or so people who have electricity.

Tish: How did you reduce your consumption so much?

Andy SC: We reduced our home electricity bill when we got a currentcost meter – a plug-in energy monitor which gives a total for the whole house.  When we got it, it showed up really quickly a couple of things…. that our “standby power” was really high (i.e. in the middle of the night, when everyone’s asleep, you creep up to the meter with a torch (flashlight <grin>) and see what it’s showing).

That was about 500 Watts before we started paying attention to it. The other thing was the lights.. I had no idea the lights in the kitchen used 480 Watts.. we just used to leave them on all the time when we were in the house. A simple change, once I realised: turn them off when you leave the room!

Our standby power was really high because I had a load of geeky home automation stuff running, and my first-generation, homebrew, energy monitoring solution (how ironic!)… which included 3 laptops doing various things (monitoring data and displaying information round the house). I just didn’t think about the cost.

So one weekend we went round the house making an inventory in each room of things that were on (the children were keen to help!). That enabled me to pretty much track down the whole 500 W… there were a few things that took some sleuthing, like the alarm system and the central heating controller. We used a plug-in meter to see what individual appliances were using.. a really useful diagnostic aid.

It’s worth having a look at AutomatedHome’s review of these energy monitoring products, by the way.

So I turned off a load of things that were sitting there on standby.. things like stereo, microwave, scanner, Wii, power bricks… each taking 4-6 Watts just doing nothing – each one small, but it all adds up. The big hitters were the PCs… turned off 3 of those, and consolidated onto a low power (10W) Linux server (Viglen MPC-L)…so that got our standby power down to 180 watts. And that, combined with being proactive about turning off lights, reduced our power usage from 900 KWH a month to 600… i.e. 30% and it has been at that for 4 months now.

Tish: Interesting that your home automation was one of the power issues as I am an aspiring home automator myself!

Andy SC: Yes, you have to strike a balance of using energy to save energy, and make sure you know what your standby power is. There are a number of home energy monitors available – there’s a review on the AutomatedHome blog. The CurrentCost meter has a handy serial port so you can plug it into a computer to download history data or make it live on the internet.

Tish: That is interesting because it opens the door to having a social energy network, doesn’t it?

Andy SC: Yes.. absolutely… you should watch my intro talk at HomeCamp! About 50 of us at IBM in the UK (and one in Australia!) have put our home energy graphs online using a currentcost meter plus a cheap low power Linux server like the Viglen MPC-L or Linksys NSLU2 (SLUG) type devices.

And a community has formed around the graphs (I described this in my HomeCamp talk at some point).. so people ask what’s that spike, or why’s yours so high in the morning, or how do you get your standby power so low.. and people talk about it and exchange ideas. There’s a facebook group (currentcost) too, with people talking about this.

And there’s some peer pressure too.. if my power is really high compared with everyone else, I feel bad about it and see what I can do to reduce it.. or if not reduce it, at least know why it’s high, and have been through a process to justify that to myself.

Tish: You mentioned earlier that it was important to have ambient solutions, not “in your face” messages from Big Brother like “turn your lights off now!” What kind of “ambient” solutions have you been working on?

Andy SC: Ok – ambient devices … so an “orb” is a good example.. wired up to the home automation system, or the energy monitor.. or maybe even controlled by the power company…

It glows different colours (e.g. blue through red, or red/amber/green) to tell me how “healthy” the house is from an energy point of view. So I don’t have to open a browser and pull up a geeky graph and analyse it.. it just lets me know subconsciously how we’re doing.

Tish: But it doesn’t necessarily help you find out what your problems is, right?

Andy SC: In our house, it’s in my study, so when I go to bed, for example, I glance in to see it, and if it’s green, all is good… but if it’s still amber or red(!), then I think.. hmm – what’s still on.. oh, the dishwasher.. ok – that will finish soon… or.. oh, I left the heater on .. I’ll go and turn it off.

Tish: What do you have to help you troubleshoot the problem?

Andy SC: If the orb doesn’t jog your memory, then you can pull up the graph to give more information, or a dashboard which shows various things that are turned on, both of which help with knowing what’s going on.

Tish: And how to fix it?

Andy SC: Yes, so if things are on X10 or other appliance control systems like Bye Bye Standby, for example, and under computer control, then you can have a dashboard of what’s on so you can see.

Tish: Good interfaces to home automation seem to be a problem yet to be solved?

Andy SC: There’s at least one company which has technology to analyze your power usage (voltage and current together) to “learn” which appliance has which profile on the graph, so you can see what’s on that’s using lots of power and also get a pie chart view of the whole house with slices showing different appliances – so many % for the TV, so many for freezer, etc. that’s Onzo.com . Their product isn’t out yet, but will give a much finer grain understanding of what’s using the power in your home.

There are also some “IAM’s”.. Individual Appliance Monitors, which are like the plug-in meter I showed you, but with a (usually wireless) link back to a base station to tell you how much power is flowing through each of them. So by knowing what appliances you plugged into your IAMs round the house, you can break out the usage by appliance. And if they’re 2-way, which some of them will be, you can have the computer turn them off if you tell it, say from the web, or your mobile phone, etc. Or maybe the home automation system will make an autonomous decision to turn it off for you!

Back to interfaces to home automation: there are two typical approaches – PLC (power line carrier) like X10, and wireless (like Bye Bye Standby, etc)… there are computer interfaces to both, but it’s all still quite expensive (in UK at least – cheaper in the US because X10 is more ubiquitous)…  but the cheaper ones don’t tell you that they definitely turned the device on or off – all you know is that the command was sent out. It might not have got there, so you don’t really know if the heater got turned off.. unless you monitor it by some secondary means, like seeing if the temperature goes down, or if the power usage goes down, or (for a light) if the room goes dark, or whatever.

BTW, my standby is now down to 120 watts

Tish: Yes!

Andy SC: I consolidated some more home automation stuff into one device.. there are two photos on this page – my “before” and “after” shots. It gets a mention in the podcast. They did a promotion on the low power Viglen servers.. £80 instead of £150… bargain! Loads of people have bought them for home automation.. you can’t have failed to see the #viglen references on twitter over the past few months!

Tish: I think there is a lot of enthusiasm for virtual worlds as a good interface for home automation. But we need to come up with something simple enough for everyone?

Andy SC: Yes, virtual worlds are very interesting.. though let’s not mention the carbon cost of running a VW!

So you know already, I think, that I can control my home automation stuff from SL… if I turn on my lights in SL, my FL (first life, i.e. here!) lights turn on, and also meter reading.. my live electricity and water meter readings are displayed on virtual meters in my virtual house so the meter reader doesn’t even need to drive to my house <grin> and the orb is there too, so I can see how healthy the house is, energy-wise, in-world.

