The adoption of mobile technology hasn’t been a matter of ‘if’ for a long time now, but seems to be stuck on the ‘when’. I used to think the ‘next gen’ phones with larger screens and continuous internet access where to be the last step towards mass adoption, but I don’t see ‘the masses’ running off with these devices just yet, even though the early adopters have had them for a few years now.
High pricing of the actual, continuous internet access and lack of application seem to be holding the people in my direct environment back from purchasing these ‘mobile devices’ (smart phone, PDA, blackberry). However, Wikipedia tells us “Out of 1 billion camera phones to be shipped in 2008, smartphones, the higher end of the market with full email support, will represent about 10% of the market or about 100 million units.“, already becoming a serious competitor to laptops (projected to have gained on laptop sales in 12 to 18 months) and mobile broadband internet usage went up 154% in 2007, so obviously the market is growing, and it’s potential is obvious.
Mobile devices are always on, always close, and perceived to be very personal (more personal than a PC). It contains much more valuable information than any online social network, as the people who I actually call are a lot more influential to me, and my environment than a list of ‘would be’ friends on facebook. It has already become one of the primary tools of production for the internet (Youtube clips, Utterz, Twitter) and are available everywhere.
The Google Android mobile operating system is the most recent ‘buzz’ in the mobile world, and recently got rebuzzed when the Japanese software company EitaroSoft, inc., announced it’s 3D virtual world ‘Lamity’ to run on Android. The world supports up to 400 people in one place, in typical ‘manga’ Japanese cartoon style. To be honest the world looks more like a gameboy game rather than Second Life as it’s comstantly compared to in a somewhat awkward promotion video:
Of course this isn’t the first mobile virtual world initiative, but it did trigger one big question: What is the purpose of having this virtual world on a mobile phone? Is a copy of the virtual worlds as we know them on the PC (except using a smaller screen and more awkward tools for typing) really all the combination mobile phones + virtual worlds have to offer? As stated before, these ‘phones’ are communication devices per definition, they are mobile, allow photographing/filming on location, are always on and can be tied to geographical locations (and physical movement). All advantages over the PC rather then to work with the limitations.
The actual application of virtual worlds in mobile environment is still very unclear to me, but the smart mashup potential is already here. However, we will still have to find clear advantages in combining these tools, and the value of 3D worlds in these combinations (perhaps as a third problem, battery sustainability). It’s still too much on the ‘just because its possible’ level and picking up some buzz in a new hype cycle again before thinking trough new applications and the problems VW’s would solve.
Posted on: May 21, 2008 | Share on:
Abhishek Saxena on 
Sophie on 
Aleister Kronos
said on May 21st
I think new models and - dare I say it? - paradigms are difficult to think through, and almost impossible to assess on paper. While it is sensible for vendors to keep a sense of proportion, I think ‘doing it because we can’ has a surprising amount of merit. Rather than spend huge amounts of time trying to design the perfect experience, why not use the technology in a more agile way, and ‘learn by doing’. Throw enough ideas about and some of them will stick. And more interestingly, as a result of usage and feedback, some will evolve into something new and unexpected…. maybe.
Rick van der Wal
said on May 21st
I certainly agree there is merit in doing it ‘because we can’ on a development/technical level. It does get the proverbial discussion going - the realization something is possbile by just doing it instead of keeping theory on theory strictly hypothetical.
I think the flipside to this is the the gap (chasm) between this stage of early visibility and early adoption and actual user adoption beyond the tech niche seems to be getting bigger and bigger because of the ‘aimless experimentation’ and stirred up hype. (Second Life is a good example of such a thing).
I’ve read this great article on ‘where are the real problems to solve’ that addresses the social media circus by asking if all the ‘buzzwords’ of conversation, collaboration, participation, sharing and networking hasn’t made them lose track of the goal, ‘the solution’ to a common problem, and with that exactly the users they are trying to reach out to.
Aleister Kronos
said on May 21st
Buzzwords are curious beasts (as are acronyms and abbreviations).
On the one hand, they offer a convenient shorthand that allows practitioners to share a common view without the need for extensive explanation - and saves huge amount of context development.
