RSS Feed
Posts with tag 'UbiComp'
Moving Into The Cloud
This post from Geoffrey Long talks about the continuing formation and use of the "Cloud" (as in Cloud Computing) but also gets the distinction between that and Ubiquitous Computing:
"...I conflated the terms 'cloud computing' and 'ubiquitous computing', but in retrospect I should pull the two terms apart somewhat...."
Geoffrey's discussion of his experiments to sync his information in the cloud to his local environment is worth a read and points out one of the many issues we will be wrestling with as cloud computing and ubicomp become more prevalent. Having just watched the movie "Live Free or Die Hard", where cyberterrorists threaten to hack and take down the information infrastructure of the U.S., I think the discussion of centralizing information is far from being done.
rk
Wifi Photo Frames
FrameChannel is a free web service that allows you to manage content on your wireless picture frame. From their website:
Once you set your frame up with FrameChannel and subscribe to channels of your choice, your frame will automatically update when changes to these feeds are made. For example, you will be able to see your new flickr pictures on your wireless frame as soon as they are updated on your flickr account!
Actually, you had me at wireless picture frame. I had been waiting for such a thing a while back and now it seems like a number of WiFi capable digital photo frames have emerged on the market. The company lists the variety of wireless and other picture frames their service can work with here.
The other thing that caught my eye is the statement:
Friends and family can contribute content directly to your frame, updating family photos in real time.
This feature is actually of great interest to me as it is an application I envisioned earlier this year when I was trying to help my father set up and use a digital photo frame. My father has always been mechanically gifted but has little desire to log onto a computer or the Internet. The prospect of getting him to further somehow transfer digital photos to his frame is just a non-starter. So the only option that left me with is occasionally sending an SD card of photos by snailmail. It would be nice, I thought, if I was somehow able to get his computer to transfer incoming photos to the digital frame automatically. It seemed like it would be easy enough to piece together the necessary software bits, but they would depend on having the necessary WiFi or Bluetooth wireless capability in the photo frame.
Fortunately, the emergence of WiFi photo frames from various vendors means I won't have to do this nontrivial hardware hack of a digital photo frame, and now thanks to FrameChannel I won't even have to write the software. I will definitely be shopping for a couple of these WiFi frames in the near future and giving FrameChannel's service a test drive.
Of course, the fact that FrameChannel has tackled the main applications for this just means that I am now free to consider less obvious Ubicomp applications of the technology.
rk
Bluetooth Sex: Intimate Human Computer Interfaces
Exploration of ubiquitous computing networks and human computer interfaces would not be complete without the consideration of sexual applications of the technology. I debated on doing this post, not because I had any moral issues but because I didn't think it had emerged yet or warranted more than its 15 minute worth of popularity. It turns out that I was actually behind the curve.
I was motivated to do a bit more research when I noticed the traffic stats for this blog, which I had left dormant for a period while I worked on another project (picobuzz.com). Yet, despite the inactivity, I am still getting traffic for a particular post:
iPod Bikini: 2nd Sexiest Bluetooth App EverNot that I was surprised to get some attention with that sort of title but the post wasn't so provocative that I expected to keep getting traffic a year later. So I thought I should follow up. In that post, I added a closing link to a product named "The Toy". I checked up on the website and the product is still alive and well.
The Toy is a personal vibrator worn internally. The "unit" is linked via Bluetooth to a mobile phone and controlled by text messages sent to the phone, which are transformed into different vibrations by The Toy. As an example scenario for its use, here is an excerpt from their website:
Monday morning - she leaves with The Toy inside...
She's given you the power - You alone control The Toy
I thought web browsing at work was a distraction. This just totally killed the productivity of two people. Check out the website for further reading. You know you want to.
The Toy is not the only toy of its kind (literally)--there is also something known as the Wiibrator. As you would guess from the name, the Wiibrator provides similar functionality for the Nintendo Wii. Yes, the kid-oriented system, which my grade school-age son uses to play games with excessively cute characters, has been co-opted for adult recreation.
As you can see from the link, the Wiibrator is not a product as such but a program that interfaces the Wii’s Wiimote and the PS2's Trancevibrator. That's right--before the Wiibrator there was a PS2 vibrator named the Trancevibrator, still available for purchase (page may be NSFW).
