The very first question to ask about AR is, do we have the
technology to implement it? Despite the seemingly unstoppable advancement of
technology, there are still some capabilities that AR needs that we just
haven’t figured out how to develop yet.
First up, miniaturization. Let’s take a look at Google Glass
again.
So…does that look sexy? Never mind sexy, will it keep people
from pointing and laughing? Google has done its absolute best to make Glass as
unobtrusive as possible, but you see the results. I don’t know about the rest
of you, but I’m willing to bet if this is the best Google can do, there
probably isn’t anyone out there who can do better.
Now here’s the good news. There’s this thing called Moore’s
Law, which predicts that the number of transistors you can cram onto a chip
will double roughly every two years.* We’ve all seen this action – every year
computers get faster and smaller. So someday, Google Glass will probably look
just like another pair of glasses.
Miniaturization for cosmetic purposes is one thing. Actual
performance requirements are another. For example, let’s say you are on the
main strip in Las Vegas, looking around you 360 degrees. Right now, the
hardware, software, nor communication protocols exist that can deliver the
sheer richness of data that would provide a truly immersive AR experience.
Think of how much computational work it would require – sensing the environment
around you, figuring out exactly where in the world you are, analyzing the sensor
inputs, identifying salient physical features, sending a request to a database (perhaps
multiple ones!) to lookup and retrieve the relevant information, receiving the
data, and finally displaying it on
your screen. It is not a trivial process! But again, it’s not all gloom and
doom. The technology might not be there yet to get the optimal experience. But
future devices and apps can just be selective in the functionality they
provide, so that you get the augmented reality filled with information that is
most important to you.
*(As an aside, you may be thinking that I am full of crap –
computers 2 years ago were definitely not twice as slow. This is because
doubling transistors doesn’t necessarily mean double performance, and that is
another Pandora’s Box of mind-numbing technological mumbo-jumbo you don’t want
to get into).Now let’s examine the human/machine interface. Earlier, we
showed you an even more futuristic alternative to Google Glass, which is a
contact lens that would essentially serve the same function. 
To do this, we’re going to need a display material that
approximates the flexible nature of a contact lens. On the bright side, this is
something that people have been looking into for a long time, all the way back
to 1974 at Xerox PARC. Sounds fantastic…except after nearly 40 years the most
advanced TVs and smartphones still don’t have flexible displays yet. There is
very little doubt that we will be getting flexible displays in the near future
– every major TV and smartphone manufacturer is trying to be first to market
with this technology. The other problem is related to the first problem I
mentioned above, and that is the necessity of cramming a gazillion display
transistors into something the size of a contact lens. There’s also the teensy
weensy problem of transistors radiating heat, as my lap (and privates) could
attest to back in the day when I had a 7-lb behemoth of a laptop. Imagine that
on your eyes…we are going to need some crazy advances in nanotechnology and
heat management systems to get something as sophisticated as a heads up display
on a contact lens. So, flexible displays – not really much of a challenge.
Combine it with other issues, and it’s not something we will be solving soon.
These are just a few technological obstacles in the way of
AR. Sounds a little daunting, doesn’t it? But, we believe in mankind – more
specifically, we believe in the scientists and engineers of the world. Because
without them, who will come up with cool gadgets for the rest of us to play
with?
No comments:
Post a Comment