Imagine a row of houses each glowing blue through red according to its power use – peer pressure again. If you have local generation.. the power hogs could be made to feel guilty for using all the town’s energy from the wind farm or gas turbine generator.

Tish: So every one would see if you have a Bad House eeek!

Andy SC: right!

The picture above shows Andy Stanford-Clark’s electricity meter in Second Life.

Tish: Yes and the great thing about a VW is you get a sense of confidence your controls are working and how to adjust them. But yes the carbon cost is one of the obstacles.

Do you think the power hogging sims of Virtual Worlds could be improved by server virtualization techniques and clouds – I know there is an IBMer here in US who is working on server virtualization integrated into OpenSim?

Andy SC: Yes, cloud technologies have a lot to offer in terms of making best use of a set of machines to run a set of applications, rather than one machine per application as often tends to be the case.

And with dynamic load balancing, like we do for our sporting event on-demand server farms for things like Wimbledon, as the load ramps up, we squeeze out the other apps that are using the farm to give extra capacity (as Wimbledon takes priority in that instance!)

But there was a popular statistic when SL became really popular – over a year ago now, that was something like to have an avatar in SL for a year was the same carbon footprint as driving an SUV from NY to SF or something – don’t quote me on that till we check it … here it is – 2000 miles

Tish: Yes I remember Judge telling me about some of the interesting load balancing you do at Wimbledon.

Many of my friends are thinking ahead to AR solutions now too.

Andy SC: Yeah – AR very interesting too.. you have to read Halting State by Charles Stross

Tish: Yes loved it!

Andy SC: So “Halting State is to 15 years’ time as SnowCrash was to NOW, 15 years ago”

SnowCrash is effectively a history book now.

Yeah, I think AR with glasses and overlays is going to be really cool! In cars too.. heads up satnav..

Tish: Also could you tell me the role of the messaging technology you developed in all this?

Andy SC: using MQTT of course.. which is the area I have been working on with my team for the past 10 years: the IBM messaging technology which underpins all this cool stuff we’re doing for home automation, energy monitoring, inter-world messaging.. all that stuff.. all using MQTT and WebSphere messaging technology.

Tish: I would be interested to know more about how you see VR and AR with what we have available today producing a cool interface for home automation that could get some mass traction.

Andy SC: So I think the AR/VR thing.. at the moment, far too few people are using these technologies.. we need to get energy awareness and energy saving to the masses (looping back round to the original Gavin Starks question!)… and by saying “you can reduce energy by interacting in a virtual 3D world”, just isn’t going to cut it for all but a very small fraction of the people we need to get to.”

Tish: Yes in basic ambient ways first.  How does the messaging technology you have developed open up possibilities for leveraging network effects and creating new forms of participatory culture around reducing consumption?

Andy SC: It is important because the messaging allows the real-time interaction that can be used to give dynamic feedback, and it’s that immediacy which makes people react to changes.

And, with MQTT and RSMB – Really Small Message Broker, which is now available free on IBM AlphaWorks for anyone to download and play with, lots of people can start playing with home energy monitoring, social aspects of the data sharing, home automation, ambient displays, etc. without having to worry about how to get the messages from A to B.. that bit’s done for you.. you can just focus on the interesting stuff. Folks at HomeCamp got quite excited about it! And for those who care (e.g. if you want to link your home in to infrastructure like the power company or distributed building management, or whatever) then the MQTT and RSMB technology is compatible with IBM’s WebSphere enterprise messaging products, and so can link right in.

Tish: So people could use this to build some interfaces with projects like AMEE say? For example letting you know when your light bulb went out which was the most energy efficient one to replace it with?

Andy SC: Yes, indeed.. was talking to Pachube this morning, as another example.

Tish: What did you discuss with Pachube?

Andy SC: using MQTT as the feed to get EML data into and out of Pachube rather than over HTTP. That’s interesting because MQTT is a much more lightweight protocol, designed for small sensors and low bandwidth / expensive (e.g. cellular) networks… and it’s also true push.. i.e. data is pushed to you directly from the broker (the hub in the middle), rather than you having to ask for it constantly (polling). It is an easy way to interface existing MQTT/RSMB home automation or energy monitoring systems into Pachube and it’s scalable publish/subscribe.. so one data feed in, many data feeds out.  This opens up lots of new possibilities for Pachube feeds. Here is one Pachube feed coming from MQTT.

Tish: Ah yes, no polling! That is a killer in HTTP

Andy SC: Absolutely!!!

Tish: And other examples of interfaces using MQTT with potential applications in the sustainability area are …

Andy SC: The power graphs (as described in my talk) are a good example. Also when people start generating their own power with PV or wind, they’ll want to monitor the contribution their power plant is making to their power usage, and compare it with spot prices on the grid, weather data, etc, etc. These are exactly the kinds of data feeds that MQTT is great for.

Tish: As you said the most important aspect of MQTT is that it frees people up from having to worry about  getting messages from A to B so they can “start playing with home energy monitoring, social aspects of the data sharing, home automation, ambient displays, etc. …..How to capture the data.. and what to do with it when it gets to the other end of the comms link.”

Andy SC: Yes, exactly – the incremental cost of adding new devices and applications is very low, once you’ve got the messging infrastructure in place. So once you’ve got your home RSMB hub set up, it become easy to integrate new data sources and play with new applications which use that data in interesting ways!

I’m fascinated by the social aspects of energy saving – the way communities have formed around the graphs we’re generating from the currentcost data. I’m sure that’s only the tip of an iceberg – it’s still quite geeky, but if you start to bring in some kind of gaming or competitive element, then I think harnessing the peer pressure and competitive spirit in people will be a powerful way to encourage change in people’s energy-using habits.

Ambient displays are another area of interest – the orb is just one way of doing it. Using twitter to keep you ambiently aware of what’s going on is another, and there are other media like sound and images, which can tell you things in a subtle way. Lots of scope for more experiments

In a conversation with Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle (Federated Media Publishing) at Web 2.0 Summit 2008, Al Gore suggested that only the aggregate bandwidth of the internet could supply us with the kind of emotional intelligence we need to respond with appropriate urgency to the challenges of our times, for example, the CO2 targets necessary to avert catastrophe.

“People hear these things, and there are many other similar signals, and then the next day it’s gone. Now the neuroscientists have explanations for why that is ….. The urgency center of the brain is geared to snakes, spiders and fire and things that evolution posed as tests to our species…

But when we have to use our neo cortex to connect dots in an abstract pattern and then push that down to the urgency and fear center – that’s just a little footpath.

Its  like the internet, mostly, it’s an asynchronous connection.  There is a big connection going from the fear center to the reasoning process but just a very small pathway coming back.