I think it is particularly relevant to note the date of the Wiibrator post (December 17, 2006) relative to the release date of the Wii as reported by Wikipedia. Specifically, when the Wii was launched in key markets on December 8, 2006, about one week later there was a hack to use it as a sex toy.
There is actually a field of research dedicated to this sort of application of technology named "teledildonics". Furthermore, you know something has arrived technologically when there is an open source movement for it--in this case appropriately named "opendildonics" which can found at wiki.opendildonics.org.
So what is the point of all this, other than"sex sells"? Should we be focused on developing sex/adult infrastructure and applications? Actually, the point is that we don't need to. People will use the technology for their own desires and applications--be they erotic or something else. We aren't compelled to encourage adult applications, but they will happen, and to expect otherwise--or worse try to resist--would be futile and unproductive. And as is often the case, they may drive (will) adoption of technologies.
rk
Rethinking The Interface: Minimalism
Ryan Tomayko has an interesting post on his blog where he discusses a minimalistic approach to web interface design. He apparently had an epiphany after watching Edward Tufte’s critique of the iPhone. A central concept to this approach relates to "computer administrative debris":
The idea is that the content is the interface, the information is the interface – not computer administrative debris.
More precisely, anything that exists outside of the content, or that does not fit naturally with the information being presented, qualifies as administrative debris and is therefore a candidate for elimination from the design. While this definition is not exactly synonymous with minimalism, the end result in practice may be very minimalistic indeed. As an example, we need look no further than Ryan's blog, a snapshot of which is shown in the image above. Ryan took the concept to heart, and overhauled his blog. As you can see, the result is quite low in debris.
This sort of rethinking of interface design will be essential to the evolution of ubicomp. In my previous post: What Can We Do Differently With Ubicomp? , principle #2 states:
We will layer the interfaces onto our environment and blur the line between information and things.
Clearly, we will not be able to blur these lines until we remove the "debris" we have tolerated in computer graphical user interfaces, and make them more compatible with design principles which have evolved in the non-digital world.
rk
Seth Godin On The "Clowd" (Cloud Computing)
Seth Godin has a post on his blog talking about the "Clowd"--a term he coined which combines "crowd" with "cloud" (as in cloud computing). In the post he briefly discusses some scenarios on how cloud computing and /or (depending on who you as) ubiquitous computing would work in real urban environments. His examples are a refreshing improvement over the stale examples (e.g. the "coupon") often used.
He points out the obvious privacy concerns but I think also shows the utility of the ubiquitous cloud. I especially liked his comment: "..it can do Zagats to the ten thousandth power by..".
With no further ado, I refer you to Seth's thoughts in Seth's own words: link
Comments On Gartner's Top Ten Disruptive Technologies
Gartner recently released a list of the Top Ten Disruptive Technologies for 2008 to 2012. This has been commented on in a number of blogs around the Web, but since it has some technologies related to Ubicomp, I figured I'd throw in my two cents worth.
Here is the list:
- Multicore and hybrid processors
- Virtualisation and fabric computing
- Social networks and social software
- Cloud computing and cloud/Web platforms
- Web mashups
- User Interface
- Ubiquitous computing
- Contextual computing
- Augmented reality
- Semantics
On Disruption
It seems like a worthy enough list of technologies to watch and which will have some impact in the near future. However, the first observation I have is that few of these seem immediately disruptive. Disruptive to who or what? Some of these have been around for some time under other names: multicore processors (parallel processors), virtualization (virtual computing), mesh computing (distributed processing). I took courses on these concepts many years ago (more than I care to reveal). They are just the latest in an ongoing evolution. Gartner sees these items from their list as threats to IT organizations, which will result in reduction or elimination of IT staffing and management jobs. To this I respond: I wish that part of my job would go away, but I will have to see it to believe it. A concept like virtualization just moves the focus somewhere else--it doesn't eliminate much.
Other items on the list like semantics and contextual computing operate too far under the radar to be distruptive. These are being discussed by providers and infrastructure people--the same people who championed things like XML and SOA. They ultimately provide great utility but don't experience a viral growth or disruptive singularity. Social networking is different in the aspect of being very much on the surface, but by definition it has the harmonious goal of connecting people in more and different ways. Social networking may in fact disrupt marketeers and advertisers, but even on social nets, the old rules of conversation still apply (even if we are just recently writing down some of the rules).
Mashups could be genuinely disruptive in some ways, since it shifts the architecture and the attention. As this grows as a business model, it raises questions such as:
- Who owns the information? What is the value of data feed vs. mashup?
- What are the revenue streams? It is better to be the "invisible" data provider or the easily cloned mashup?
- As Gartner questions: do they lend themselves to investment dollars?
If I were to pick one item from the list as most potentially disruptive, I would pick augmented reality. First, the name itself implies you are changing reality in some way which makes it a candidate for disruption. More importantly, If or when display and other sensory I/O technology becomes seamless and unobtrusive enough, I believe the level of fantasy, escapism, and withdrawal possible could have a huge impact on relationships and socialization, and not all good. I am still trying to figure out the appeal of FurryMUCK and yiff. The suspension of belief and judgement possible with good 3D Virtual Reality will make Grand Theft Auto look seem like Ms. Pacman.
Ubicomp
In addition to ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) being listed explicitly in the 10 technologies, other items on the list also figure into ubicomp, like User Interface (non-traditional interfaces), contextual computing (your computing environment changing on your location/context) and to some degree, cloud computing (being surrounded by a distributed cloud of computers). For a description of ubicomp, see my post What Is Ubiquitous Computing?, and also What Can We Do Differently With Ubicomp?
According to the Gartner article:
"...within the next five years, information will be presented via new user interfaces such as organic light-emitting displays, digital paper and billboards, holographic and 3D imaging and smart fabric."
I think this is a safe bet--display and other interface technologies have consistently driven change in computers, home entertainment and mobile phone applications. As far as ubicomp, I will likely be blogging specifically on this in the near future. For a taste, see my post on Human-Computer Interfaces In The Iron Man Movie. In general one of the recurring themes of ubicomp is to move displays and interfaces away from the traditional desktop display (or even laptop display) and blend them into the environment. As OLED displays and digital paper become cheap and easy to mass produce, they will be applied to the surfaces of all kinds of objects. This will not only open up possibilities for information to be displayed in more convenient places (such as the kitchen, mirrors) but also for applications for nontraditional objects (such as the fridge) to display information and interact with us. And while I have a hard time imagining an actual, working holographic display, when it does happen it can't help but change the way we display and visually process information. And form-factor wise, it is as likely to appear on your coffee table as your desktop.
Relative to ubicomp, contextual computing and cloud computing will serve to enable interaction of the local environment with the user, as well as provide mobility of the user's profiles and applications as she moves from location to location. More ubiquitous and pervasive computers in the environment, as well as deeper and more comprehensive interaction with users, is at the heart of the ubicomp movement.
rk
Ubicomp Watch--Cisco: Visual Networking
Cisco has been working hard lately to change their image to be more consumer-focused in contrast to their traditional network infrastructure, business-oriented focus. Their branding efforts come under the umbrella of "The Human Network" in which they are showing how Cisco products enable and touch end users. They even offer Cisco ringtones for download. You can find general information on The Human Network at this site:
One of their television commercials which caught my eye recently is one entitled "Visual Networking" (another Cisco branding term). This commercial takes place on a city street and shows a number of ways in which video (as delivered by Cisco in some way) is impacting people's activities, for example telenavigation and providing audio-visual instructions to help a guy fix a scooter.
Mixed in this are a couple of Ubicomp application examples, specifically: proximity-aware applications. In one case, a woman is walking her dog, and as she approaches a bus stop shelter, the poster-like display on the side of the shelter changes to an advertisement for gourmet dog food--an advertisement targeted for an "audience of one". Presumably, the display system has detected and identified the woman (based for example on her mobile phone ID), performed a network access to a database somewhere, identified her as a dog owner/lover and selected this particular advert for display. I am assuming this is the scenario as opposed to the display sensing the presence of her dog (although technologically this could be done as well).
In a second example, a guy is passing a large flatscreen monitor in a glass storefront window, and the screen displays a woman--presumably a significant other--who is also apparently passing a similar display on a street somewhere else on the planet. This causes them to recognize each other, stop and wave, and probably start a conversation. The logistics of this can make you think a bit--like coordinating the timing and synchronization of these two people and displays. But this is where things could get interesting in an application like this. Maybe a number of people in a person's personal network could be tracked. Or maybe this is an acquaintance who happens to be traveling in the same city, in which case the service offers a chance for the two to hook up.
The commercial is careful in portraying positive reactions by the actors in the video. The woman walking the dog stops in her stride and shows interest in the dog food advertisement. And the man and woman in the "telepresense" link are happy to see each other. An alternative reaction to these applications could easily be concern about the implications of the underlying surveillance and personal privacy issues involved in the tracking and profiling of people. My personal opinion is that this stuff is going to happen sooner rather than later, so it is good to get these ideas out in the open so they can be debated and managed accordingly.
The video is on this page (you will need to scroll down to the Visual Networking video):
Cisco video: Visual Networking
rk
What Can We Do Differently With Ubicomp?
In my recent ponderings on how to move ubicomp from theory and philosophy into practice, I found it necessary to ask (re-ask, really--it's not like this is the first time) what exactly we might want to accomplish with ubicomp implementations. I will spare you my journey of convoluted mental ramblings, which scare even me sometimes, and present my current conclusions in the form of some questions which I believe address some real human-computer interaction challenges:
- We don't want to give up our online access to information and community, but how can we avoid becoming a slave to our computer screens?
- How can we deliver and present information differently and more effectively?
- How can we filter the ever-increasing flood of information we are trying to process on a daily basis?
- How do we use technology--including but not limited to computers--to better interact with our environment?
To answer each of these questions could fill a volume of writing on its own. However, I will summarize my answers to the questions in the form of 4 principles for ubicomp research and development. I propose these principles as a work in progress and as a basis for discussion.
Four Working Principles Of Ubicomp
- We will make the network and information come to us and follow us arround, not the opposite.
- We will layer the interfaces onto our environment and blur the line between information and things.
- We will use location-awareness and techniques like collaborative filtering to make information personally, physically and temporally relevant.
- We will use a variety of technologies to make things and our environment more aware and able to sense and communicate with us.
Although these principles do not exactly coincide with any particular list of known principles in the field of ubicomp, they are based on literature from known experts and not just naively springing from my head. I expect that someday we will have a relatively-agreed-upon set of working principles. Until then, I reserve the right to modify the content and number of the principles. Finally, I will also point out that the modifer "working" in "working principles has two meanings: a work in progress, but also that I am more interesting in the practical aspects of rolling up our sleeves and getting ubicomp systems constructed.
rk
Human-Computer Interfaces In The Iron Man Movie
I just saw the Iron Movie which, as expected, was replete with high-tech gadgetry and special effects. I also noticed that it specifically contained many examples of technology that embodied Human Computer Interfaces (HCI) concepts and themes, and I wanted to capture my observations and thoughts while the movie is (sort of) still fresh in my mind.
I myself have only seen the movie once, and if/when you see it you will notice that it has action pretty much from start to finish. So I apologize in advance if I don't get the details of the human-computer bits exactly right, or even if I saw one thing and imagined something different in my head. The items I will discuss were rather fleeting and subdued compared to the shots of high-tech armor and explosions they were wedged between. But they were cool in their own right and worthy of consideration.
Spoiler Disclaimer: I won't be discussing anything that is particularly revealing and certainly won't give away any significant parts of the plot, but I will include this disclaimer anyway.
Computers Are Ubiquitous
It should come as no surprise, in a movie featuring the comic character of Iron Man, that computers occur everywhere from bunkers and planes to his labs, home and of course his high-tech armor. HCI is not synonymous with ubiquitous computing, nor does it require it. However, they go tend to go hand-in-hand, since, the more computers become ubiquitous or pervasive in a person's environment, the more important is the requirement for intuitive, natural and effective interfaces.
Interfaces are overlaid on the environment
There were a few examples of this in Iron Man:
- The security access keypad to Tony Stark's personal lab appears on demand on the pane of glass next to the door.
- At one point in his lab Tony invokes a control keypad which appears on a black glass surface.
- Probably the best example is in his bedroom. When the (ahem) guest awakes in his bedroom, displays again materialize on the glass of the windows overlooking his beach view. It is hard to recall what they displayed, but they contained information relevant to the home, daily routine and environment.
