A very naive take on Augmented Reality

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Hal Hodson’s well-written piece titled¬†Why Google’s Ingress game is a data gold mine really opened my eyes to many things given that I am not an online gamer. I already have a sedentary job and sitting on my ass at home too could not be very good for my health.

Hodson, writing for New Scientist, introduced me to the term augmented reality(AR) which can not help but tickle the interests of a word-smith. AR appears to tie smart phones to real world objects by annotating them with layers of ¬†descriptions about these objects. As combatants play Ingress they become the source of the information in the description of the real world objects that are around them when they are playing the game. So, I guess if one mouses over say, an NFL stadium, unique camera angles or dark areas where horny teens and adults can cop a feel, or any other user ¬†specific content may be attached to the NFL stadium. This type of information is certainly “more real” and interesting/helpful than the typical Webmaster sanitized website version of the NFL stadium. I may be completely wrong about all this since I have never played an online game in my life. I still enjoy reading a physical book and being somewhat disconnected from all the technology and social media.

I can just hear the extreme ACLU type saying “I would never play that game since Google will be selling/giving all the data gleaned from Ingress to the government.” Blair MacIntyre conjectures/asserts that Ingress will help improve Google Search results. Hodson points out that Ingress is a hybrid of a map and and a true Augmented Reality blurring the distinction between physical and virtual reality.

BTW, the whole notion of “dark areas” where you can do private stuff “in public” is rapidly disappearing due to inexpensive surveillance systems available to all of us.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

4 comments on “A very naive take on Augmented RealityAdd yours →

  1. Naysayers are, all in all, healthy helping to stem extremism. Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research Group kept his target price for Google at $880 and rated the internet behemoth a hold. Wieser has his reasons for claiming Google will not be able to sustain its 1000+ levels. Google did purchase Motorola who has experienced significant losses in recent years.

  2. The commentary of Soham Chatterjee and Alexei Oreskovic emphatically oppose Wieser’s perspective. I tend to side with them as Wieser is a naturally pessimistic investment analyst. Google will eventually run afoul with the government, but will pay the fine, dust themselves off and keep Kicking Ass!

    1. I thought Google stock was splitting?! GOOG rose 1.02% to a new 52 week high of $1,041.14. During the last 52 weeks, GOOG’s price has ranged from $636.00 on November 16, 2012 to today’s high of $1,041.14.

  3. I have a contact who can get Flappy Bird despite its removal from app stores. Dong Nguyen got tired of the hate mails and discontinued Flappy Bird despite making 60K daily on advertising revenue! The free version of Flappy Bird is a result of some reverse engineering and has an odd bug which is hard to describe if you get past a score of 160. It makes the game harder and may be the intent of developer rather than a glitch.
    Dean Takahashi has more of the low down as to why Nguyen dropped out of sight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *