A “real?” AR book … perhaps …
blair | October 18, 2008Picked up a pointer to an AR Book being shown at a German book fair. While this blogger, and the blogger he points at, note that this is a “real” book (meaning, I assume, it will be for sale) rather than a demo, the video leaves the viewer wondering “so what?” …
We’ve built some AR books, and my friends and colleagues in Graz and HITLabNZ have too. The critical issue whenever we try them with real people is “so what?” … meaning, why would I want to “read” this.
Look at the video being pointed by these articles and ask yourself that question. At least in the video, these books appear to be nothing more than a placeholder for a (non-?)interactive bit of 3D and audio content; does this look fun (minus the gee-wiz factor)? Now look at how it’s being “read” … the “reader” is holding it up FACING AWAY FROM HER toward a camera on a computer screen and having to “read” it on the screen; does this look fun?
I realize that there needs to be a “first” one, and that figuring out what the sweet spot and magic sauce will be that makes these work is non-obvious (otherwise, we’d all be reading them now, right?). But, I wonder if the folks trying to create these have asked anyone besides their engineers “What is the real market for these?” ”Who’s going to want to read something like this?” ”What makes a 3D AR book good?”
There are books: they have certain appeals, they have certain affordances. There are computer games: ditto, certain appeals and affordances. ”Magic books” of this sort appear, to me, to combine the WORST of both, not the best.
I don’t think it has to be so. It’s clear that there is an intuitive appeal to having books become 3D. But, like print books before them, it’s the actually content (not the technology) that matters.
The metaio tech looks pretty good, if they can get it off the laptop and onto a device that might actually be more conducive to the “book” experience. And if someone can get some good content in there.
Dear Mr. MacIntyre, thank you very much for your partly constructive feedback. Maybe some additional information can help you to understand, why the first commercial application in this market domain still is breaking news for us.
What turns an invention into an innovation is market entry. And regarding the very conservative german publisher market (we even have a price fixing for books), it is a certain proof of concept, when two publishers decide to implement a quite new technology. So far, so what? You have to keep in mind, that the book “Aliens&UFOs” is a children´s book, and as in many fairs before, our feedback at the Frankfurt Book Fair is slightly different to your experience, when showing it to potential users. The kids were fascinated. The interaction level is of course low, but even the intuitive possibility to hold 3D objects in their hand, made them expose to the content in a more substantial and entertaining way. 3D navigation seems simple to us, but there are some target groups, who get lost in zooming into three dimensional content rooms. From our point of view the real magic book (as a real product) was a FIRST success. And that´s what we need to develop AND implement (raise budget!) better interaction possibilities. Maybe the next step is touch interaction, maybe we are allowed to create the nonplusultra content, whatsoever. But it was very much effort to convince the first movers to try out something new. That a magic book is of course not something new to people from the AR world, no surprise. But if you leave the incubation of research and development, there are some surprises facing real markets. So please understand, that we were happy to substantiate our arguments for the relevance of this technology with real products in cooperation with really renowned brands. Nothing more, nothing less.
Kind regards, Jan.
Hi Jan,
I fully understand your point that bringing an actual real product to market is necessary, and important (especially for you, who are the makers of an AR technology).
I also understand that convincing a book maker to publish one is a big deal. I have done consulting for “real” companies, and understand these issues.
And, I understand that you need to start somewhere, that the first product can’t do everything.
You need to understand my viewpoint, however, that first impressions matter for new technologies hitting the marketplace. I am not an ivory tower academic, complaining that some “commercial product” doesn’t meet my standards. I believe that the most important thing to ensure AR does well in the market is to have some of the first few high profile products be have good content and be compelling. AR is the focus of much excitement and hype right now, and if the first few things that come out fall short of what people expect, that hype will pass and the market could shrivel and die without ever reaching its potential.
The fact that kids and visitors to a book show were excited means very little. People are ALWAYS excited when they first see AR; that’s what I meant by the “gee wiz” factor. The real question is “would they buy it, or more importantly, would they enjoy it, enough to recommend it to others?”
Perhaps the answer for your book is “yes”. I don’t know. I wish I could see the book, beyond the video of people using it, though. I am not trying to be dismissive or overly negative about your product. I’m sure it’s pretty cool, and a fun thing for people to play with in a show/kiosk/etc context. I also hope it does well, since it will be good for all of us!
I think the “so what” question is a great way to evaluate whether or not you’re using technology for a purpose or just using technology. And I think it’s a legitimate question about the video shown here.
However, I think that in this case, there is enough value merely in the “gee whiz” factor to make the case for using the technology. The subject matter of the book seems to lend itself to futuristic technology, so it’s a great fit.
Beyond this particular subject, there is a fascination and novelty at the prospect of revealing something that can’t otherwise be seen. Will that novelty wear off over time, sure. Readers and consumers will demand greater utility from future AR titles.
But it’s a start, and an early indicator of momentum. I’ve been around for several technology adoption cycles now. This stage of early enthusiasm and primitive implementations that hint at future trends feels very familiar. Usually the technologies aren’t implemented in the way the futurists expect, which often causes derision and premature claims that the hype is empty. Nevertheless, substantive change often materializes, but by the time it does, it seems so commonplace that it’s hard to recognize as dramatic. It’s only in those retrospective moments that we realize what a profound impact a given technology has wrought on our lives.
On one hand, what you say is true; obviously, getting the technology out there and generative interest is important. In my own research, I often focus on building tools for non-techies to work with AR because I fully appreciate the idea that it won’t be the researchers and technologists that generate the good ideas.
But, on the other hand, I still stand by my original comments. There are technologies that fade away because of hype. If people try out mediocre AR (ESPECIALLY if they pay for it) and realize there is nothing there, they won’t pay a second time.
As a demo, that book is cool. As a product, I don’t think it looks like it is.