- Last but not least, heads-up displays appear inside the helmet of the armor.
Icon Interfaces
In at least one case, the virtual overlaid control interface consists of icons rather than having the standard qwerty keyboard. There is a reason that fast food places have keyboards with specialized, iconic keys. It's not because the workers are not intelligent enough to think about the corresponding words. Rather it's not particularly efficient to have to think about them or worse to have to type them in. If an icon can simply, naturally, and effectively communicate an idea or command, then why require anything more?
Smart Home Control
Tony's home is controlled by an intelligent software assistant in the form of a virtual butler which accepts voice commands. Although it appears a bit too intelligent at times, this form of HCI has been developed and produced for years for smart home applications and will continue to be refined over time.
Anticipating user needs
Tony's software assistant also anticipates his needs and offers suggested courses of action it can take on Tony's behalf. It would desirable for any worthy software assistant to reduce the burden on it user by anticipating user actions and offering options, or even automatically performing actions which need no intervention or approval.
Mobile Agents
Rather than develop new programming for the armor, Tony downloads the home/lab butler program into the armor. Presumably it actually creates a copy since it makes little sense to leave the home unattended. But for Tony, the effect is that the software agent he is familiar with, and his probably extensive customized preferences and usage profile, seamlessly travel with him.
Ambient Information
In addition to whatever else the displays in the bedroom were conveying, they were also communicating information about the ambient environment including weather and surf conditions.
Intelligent Robotic Assistants
Tony Stark uses robotic assistants which are intelligent in the sense that they respond to his verbal commands and nonverbal cues. However, these robots are not android in their physical design, something which would not only require more suspension of belief but would also not be necessary or desirable for their dedicated purpose.
In the movie, Tony's robo-assistants mostly serve to provide comic relief. However, to casually dismiss them with this superficial analysis would be to ignore a couple of more subtle points they illustrate about human-computer interactions:
- The comic element of the robots stem from their failure in some cases to follow Tony's commands. This is precisely what we should expect in an intelligent artificial assistant. A software agent with a level of programming sophistication sufficient for exhibiting useful assistive behavior would necessarily need to work with incomplete and fuzzy information, and is further interacting with an imprecise and fuzzy (by computer standards) human being. So it is occasionally going to make mistakes in the same way that a human assistant would sometimes (or frequently, depending on the human) make mistakes.
- We see an example where the human being is probably exhibiting anthropomorphism (the attribution of human characteristics to nonhuman entities) toward the robot. We hear Tony delivering fairly extended and human-like communication to a robot. Yet we have no other indication that the robot is comprehending more than the basic elements of the speech, or that it's behavior is really anything more naive and imperfect responses to the situation. Humans are well known to be capable of attributing intelligence and even feelings to inanimate objects, even those which lack intelligence by any standards. On one hand, this says more about the human than the agent, but on the other hand it serves as a sort of metric by which to judge the behavior of the agent. It has achieved some level of success if it invokes anthropomorphism in the human.
As you can see, the Iron Movie movie demonstrated a variety of human-computer interface concepts. It is not the first movie to include such concepts (Minority Report comes to mind), but I believe it does a fair job and in closing I will leave you with a thought: was this a conscious effort on the filmmakers part, or are these ideas starting to entrench themselves as memes in our subconscious?
rk
Photo Disclaimer: The photos are most just blog candy as it was not possible to to find actual shots of the displays I discussed.
Xerox Plans For The Future
With their history of computer innovations at PARC, Xerox can certainly be credited in some ways with creating ubiquitous computing, at least the ubiquitous part. This new article Xerox plans the future of today (courtesy of BBC news) talks about research they are doing in different areas these days.
While I was hoping to see more ubicomp stuff, the work is meaningful nonetheless. The erasable paper idea might be co-opted for interesting applications. For example, I imagine a laser beam which could update posters in a room with fresh new information.
I still like the idea, though, of digital ink where a display is thin like paper but can be updated like an LCD screen.
rk
Sensors In Condoms
This application of Ubiquitous Computing is too good to pass up, if for no other reason than it stands out (no pun intended) from other news items in the field.