It needs to be stored in the cloud. It is the aggregate bandwidth than counts. We need to have the truth – the inconvenient truth, forgive me, of this challenge stored in the cloud so that people don’t have to rely on that process and so that we can respond to it collectively.”

Tim O’Reilly responded: “Who knew you were the guru of Web 2.0 as well as global warming. You have totally outlined our premise here.”

(Photograph opening this post of the Former Vice President Al Gore on stage with Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle at  Web 2.0 Summit 2008, co-presented by O’Reilly Media and TechWeb. Produced by Good Company Communications. Photograph copyright James Duncan Davidson – see Duncan Davidson’s Flickr stream for a complete photo essay of the event.)

I was trying to find a word to express how powerfully  Al Gore addressed the Summit audience.  And I was discussing this with a legendary serial entrepreneur, Richard Titus, who is also a great admirer of Al Gore, at the closing party. Richard came up with the phrase I was seeking.  “He was totally naked,” Richard said.

Al Gore described himself as a recovering politician.  And yes, he seems totally recovered from the “woodeness” of politics and utterly at home with the “nakedness” of participatory culture.

Al Gore made clear that to change the world we have to change ourselves (he did).

Bertrand Russell is often attributed with the following quote:

The mark of a civilized human being is the ability to read a column of numbers and then weep.

Gore’s exhortation that the internet needs to be a puppy with a purpose resonated with his audience.  From climate change, global issues of health care, to rethinking global economies we desperately need to optimize our collective and individual intelligence.

Instrumenting the World: Life on the Cloud

Kevin Kelly’s  High Order Bit – a brilliant impressionist view of the internet’s next 6537 days describes what “Life on the cloud” will be like.

“If you are producing some information and it is not webized, i.e., it is online and not related and shared to everything else, it doesn’t count.”

This is already the case to some degree. And the challenge of understanding where our networked identities begin and end is with us. But Kevin Kelly points out, “life on the cloud” will heighten our dilemmas.

Nat Torkington’s presentation to the Privacy Forum in Auckland , New Zealand, “Web Meets World: Privacy and the Future of the Cloud” looks at our changing idea of identity through the lens of privacy – both “the nature of privacy” and “how expectations change over time.”  Nat cites William Gibson (interviewed by Rolling Stone on their 40th Anniversary):

“One of the things our grandchildren will find quaintest about us is that we distinguish the digital from the real, the virtual from the real.  In the future that will likely become impossible.”

The critical layer between this database of things and the ultra, mega cloud (see Kevin Kelly’s slide below) is the web of shared intelligence. This is where the transformation will emerge with its dangers and opportunities.

Brian Solis, in his excellent post, “Barack Obama, The Social Web, and the Future of User Generated Government,” proposes Zappos and their “public and transparent customer-focused culture” is a good model for how government can use the internet not only to push out its message but to create a whole new culture of participation.

Far fetched?  Watch Tony Hsieh’s High Order Bit for yourself. The idea that every interaction at Zappos has relevance to the value exchange between consumers and producers is a very interesting idea to apply to the relationship between government and citizens.

“Ecological Intelligence”

Instrumenting the World requires new models of data sharing. Last year, Cory Doctorow described to me an instrumentation model of data.

An Instrumentation model for data differs from a surveillance model of data sharing.  Instrumentation is “when you know a lot about the world,” in contrast to surveillance – “when people in authority know a lot about you”.

(Note: Mashable has an interesting post on the theme of a “instrumentation,” see:  Seventeen Killers Apps for Taking Control of Your Government:“Government is increasingly putting much of its public records online, creating opportunities for developers to build useful applications for citizens.”)

But corporate culture and governments around the world have embraced the surveillance model of data up to now.  I was fortunate to have the opportunity to ask Larry Brilliant, Google.org, a question about how the tables might get turned.  After his conversation with Tim O’Reilly,  I asked:

“What would motivate corporations and governments to participate in the kind of data sharing and transparency that could produce the changes that our world needs, particularly in the area of health and climate change? For example, why would corporations reveal the aspects of products we use and the food we eat that have negative effects on our health and our planet?” (This is more succinctly phrased than my original question!)

Larry Brilliant replied:

“I don’t know how many of you know Dan Goleman? He created emotional intelligence [quotient] – EQ. He is coming out with a book which I have just had the pleasure of reading in draft form which deals specifically with what you are talking about.

How we can have commercial intelligence. How we use the power of corporations and their various different stakeholders, including their customers to drive corporations to do the morally right thing by losing the commercial support of customers who won’t support them unless they are more green, fairer to women, respect gay and lesbian rights, do the things you would like them to do whatever that happens to be, so that you can vote with your dollars.

It is really a fascinating book:  “The Application of Ecological Intelligence to the Commercial World.”  I don’t know what the final title will wind up being but I recommend it to you.

Dan Goleman’s new book: “Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything,” will come out in April, 2009.

An Extraordinary Gathering At An Historic Time

Web 2.0 Summit was a brilliantly orchestrated gathering of many of the thought/business leaders and entrepreneurs who have shaped the internet as we know it today.

As my friend Jonathan Hochman, Wikipedia, said on Day 1:

“If everyone here [Web 2.0 Summit] shut down their website it would be the end of the internet!.” (See my upcoming interview with Jonathan on Wikipedia and Jon Brouchard on Wikitecture and what these projects can teach us about participatory culture).

But also in this elite crowd of “C” level execs were the next generation of entrepreneurs who are working on a hunch and prayer to create the future Web.

And this year, as the Web 2.0 Summit architects explained in their intro, the decision was made to extend the scope of the Summit even further:

“….our world is fraught with problems that engineers might charitably classify as NP hard—from roiling financial markets to global warming, failing healthcare systems to intractable religious wars. In short, it seems as if many of our most complex systems are reaching their limits.

It strikes us that the Web might teach us new ways to address these limits. From harnessing collective intelligence to a bias toward open systems, the Web’s greatest inventions are, at their core, social movements. To that end, we’re expanding our program this year to include leaders in the fields of healthcare, genetics, finance, global business, and yes, even politics.”

Truly an extraordinary gathering at an historic time – commencing the day after Barak Obama became President Elect, it seemed the causes and conditions for participatory culture and sustainable living were coming together at last!

Virtual Worlds and “The Web Beyond The Web:” Creating “A Supple Approach to Sharing Identity”

Virtual Worlds were not on the schedule.  But this is not surprising as their potential contributions to the very big problems at the heart of the Summit’s theme are only just beginning to emerge.

But new forms of  participatory culture were a recurrent theme of the Summit.  And Virtual Worlds at the high bandwidth tip of the pyramid of global connectedness and SMS at the bottom of the pyramid have a lot to teach us about participatory culture.