From Ananova courtesy of the Paste&Vinegar blog:
"A musical condom designed to play louder and faster as lovers reach a climax is to go on sale in Ukraine.
Grigoriy Chausovsky, from Zaporozhye, said his condoms came fitted with a special sensor that registers when the condom is put on."
While I don't particularly endorse/not endorse this application, it serves to drive home (it's really hard to avoid double-ententres with this) the fact that sensors and processors are indeed becoming ubiquitous. (See my article Why Ubiquitous Computing? for more on this).
So, I have to ask: what next? Will the condom give performance feedback and metrics? ;)
Ubiquitous Computing Is Not Cloud Computing
I have noticed a trend on blogs and online news sites where they are confusing other concepts with the concept of ubiquitous computing (also known as ubicomp). This is happening more recently as a result of (I'm not saying "because of") Tim O'Reilly's keynote speech at the 2008 Web 2.0 Expo in which he spoke about cloud computing and ubiquitous computing. This apparently served to reinforce the munging, already in progress, of these and other terms.
It is not particularly surprising since, although there are distinctly different concepts involved, they all relate in some way to what happens as we are surrounded by computers and network connections. Fortunately, (and even though nobody asked) I am here to help set the record straight by distinguishing between these major concepts relative to ubiquitous computing:
Cloud Computing
As defined by wikipedia, cloud computing is "simplification of the data center by leveraging virtualization technologies to reduce complexity". The idea is that the user of computer resources is abstracted from the actual hardware underneath. The user's application could be running on a dedicated computer, a shared computer, or across multiple computers. Related terms include mesh computing and virtualization.
Software As A Service
Software As A Service refers to a software delivery or licensing model where a software application or suite of applications is developed on a Web-based platform and hosted on a Web server for use by its customers over the Internet. Examples of this include the many online applications provided by Google such as Gmail, Google Maps and Google Docs, as well as things like the well-known photosharing app Flickr and the project collaboration tools from 37signals. The key point is that these software applications are never installed on the user's local (or company) computer, but instead the user always connects to the Internet to use the app.
Ubiquitous Computing
For the definition of ubiquitous computing I will defer to Mark Weiser who is credited with launching the ubicomp movement with this article. In this Weiser defines the goal as:
"Ubiquitous computing has as its goal the enhancing [of] computer use by making many computers available throughout the physical environment, but making them effectively invisible to the user".
He further adds:
"Unlike virtual reality, ubiquitous computing endeavers to integrate information displays into the everyday physical world."
Other terms include pervasive computing, ambient computing, proximity computing, location-aware computing, and everyware (no wonder there is some confusion). So, the key points here are that:
- Computing will be dispersed in your local physical environment.
- The user will interact with objects in a way that makes the computers seem invisible.
So, while all these terms somehow involve the use of increasingly more pervasive computing resources and network access, they are tackling different problems and evolutionary paths. Cloud computing is more of a focus for the IT community--the way in which users interact with the computers, by definition, should look the same. Cloud computing can be applied to any generation of Web apps including Web 1.0, Web 2.0 or later.
Software as a service is more relevant to what Tim O'Reilly is referring to and is consistent with the definition of Web 2.0, which O'Reilly helped define. With this concept, users are not just connecting up to the Web to browse and search for information, but are now using the Web for applications that traditiionally were installed and run on a local computer such as word processing, spreadsheets and email readers. However, this does not require cloud computing and doesn't have much to do with ubiquitous computing.
With ubiquitous computing, the focus is on interacting with computers that aren't even on the Internet (although there is nothing to prevent some of them from being connected). Instead they are embedded in objects all around us. Further, with ubicomp, the goal is not to be interacting with software applications as we know them, but rather to interact directly with objects which just happen to have computer intelligence (simple, but with some level of awareness) built in.
Now that I have discussed how these concepts are different, I will now suggest how they can work together. Suppose you decide to lose a few pounds by trying out the new Blogger's Diet you read an article about (I don't know if there is one, but might not be the worst idea ever). Back in the day you might have created a MS Excel spreadsheet on your PC to plan your diet and track your progress. But wait, you found this great website, MyBloggersDiet.com, where you can create an account and manage your diet online. This is great because you can log in and access your account even when you are traveling on business. This is an example of software as a service. Lars, the webmaster for MyBloggersDiet.com, wants to make sure the diet web app has a high uptime percentage and also will scale massively in case blogger obesity reaches epidemic proportions. So he arranges to get the application hosted with an ISP providing a cloud computing infrastructure.