Crista Lopes recently co-founded with Christer Lindstrom a company, Encitra, that is focused on improving urban planning processes, starting with transportation, using virtual worlds. Christer Lindstrom has been a key evangelizer of PRT (personal rapid transit – see photo above).

Crista Lopes is Associate Professor at the University of California, Irvine, in the Department of Informatics (full interview coming soon).  Crista is using the dynamic shared viewpoint of virtual world technology to offer a way for the many stakeholders involved in a city scale transportation infrastructure change to participate in the process of planning. Crista is working with OpenSim – see the video of  “Encitra – Creating Immersive Worlds.”

There are a number of use cases for Virtual Worlds in sustainable living being developed. I have written several posts on Oliver Goh’s work,  “The Path to Sustainable Real Estate.” See my earlier posts here, and here, and IBM’s Virtual Network Operation Centers.“

Also see the recent announcement from Intel Research to create ScienceSim using OpenSim (more on this soon). Justin Rattner writes:

“Wilfred Pinfold (an Intel colleague and general chair of Supercomputing 2009) announced to the Supercomputing 2008 conference attendees plans to create a new virtual world called “ScienceSim.” Supported by Intel and the conference committee, this collaboration aims to use these immersive, connected environments to further cutting edge scientific research.”

George Jobi, Intel, writes in his post on ScienceSim: “Intel is one of the founding members of OpenSim and had been building its vision of open standards based 3D web architecture around OpenSim.”

The Achilles Heel of Web 2.0…….?

As Crista pointed out:

“The  Achilles Heel of Web 2.0 is trying to build the concept of person in a platform that doesn’t have people, at the center of the architecture. With Web 2.0 we go through a lot of hoops trying to integrate basics concepts of identity and storage onto a platform that wasn’t designed for it.”

Most of us have bits of our identity scattered all over the web, e.g., partial friends list here, there and everywhere. Some of us have literally hundreds of different log ins and profiles. Our list of applications with pieces of our identity locked up in them might look something like the slide below from the High Order Bit of Beerud Sheth, Webaroo Inc.

In contrast, Crista noted:

“The key component that a Virtual World offers you is that you can take your identity from place to place and the presence of people is at the center of the whole thing.”

Crista has already submitted code that introduces hyperlinks to OpenSim (see here). Crista is computer scientist of many accomplishments including being the co-inventor of Aspect-Oriented Programming.

There is a long conversation in the comments on my interview with Tim O’Reilly about whether the concept of avatar is the Achilles Heel of Virtual Worlds. So I asked Crista:

“Are avatars the Achilles Heel of Virtual Worlds?”

Crista explained why she thinks this is not the case in the modular open source architecture of OpenSim at least.

“The concept of people is not tied to the concept of avatar in OpenSim: One of the important parts of the OpenSim architecture is that the concept of user is very different from the concept of avatar.”

In OpenSim, Crista noted:

User = identity +storage

When I asked David Levine, IBM, what Web 2.0 could learn from virtual worlds re sharing identity, David, who works on interoperability and protocols in the Architecture Working Group, said:

Immersive spaces, are the real time, multi-user online component of Web 2.0, and identity is deeply part of that……..virtual Worlds teach us, as they expose more resources to Web 2.0, that there needs to be increasingly “supple” ways of sharing identity that go beyond simply anchoring it on gmail or openID, or such.

Social media has been one of Web 2.0′s success stories – giving the impression that Web 2.0 has people at the core of its architecture. But, as Crista pointed out, this is not the case.

There is no way in Web 2.0 to do identity at the level of platform, at the moment. As soon as you want to create identity on the Web there is a big mess.”

Participatory Culture at the Bottom of the Pyramid: “The Web Beyond The Web”

The “Web Beyond the Web,” Beerud Sheth, Webaroo Inc quipped, is not his announcement of Web 3.0. Rather, Beerud is describing the parallel innovation at the bottom of the pyramid where lower prices on mobile devices rather than new features drives adoption and voice and SMS (short messaging service) rule.

SMS is the web of the people for most of the world.  The current ratio is 10:1 with 10 people using text messaging to every 1 that has web access and the SMS population is growing at a much higher rate than web users. The  innovation at the top of the pyramid, where a plethora of Web 2.0 apps are built on top of  http, looks like the unreadable slide above with a forest of applications.

In contrast innovation at the bottom of the pyramid, until recently, has been limited to ringtones, wall papers, and voice response mechanisms.  So Beerud introduced a new service GupShup.

Gup Shup = Chit Chat

“Think of GupShup as another cool word from the language that gave you yoga, nirvana and karma sutra,” Beerud said.

GupShup is a “Twitter for India” but on a vastly bigger scale (only 18 months from launch they are up to 12 million users).

But, Beerud points out, don’t just file away GupShup as another twitter clone.  While they have Web and WAP site, they are deeply intergated into SMS as the lowest common denominator. GupShup can be used entirely from mobile which is vital as they have more users already than the total number of web users in India.

This idea of fully integrating into the lowest common denominator medium, SMS, has allowed GupShup to grow extremely rapidly. And, interestingly, when you look at the use cases you see the end users are deploying many of the uses cases that are familiar from the web,

Beerud left the audience with the take away that all the use cases are surprisingly similar to the web as are the ways of monetizing them,  This is creating enormous opportunity for creativity and entrepreneurship in building out this web beyond the web.

He invited those who already know the possibilities of the web to come and join this new adventure.  The enormous scale of the “web beyond the web,” and the fact people are connected almost continuously, creates vast opportunities for participatory culture to expand beyond the small triangle at the top of the pyramid.

On the “web beyond the web” the potential of 160 characters is explored on a scale unimaginable on Web 2.0 where Twitter, for example, is just one app in a vast ocean of other possibilities.

Crossing the Chasm Between The Top and the Bottom of the Pyramid

This total separation between the top and the bottom of the pyramid is, in part at least, constructed through the current web culture of web exclusive subscriptions.

It is perfectly possible to write an app that would accept SMS text and post it on a web page without ever requiring a web visit from the SMS subscriber. The same app could also accept text input from a web page and send it out as SMS to one or many subscribers that have never visited a web page, thus enabling communication across this gap.

Oxygenating the System: Monetizing Doing the Right Thing

The VCs, business leaders and  entrepreneurs at Web 2.0 Summit had their entrepreneurial Spidy Senses (as John Battelle calls them) tuned to the challenges and opportunities of Web Meets World.  Some of the winners of the Web 2.0 Launch Pad Competition explored the premise that doing the right thing can be monetized.

Danny Kennedy’ Sungevity was the overall winner.  Sungevity’s aim is to “scale solar electricity as a solution to climate change.”  Their use of a Virtual Earth feed to streamline the installation of solar panels and ambition to be the SalesForce.com for the solar industry was a very winning combo.