If we introduce ubiquitious computing into the mix, then instead of trotting into your study to log onto your computer or the website, you have the option to ask your refridgerator directly to provide a menu for the day. Behind the scene, your fridge has accessed your account at MyBloggersDiet.com via an API, compares possible food options against what you have eaten recently as well as its current contents, and suggests some meal choices. It also informs you that you are running low on alfalfa sprouts and further suggests that maybe you would like to order some low-carb beer. This last interaction suggests the essense and potential of ubicomp, because even though you are still connected to Internet, you can accomplish your goals through different, sometimes more direct or natural, interactions with your environment.
rk
Why Ubiquitous Computing?
Now that we've discussed a bit about what ubiquitous computing is, a legitimate question is: why should we care? Why should we be concerned about ubiquitous computing? My response to that is we should care because:
1. To a degree, it is already here--computers are already becoming ubiquitous,
and
2. Others are already planning our ubicomp future, so we may want to start paying attention.
Let me elaborate.
Computing Is Already Becoming Ubiquitous
Many devices and objects with computing built in are already here, and more will come. To support this claim and make it more tangible, I conducted some research in my own home. Basically what I did was just go through my house and inventory things which had some kind of microprocessor in them. This is what I found:
- Home office: 13 processors
- Kitchen: 7 processors
- Master Bedroom: 10 processors
- Family Room: 10 processors
- Master Bathroom: 2 processors
- Kid Bedroom 1: 7 processors
- Kid Bedroom 2: 7 processors
- Rec Room: 4 processors
- Dining room: 1 processor
- Bathroom 2: 2 processors
- Spare Bedroom: 3 processors
- Garage: 3 processors
Oh, and we shouldn't forget to count our two cars--each contains multiple processors for things like:
- ignition control
- ABS
- alarm
- stereo
- climate control
So that adds another 10 processors for a total of at least 80 processors around our house! Yes, we are fairly digital and have been accumulating stuff for many years, but we are far from abnormal and upcoming generations show signs of easily surpassing us in accumulation of digital gadgetry.
Others Are Planning Your Ubicomp Future
One of the more developed forms of ubicomp comes in the form of location-aware systems for proximity marketing. Proximity marketing is basically a system which detects your presence by sensing your Bluetooth phone (typically) when you pass nearby, and then attempts to send some form of marketing message or media to your phone. This is already happening in different places and different events, and these are no longer prototypes. There are several companies with commercial products and services for implementing proximity marketing. They would very much like to push even more marketing and advertisements at more people in more places.
In some ways it won't be much different from the barrage of advertisement pushed at us via our radios and TV sets which we have tolerated for decades. But wouldn't you want to have a say in how, where and what is pushed at you, especially if it can now find you as you walk the city streets, or roam the shopping malls? To be fair, most of the companies involved in this field are sensitive to the privacy concerns and provide a form of opt-in (or out). But the potential for abuse and media overload is very real.
In addition to these specific commercial applications, and unknown to the average person, (even most techie types) work in academic institutions has been going on for many years to develop more advanced and pervasive forms of ubicomp. Multiple conferences now exist which are dedicated to the fields of and related to ubicomp.
One might argue that this is a sign that ubicomp is a misguided concept. However, just because something spends years in R and D with no noticeable public impact or visibility does not mean you can dismiss it. Bluetooth was hyped, then arguably stumbled, but it eventually "stuck" as hyped and predicted and growth of bluetooth devices shows little signs of slowing. HDTV is taking forever--literally decades--to get developed, standardized, and gain widespread usage, but it too will soon be "ubiquitous".
At this point in time, there is a sufficient mix of available technology, decreasing hardware cost, and sufficient applications to drive ubicomp to its tipping point. Further, ubicomp is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It can emerge in different guises and ultimately only requires computing elements to be ubiquitous, which I don't think anyone could argue has not been happening for some time.
rk
What Is Ubiquitous Computing?
Wikipedia defines “ubiquitous computing” as “... a model of human-computer interaction in which information processing has been thoroughly integrated into everyday objects and activities.”