Good Guide, a really excellent service (also available as an iphone app) providing a guide to all products from the perspective of their healthfullness, greeness and other socially valuable criteria clearly scored a 10 on doing the right thing.  But Good Guide’s ability to succeed on the monetizing side of the equation was questioned by one of the VC’s on the Launch Pad panel.

Carbon Networks pitched with the mantra “do the right thing and enhance the balance sheets in the process.” But the difficulty there, it seems to me, is that there are many questions re the benefits, or lack of them, of global carbon trading markets.

Carbon Networks argued that carbon markets, which are already a giant industry, present enormous opportunity for companies to monetize doing the right thing.

I asked Gavin Starks (who I interviewed recently about his venture AMEE – a BIG project to aggregate the world’s energy data) about the problems of carbon markets.

“They have high levels of inappropriate use even for a new market area,” he commented, noting:

“There are some superb projects out there, but it would be fair to say there has been good dose of snake oil in the space – which has certainly not helped to build consumer confidence. However, markets are necessary to engage with the scale of investment that is needed to address the issue – it’s the use of funds that needs more scrutiny and greater transparency needs to be given to the whole process.”

There are projects working with Voluntary Emissions Reduction which aren’t tradable on proper carbon cap-and-trade markets, “though in theory the step up to CERs (certified emissions reductions) isn’t too great a thing,” Gavin noted.

MicroEnergy Credits the  initiative presented on the Track Me panel by April Allderdice, co-founder and CEO, is a good example of this.

Gavin pointed me to CheatNeutral and their YouTube video for a hilarious and razor sharp look at the problems of carbon offsetting. The text below is from the CheatNeutral site.

Gavin also explained a new initiative Sandbag (beta). Sandbag aims to take the permits that allow polluters to pollute out of the system.

“Thanks to policy makers in the UN and Europe levels of pollution are now controlled. Permits must be bought by polluters to let them keep polluting. But there is a finite number of them in circulation and the good news is anyone can buy them. So by taking a permit out of the system we can reduce the amount of pollution taking place and force industry to invest in cleaner technologies. One less permit means one less tonne of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.”

AMEE is working with  Sandbag

Consuming Less and Redefining Prosperity

This picture is from the Sustainable Mobility Panel at the ASPO-USA Peak Oil Conference.

Perhaps nowhere is it more clear than when we look at the reports that link catastrophic climate change to the assumption of growth that what is really at stake in terms of averting catastrophe is not just retooling our energy infrastructure, but fundamental changes at the level of culture and identity.

Consuming less may be the single biggest thing you can do to save Carbon Emissions, Tim O’Reilly said, in his Tweet on “Why politicians dare not limit economic growth.”

A growing band of experts are looking at figures like these and arguing that personal carbon virtue and collective environmentalism are futile as long as our economic system is built on the assumption of growth. (New Scientist)

But few of us are willing to contemplate what a sustainable economy and averting the catastrophe of climate change require – redefining prosperity and reducing consumption (see Redefining Prosperity).

Web 2.0 Summit took on the challenge of reimagining giant industries like energy, food and transportation and how we might  be able to shift away from a culture of food and energy consumption that is basically killing us and our world (see Michael Pollan’s brilliant High Order Bit on the culture of food in the US).

The Summit gurus urged that taking risks and tackling very big problems has always been what Web 2.0 is about and indeed cultural shifts of the magnitude needed would be hard to imagine without a Web 2.0 perspective

Shai Agassi, Better Place, explained how paradigm shifts require new business models. See Shai’s High Order Bit here on the evolution of “Better Place,” -  by giving away free electric cars he is creating a new business venture that will bring clean cars into the mass market.  New business models not just new technology are required to drive change.

Breaking News From Reuben Steiger’s blog

First Israel.  Then Denmark.  A few weeks ago, Australia.  Today,  Mayor Newsom along with Governor Schwartznegger and the Mayors of San Jose and Oakland, announced that they would be making a major move towards bringing electric vehicles and the Better Place network to the Bay Area.

Please, visit Planet Better Place to sign the petition,  join the movement and bring Better Place to your town or country.

To motivate yourself and others how important it is to change patterns of consumption see Saul Griffith’s High Order Bit here and Project Wattzon

“…..from flying, driving, powering a home, eating, shopping, working and even one’s share of the energy necessary to make our society function. WattzOn helps users understand their personal impact on the environment and how they rate compared to others WattzOn users, as well as global averages.”

“The Secret Sauce”: New Business Models for Web Meets World

I spent some time talking to Don Dodge, Director of Business Development, Microsoft’s Emerging Business Division, about the future of  virtual worlds and what technologies he thought would play an important role in developing the participatory architecture of the web (full interview coming soon!).

“The question is how do you apply these technologies? Where is the best use for them? And this is the hard part.  When you look at social media and social networks and things like Wikipedia, don’t look so much at the technology because that is fairly simple.

Look at the rules of social interaction and how people interact, and how you put protections in there so that people don’t game the system or do bad things.  Look at the processes because that’s really the secret sauce of how it all works.  The technology is simple. It looks easy from a distance, when you start getting into how it really works from a social perspective that’s the secret sauce.”

(screenshot above from Threadless )

Also I caught up with John Battelle, Federated Media Publishing (see his Data Bill of Rights here), and Jennifer Pahlka, TechWeb, at a small press conference. I managed to squeeze in a couple of questions!

Tish Shute: If marketing has been the oxygen of the system up to now, what will oxygenate the system of the new participatory culture of Web meets World”

John Battelle: I don’t think marketing ever stops being one of the most significant pieces of the economy -  because it is, of the whole economy. So what I do think will happen, and this is the company that I run, I do think marketing will shift very dramatically in terms of its approach and how it is a part of the value exchange that occurs around goods.

One of the reasons that I had Tony Tsieh from Zappos was to show that.   Tony shows how every single human being in his organization is a marketer and sees every interaction they have as marketing.  Can you imagine  a company as big as Intel that has that kind of an approach?  That’s when we will have a real shift. Business models based on that idea are emerging.  I run a company that is involved in that. I don’t try to push it on the stage ..but I do it is right there Federated Media!  And now I am pushing it [laughs]

Its an idea that comes from all this staring at this. I do think marketing is going to shift quite dramatically. So we may see in 10 yrs that we don’t have a big media budget  pushing adds at people. But will there always be budgets for creation of value exchange between consumers and producers? yes! There will just be new models for how that money is distributed and spent and new services and intermediaries for that value exchange.

Tish Shute: But who controls definition of data will remain key right?

John Battelle: There is a reason why Yahoo, AOL, Facebook, MySpace, all of whom are here, and Google, are all about the data….all about the data….sorry I have to go!

Jennifer Pahlka: I think in addition to the enormous changes that John was just talking about in marketing, and I think these are very significant – the way marketing will be seen completely differently 5 years from now.  There is also the shift in Web 2 away from an over identification with  Web 2.0 as being primarily about and driven by advertising  because of these models that are emerging for Web 2 that are driven by data, driven by services, subscription.  There are a whole bunch of other business models for Web 2 start ups and for enterprise that really don’t have anything to do with that at all.

Tish Shute: And in terms of participatory culture and sharing data?

Jennifer Pahlka: And even on a simpler level than the data.  Think of a company like Threadless [see screenshot above]. Their co-founders are keynoting at our Spring event.  They have taken some of the other principles of the architecture of participation and the creativity of the community and built a whole difference around that.  And all they do is sell T-Shirts.

“A Billion One-Person Enterprises”

New York Times writer, Saul Hansell, in his article, “Web 2.0 Gets Big and Corporate,” writes, “the best minds of our generation are turning to the Web for solutions.”  …..the big companies that make very complicated systems are reworking them using the principles of Web 2.0 companies.”

But “big companies” themselves may soon be a thing of the past.  One of the potential futures many my friends in virtual worlds have been looking at is, “if the future consisted of a billion one-person enterprises.”

Tony O’Driscoll described some of his thinking re the role virtual worlds will play in this potential future.  See Tony’s presentation, “A brief history of a potential future” on SlideShare. Tony’s research provides a window onto the new participatory architecture of business, government and the economy and the ways the individual and the collective will have new dynamic relationships based on “co-creation.”

Second Life and Wikipedia are the two great experiments in collaborative co-creation. They show us how co-creation can be one of the keys to a participatory global culture and sustainable living – part of creating an alternative to this economy of escalating consumption that has us in its death grip today.

Tim O’Reilly has outlined some of the world’s big problems in his talks, and urged technologists to “work on stuff that matters.” I was one of O’Reilly’s listeners at the Web 2.0 Expo in NYC (see my post here).

But, I found out at the Head Conference in London, recently, that O’Reilly is doing more than just talking about solving the world’s problems. The O’Reilly VC company is investing in technologies that tackle these big problems, for example, a very interesting startup, AMEE.

AMEE is a new company with a VERY big, world changing idea – “to create  a neutral technology platform to aggregate all the energy consumption data in world ” – “to be the world’s energy meter.”

I was fortunate, when I was in London, to get an opportunity to chat with Tim O’Reilly about AMEE, Web 2.0, and the role of virtual worlds in positive global development. Also, I met the CEO of AMEE, Gavin Starks.

We are still, just, in the pre “Internet of Things” era.  But, soon, as Bruce Sterling puts it, we will be able to “Google our shoes” or find out which super market shelves are out of sandwiches at any particular point in time! But for now, it can still be very hard to find a sandwich, even in central London. So, I had plenty of time to talk to Tim O’Reilly whilst searching for a hand held bite to eat.

We journeyed past several sandwichless restaurants (Tim picked up the Financial Times under his arm in the picture above in one of them), and super markets with shelves stripped bare except for some end of the day sushi (it looked scary so we passed on that).

Finally, McDonalds came through for us with the sandwich in the top left corner of the photo above.  The full interview is later in this post.

First, more about AMEE.

Tim O’Reilly says he doesn’t like predicting the future. But the future comes to Tim O’Reilly in very powerful ways.  And AMEE asks us to play a new proactive role in our own future. AMEE’s call to action is:

“If all the energy data in the world were accessible, what would you build?”

AMEE, to me, is a quintessential example of an effort to harness the key paradigm shifts of Web 2.0 (see O’Reilly, “What is Web 2.0?“) to tackle some of the world’s most pressing problems.

AMEE’s mission is to be a neutral technology platform, using open source and standards, and an architecture of participation, to address the need to standardize measurement, encourage collaborative development, and create a market place for energy data.

AMEE’s goal is to enable us to understand energy consumption from the level of the individual to the scale of whole countries.

This would address the need O’Reilly notes here his son-in-law Saul Griffith argued at Emerging Technology Conference earlier this year:  “to pick a target CO2 concentration and work backwards to get to an energy policy, rather than guessing at an energy policy with fingers crossed, hoping for a climate outcome that is tolerable.” AMEE is also involved in Saul’s Wattzon initiative.

Gavin Starks, CEO, AMEE, (pictured above standing under the Head Conference banner – a recording of his talk is here), explained:

AMEE’s vision is to aggregate all the energy data on Earth. By energy I include electricity, gas and all types of fuel, water, waste, you name it: everything we do is energy consumption, which means really building towards our sustainability footprint rather than just our carbon footprint. The initial thing we’ve focused on is Carbon and CO2, because that’s the most pressing issue we have to face: but it’s quite a thin layer on top of the whole sustainability question.

AMEE is not building the front-end applications to harness this energy data. Gavin noted:

We’re aggregating all the standards. This is a massively complex area, so we’ve got a science team whose job is to harvest all the scientific research and methodologies. That’s not something developers tend to want to go anywhere near: it unpacks itself into enormous amounts of complexity very quickly (e.g. building methodologies that have 700 data points).  Our Chief Scientific Officer, Dr Andrew Conway, is ex-NASA and has worked on massive scientific data analysis.

We aggregate government standards and other international standards, so that you know when you’re integrating with us, that you’re working to those standards. But much more than that we actually publish those standards on an open Wiki (the Wiki and the API actually talk to each other). As these standards emerge and evolve, we’ll be tracking them, ensuring that we are up to date, and granularity is added as needed.

We were very fortunate that one of our first clients was Defra which UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra is currently restructuring into DEC – the Department for Energy and Climate Change. So in the UK they’re actually fusing Energy and Climate Change into a single government department. I think this is quite remarkable: a giant step forward.

We were contracted by them because they were building a national campaign to raise the awareness of every citizen’s personal and household footprint, and they were looking for an Open Source solution – which AMEE is. Defra/DEC now use AMEE for two purposes: they make their standards available through the AMEE platform, so that everybody else can use them, and as the back-end solution to their national campaign, “Act on CO2″.

AMEE is SaaS – a web-service API – we’re not trying to compete with anyone on the front-end development and delivery. Because we aggregate two moving targets: standards and consumption, we enable those integrated with us to be current at all times.

Who Owns the Data?

But, if AMEE hopes to harness global network effects as a neutral aggregator of energy consumption data from individuals, businesses, and governments, one of the key questions that AMEE must answer (also a key question for Web 2.0 in general) is: Who owns the data?  I have delved into this question before on Ugotrade. See David Levine’s conversation with Eben Moglen on privacy here.

Gavin told me that this is a question AMEE has given a lot of thought to.

How AMEE answers this question, Who owns the data?, will probably determine the success of their mission as an ethical endeavor,  and their ability to scale and leverage the network effects of the internet as a platform while still allowing ” a very granular level of energy activity to be tracked.”