Taken literally, ubiquitous computing means “computing everywhere”. It is that, but it's much more than that.
Ubiquitous computing is also known by its shorter form of “ubicomp” and additionally, there are other terms used to describe this concept such as “pervasive computing”, “ambient intelligence”, “proximity systems”, and “location aware” computing. It would be easy to assume this is simply the work of academics or market folk trying to push their individual brands.
But, in fact, it is more that just a matter of personal naming preference. The variety of different terms reflects the multi-faceted nature of what can be done, and what it means, to have computing everywhere. Consider this list of some of the facets or aspects of ubicomp:
- Computing is ubiquitous, so it's available everywhere.
- Computing is pervasive so it essentially becomes impossible to avoid.
- In ubicomp, the computer is not something in the environment that interacts with a human—it is the environment interacting with a human.
- The computing infrastructure is aware of your location or proximity, and makes use of that information.
- Since the computing is integrated in the environment, the human may not even be aware that it is doing something.
- As a result of all of the above, the environment embodies an emergent sense of awareness, in other words: “ambient intelligence”.
Ubiquitous computing has the potential to:
- employ computation in ways we haven't thought of before,
- change our perspective on how we interact with our environment as well as computers,
- use information to impact our lives in new ways, possibly far beyond what the Internet does today,
- and forever change our notions of security, privacy, and community.
That's the party line anyway, and while I think most parties involved in the field believe the above to ultimately be true, it is still very speculative and the actual evolutionary path of ubicomp is less than obvious.
One of my new goals in life, then--if you'll pardon a little drama--is to help make ubicomp more real by exploring the technical aspects of ubicomp and practical applications. There has been a lot of academic research in the field, but, at least to my mind, the "killer" applications, or at least implementations, remain to be realized.
Until next time,
rk
Back With A Mission
I am back after taking a sabbatical from this blog for a while. Looking at the date on my last post, I can't believe it has only been about three months, although it seems like much longer (and in blog time that may as well be forever).
The reason I took some time off (only from the blog that is) was that I didn't particularly like the direction the blog was going in nor was I happy with the projects I was working on. The two major problems as I saw it were:
- While I enjoy writing and blogging, I have always been more of an architect by nature as well as career (systems and software), and after some introspection realized I really wanted to be building something, and that should be where my entrepreneurial energy goes vs. primarily being an analyst/blogger.
- Although I had a good idea of the technical space that was a match for my background and interests, my focus was in the wrong place.
In my time away from this blog I have been working on my picobuzz web app at picobuzz.com. I've also been exploring Twitter and other social media and networking sites and apps. I've never been much for things like chat, IM and texting in the past, but I am particularly fond of Twitter and the people active on there.
There was a method to this jumping around: while I was off doing some soul-searching on what new direction I wanted to take with my entrepreneurship, I have been gaining some valuable experience on buliding a Web 2.0 app (picobuzz.com). Also, I have been getting a meaningful (not superficial) pulse on social networking, or at least those aspects I might be interested in.
All of this has helped me figure out my new focus. I will still be actively maintaining picobuzz (because it is a rush seeing what the Twitterverse is buzzing about). However, I am also going to be starting work on my new focus: Ubiquitous Computing, also known as "UbiComp". In retrospect, this is more of an evolution for me rather than a revolution. I already have a background in many of the related technical aspects like wireless communication, bluetooth and distributed computing. I was in the ballpark with my prior blogging focus on proximity marketing. Yet, I was close but still so far. The reasons:
- Proximity marketing is too often like a solution in search of a problem. There are some interesting applications and businesses doing work in this area but they are for the most part niche applications.
- There are issues related to privacy and intrusion that bothered me about proximity marketing.
- Even though I was aware of the work in Ubiquitous Computing, Pervasive Computing and similar domains, I had trouble seeing the mass appeal and value proposition for the average person. I am not far off the mark in thinking this--there have academic efforts and conferences on this for several years now but most people, even technical, are unaware of this field. And this is a field which could have mind-blowing ramifications.
In closing (for now), I am happy to say that I have come up with some new ideas for exploring and (hopefully) advancing the field of Ubicomp. I will be starting work on these ideas immediately and sharing my thoughts on this blog in the upcoming weeks.
rk