Gavin explained where AMEE is going re their approach to this issue. And, how this relates to AMEE’s business model – software as a service (SaaS).

We’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the best way to approach this, from both a commercial perspective and an ethical perspective.

We’re in a position where we’re aggregating vast amounts of personal and business information, on an ongoing basis. If we were to integrate with your credit cards, your smart meter, your supermarket, and your vehicles: we actually know everything about your life. Aside from the Data Protection issues we felt, “How could we protect everybody around ‘excessive’ exploitation of that data and ensure the user has long-term control?”.

As the saying goes, “we don’t know what we don’t know”: when it comes to predicting what our privacy issues will be, and as the data around our physical lives becomes digitally available, we wanted to err on the side of caution. Danny O’Brien, the EFF and MySociety have certainly helped to shape our thinking in this respect.

So if you’re a Google user and you go into the Google and you kick off a calculation, all your answers to the questions are stored in AMEE – but we don’t know who you are. We’ve got an anonymous key, Google’s got the anonymous key. Google will have your user name and so on and so forth. In AMEE we’ve got the aggregate of the responses to the questions. It’s up to Google’s Privacy Policy to determine what they and their user’s can do.

However, this doesn’t preclude us from enabling data-portability on behalf of the user. The anonymous key is not dissimilar to an OpenID, but applied to a specific data set. We are heading towards allowing you to control your data’s portability, as an individual.

It’s a fragile space. We want to give you the opportunity to glue together your AMEE IDs with your OpenID, or whatever login you choose, so that you’re in control. We aim to enable this to be both cloud and edge-based, which while fragile, is in the interest of the user. The more value we can provide, we believe, the stronger the value of our proposition.

But, because were dealing with a range of different massive organizations … imagine credit card companies sharing data with energy companies sharing data with petrol companies, sharing data with airlines etc. That’s a massive challenge from a business and political perspective – almost impossible to navigate.

We can enable people to collaborate, by making it opt-in all the way through the chain. We don’t undermine peoples existing databases: we can actually add value to them, or we aim to add value to them. We think this has got a huge amount of potential to stimulate new business for our clients.

It’s very “web” in its execution: we are part of an ecosystem. Part of our imperative is to be commercially enabling to everybody else. If we’re not being commercially enabling to other people, we’re not going to get the kind of scale of change that we need.

This was another design feature. We felt, “how could we create something which other people could build businesses or platforms on top of”?  And, how could that scale incredibly quickly? If we’d gone beyond our boundaries as an API, we would have been competing with people we want to work with.

While many services have taken similar strategic approaches, most seem to start with a form of lock-in, or evolve quickly to the point of lock-in, which satisfies a current trend in their valuations. We believe this trend will change and adapt to a more “privacy-based” intelligence, which has substantial value.

Tim O’Reilly in The Magic Circle

The motto of The Magic Circle where the Head Conference was held, “Indocilis Privata Loqui,” can be roughly translated as “not apt to disclose secrets.”  One of the wonderful displays of memorabila there was Robert Houdin’s Mystery Clock (picture below).  Luckily, for me, I was was treated to a full explanation of the “Mystery Clock” by another attendee during the Head Conference cocktail party.

As Tim O’Reilly pointed out, in his interview with Aral Balkan, he felt it was a privilege to be talking in this theater and center of magic.  Capturing the magic, spreading the magic, and sharing the magic is at the heart of what he has spent his career doing.  He explained:

I guess this is kind of a root idea for O’Reilly…… When I look back on my career….What did we really do?  Find cool people who were doing cool shit. They didn’t really need any help from us. But then there were a bunch of people who were saying, “How did they do that”? Those are the people we help.

We find the people who are doing what appears to be magic. The Arthur C. Clarke kind of magic you know…. We document – we teach people how to do it.

It is such a great  privilege to be here in a theater devoted to magic – The Magic Circle. This is really what we try to do.  We try to capture the magic, spread the magic, share it with other people.

Interview With Tim O’Reilly

Tish Shute: I was interested in your comment on Chris Brogan’s blog post the other day.

Tim O’Reilly: Actually it wasn’t Chris Brogan’s post. Dennis Howlett was a guest blogger. I was reacting to him saying there is nothing new in Web 2.0. My reaction was: “Well gosh it’s very easy to make a straw man out of Web 2.0 and say, ‘What’s new?’”

Howlett was specifically reacting to the Web 2.0 start ups that are superficial and not really what the trend is all about.  For me, Web 2.0 is about the internet becoming a platform. Does he think that is over?

And, it is about understanding that the rules of business change when the internet is a platform. I think a lot of people do that with Web 2.0 [make it a straw man].

They don’t like the term Web 2.0 and they attach ideas to it that reflect the most superficial elements. And then, they say these aren’t interesting. And, what he was saying was that there is a lot of superficial social media stuff – consumer apps, and what really matters is what will bring ROI to business.

I just said that he is totally missing the point because learning how to use the network as a platform matters very much to business. The same rules that apply to everyone else apply to businesses.

So, for example, I have made the point in my talk in New York, just a few months ago, that in many ways you can think of Walmart as a Web 2.0 company. They are infused with IP – they are taking the data that the users give them by buying things and making themselves a more responsive organization by using that data.

That is the heart of Web 2.0 in the enterprise. Not, do they use social media or not, or the social media buzz words.

Tish Shute: I am going to do an interview with Gavin Starks, CEO of AMEE. Could you tell me about your role in this project?

Tim O’Reilly: My role is as an investor. Our venture firm, O’Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, has just finished closing on investment in AMEE. We think global warming is a really important issue to come to grips with. And, a big part of it is actually keeping track of all the carbon we’re emitting. AMEE helps with that problem.

Tish Shute: What is the potential, now we are beginning to break virtual world technologies down into basic open source building blocks, to create useful mashups with sensor technology, Web 2.0 and Virtual Worlds? Could Virtual Worlds play a key role in this work of instrumenting the world?

Tim O’Reilly: First of all, I don’t think that Virtual Worlds in the Second Life style will have this role …while I like the concept of Second Life, in that we have a Second Life in a virtual world, I am not sure that 3D avatars are [the way to go]…. at least they are certainly not my Second Life.  My Second Life is in other types of media.

But, when I look at this idea of instrumenting the world, one of the things that is very, very clear is that we are turning all the millions of consumer cameras into sensors.

For example, Microsoft’s Photosynth demonstrates how these consumer sensors can be used to build 3D models. We are starting to build a 3D representation of the real world, not a separate virtual world. And, we are all going to be part of that world. So I think that the real Second Life will be ………..well I think the first layer is going to be….to get the 3D models of the world as it is, and then we will have doorways into additional rooms and additional spaces.

That’s when its going to take off because people are going to get used to it through navigating the real physical world with maps – with 3D imagery of buildings and spaces.

And, another piece of this… I talked recently with Carl Bass, CEO of Autodesk……and he was talking about how much even the Autodesk workflow is shifting to scanning things first.

He was describing how they have built this new demo center in an old building.  The first thing they did was photographs and measure it exactly. Then they go and make stuff that fits in the exact space.

Also, he was talking about how in his own hobbyist work, he found this shark’s jaw and he loved the curve of it.  So he scanned it and made it into the arms of a chair.

Tish Shute: I think the two important pieces that might come out of virtual worlds technology are the real time interactions where people can view the same application or context as and when you do, and the rapid prototyping.

Tim O’Reilly: Yes rapid prototyping, no question. But, as I said, the idea of moving an avatar around isn’t very compelling to be quite honest.

Tish Shute: But the web doesn’t do real time interaction very well does it?

Tim O’Reilly: Well Twitter is doing a pretty good job!

Tish Shute: Yes I love Twitter. But, in terms of if you want to get a 10,000 foot view and gather around and interact with data with other people…..what about that?

Tim O’Reilly: Well that’s true. I am using that example of the Squeak based virtual world that Fidelity is using. And, that is exactly what they are using it for – business interaction.

Tish Shute: What about the role Virtual Worlds might play, for example, in instrumenting the world through facilities management?

Tim O’Reilly: Yes, SAP did a very interesting project on property management – and that is interesting.

Tish Shute: Yes, on my way back to New York City tomorrow, I am going to stop off in Zurich and visit Oliver Goh who worked with Denis Browne, SAP, on that project. In fact you showed a picture of Oliver’s Goh’s avatar demoing the virtual counterpart to his instrumented Playmobile house in Second Life in your post, “SAP as a Web 2.0 Company?” (see the picture below).

Tim O’Reilly: I make no attempt at predicting the future.  So you could well be right that Virtual Worlds will be a very powerful tool.  But, I think with the pace that other technologies are progressing, we will get there with photorealism and video, etc.  I think the fundamental problem in most virtual world stuff is the idea of the avatar.

Tish Shute: Why do you say that?

Tim O’Reilly: Well just imagine if when interacting with people in the real world you had to look at yourself interacting with someone else.  First person point of view is our fundamental experience.  And, you are being forced to see yourself in the third person.

Tish Shute: I have always been more interested in avataring the world than in my avatar identity.

Tim O’Reilly: There is something very interesting in having an avatar that you don’t ever see.

[At this point there were less than ten minutes before Tim's interview for the Head Conference, so it was time to concentrate on eating!]

Virtual Worlds: Where Web Meets World

As Ian Hughes, IBM, notes in a recent post on Eightbar:

The last few days have seen a plethora of virtual world pitches, reports, articles and blog posts around certain types of virtual world platform. The first was over at @monkchips a.k.a James Governor analyst blog around a visit to Microsoft to see about the ESP platform. This appears to be a high fidelity simulation platform and toolkit. The second was widely reported. But Wagner’s New World Notes is the one most of the metarati will have read on the matter. This centres around some statments by Craig Mundie that avatar based interaction was of limited interest and really it was photosynth that was the way forward, modelling the real world from photos…….

I agree with Ian when he says:

the interesting thing here is that all the discussion is not about why would anyone want a virtual world, but instead what sort is best.

Tim O’Reilly was not questioning, in my view, that we are moving towards new understandings of virtual spaces or virtual worlds but whether avatar based virtual worlds will be the most useful model.

I began my questions to Tim O’Reilly by bringing up his comment on Dennis Howlett’s post not only because he succinctly states there what is really important about Web 2.0, i.e., “internet as platform, and the rise of applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.”

But also, this comment caught my attention because Tim used virtual worlds as one of the examples of the value of Web 2.0 to enterprise.  He wrote:

Guess what : they [SAP] understand that harnessing users is good for their business. At O’Reilly, our InPractice division is working with them to actually turn their documentation into an open source, crowdsourced project. They are doing fascinating experiments at SAP Labs with how to integrate virtual worlds into property management. They have built a great internal social network for employees that has already affected their HR practices.

It is Oliver Goh’s instrumented virtual house in Second Life that Tim mentions in his post “SAP as a Web 2.0 Company?” to make the point that:

This prototype is also very on trend with one of the big ideas we have about where Web 2.0 is going, towards Web 2.0 applications that are fed directly by sensors, so that “participation” no longer just means typing on a keyboard, but the accidental information we create “merely in living as and where we live.”

I have been blogging Oliver’s work prototyping various use cases for virtual worlds in facilities management and energy optimization, e.g., virtual operations centers, in Second Life and OpenSim, since its inception (see here and here).

Now, Oliver has developed a complete solution for sustainabililty in the real estate industry that optimizes energy consumption through the entire life cycle of properties - see here for more.

Also, look out for some interesting intersections between AMEE’s mission – ” to create the world’s energy meter,” and Oliver’s mission to “optimize the world’s energy usage” in the future!

I visited Oliver in Zurich on my way back to NYC from the Head Conference.  In the picture below, Oliver is standing by the Playmobile house that is RL counterpart to the virtual control center house pictured above!

The ability of virtual worlds to play a role in solving the world’s pressing problems is, in my view, linked both to their ability to fully integrate in Web 2.0 and “real” world  data.

I have been blogging a lot on these issues!  Rob Smart, IBM, (see my recent interviews with Rob here and here – “Web 2.0 to OpenSim Made Easy”) has been doing some very interesting work recently integrating JSON support to OpenSim. This is one of the recent important steps forward in virtual world to real world communication.  See this cool video, “OpenSim Meets MQTT jedi mind numbers.”

The powerful value add that virtual worlds, even in a basic form, have shown in the realm of social media that “the people with you can view the changing states of that application or context as and when you do” can also play an important role in the front end applications for projects like AMEE and Oliver’s work.

This is not to discount the role of social media virtual worlds in the participatory work of instrumenting our planet. There is already  a nice integration of AMEE  with Second Life. See Jim Purbrick’s Carbon Goggle’s for Second Life here.

Carbon Goggles from Jim Purbrick on Vimeo

But, if virtual world technology is going be part of the evolving power of the internet to help us solve the big problems facing humanity, there must be an evolving vision for virtual worlds and their relationship with the “real” world.

Most likely, many of the dichotomies, e.g., the notion of avatar based or non avatar based, or simulation versus augmentation, and mirror worlds versus virtual worlds, will increasingly dissolve as all these aspects of virtual reality are woven together into the fabric of everday computing to form new digital/physical realities. And, while I’m not trying to predict the future, perhaps, this will happen sooner than we think!