On the other hand, they provide a convenient gloss that can act to bamboozle or bemuse, that obscures meaning, applies a rigid straitjacket to creative debate and renders such debate a vacuous, meaningless and thus valueless exercise. In my experience, the word ’solution’ is another one that is thrown around with abandon.
The received wisdom in my line of work is that technology comes about as a response to business/user requirements. That is: a need exists - you develop ’solutions’ to address it. However, I don’t go with that. Much of technology came about due to the creative ideas of the technologists and often to tackle problems that concerned them. The technology then evolved rapidly in the light of user experience to become something different and more widely adopted.
Rick van der Wal
said on May 21st
Absolutely - I think this might be the gap is between technology and application . Technology thinks in terms of possibilities (and all too often, limitations :p). As a marketer/interaction designer ‘we’ think in terms of the application of this technology to (end) users. The obvious condition is the technology needs to be at least invented to be applied to actual solutions. I think it’s rare an entirely new technology is thought of in the marketing department with the end user in mind.
Pavig Lok
said on May 21st
I’ve never seen a release proclaiming that virtual worlds on phones were the next big thing - apart, of course, from consultancies with a direct interest in selling mobile technology buisiness intelligence or pr. Basically virtual worlds as an end of line technology on mobiles is not a good idea.
That’s not the only approach though - there’s two other approaches that make a lot more sense than secondlife or habbo hotel on the mobile.
One is MMOGS - whoever cracks the WOW of the mobile phone and pda industry will be the darling of the worlds telcos. Mobile data is just not usually an all you can eat thing - usully its priced much higher than the equivalent land line infrastructure, despite being based on a technology that doesn’t require owning the rights to dig up every road in a city to lay or maintain cable. The strengths of mmo games - namely the presence of other people - are idealy suited to mobile communication devices, even if computing power and usability leave something to be desired.
The second area where mobile comms are idealy suited is in extending current virtual worlds. Creating a general purpose virtual world on a mobile device is somewhat rediculous - they’re already a telepresence tool, so simulating another inside them just makes it unweildy. That’s what pc’s are for. Linking into existing general purpose 3d worlds though is a different matter - thats bridging two technologies that solve similar problems, as they both put you virtually in another location. Being able to drop into a meeting in secondlife from your mobile device would make it more attractive to buisiness - and of course folk there for other reasons as well.
I use secondlife as an example here because I think for these kind of things to work we need general purpose virtual worlds (or whatever they evolve into), rather than walled gardens, for this to work. Bridging into botique technology solutions is too small a market to get investment by telcos to make it ubiquitous. My guess is when telepresence from mobile devices to general purpose virtual worlds (cut down not the complete pc experience) is done elegantly, then it’ll take off. The telcos are very upset that watching television on your mobile isn’t nearly as popular as they’d hoped, so when something bandwidth hungry and profitable comes along like that they’ll throw full weight behind it.
Well that’s my two cents.
Rick van der Wal
said on May 21st
Oh my god yes, so glad you brought up MMOG on the mobile phones - Heroes of might and magic is about to put kingdoms into beta, a flat HOMM world (a turn based strategy game with a lot of roleplaying characteristics in terms of heroes, factions etc) and I am so hoping for a good mobile client… but it’s still flat.
Other games I’m not so sure, you have your portable consoles for that, psp2 etc that fill that niche quite well without the need of a virtual world environment for application beyond games, which are better done in well, games :) (Home might give it a go but I don’t see that as a groundbreaking revolution in mobile virtual worlds, just access to an existing one trough mobile internet)
As for telepresence and th example you give - could be true, but I see more of a voice or other direct connection from SL to mobile without having to be inside the client ’s 3D environment itself, I just don’t think that is practical, but we will see :)
Rick van der Wal
said on May 21st
http://hommkingdoms.uk.ubi.com/
Link to the HOMM game by the way.
Rick van der Wal
said on May 22nd
I don’t know what it was about the 21st, but there suddenly seems to be a big buzz on 3D and mobiles again: Some links with different topics and insights on the future of 3D and mobile:
Business Week quoting Ray Kurzweil
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2008/gb20080519_782410.htm
Jerry Fishenden on 3D interaction
http://ntouk.com/?view=plink&id=360
Roland Legrand on the Exodus to Augmented Reality
http://www.mixedrealities.com/?p=203
Prokofy Neva on 3D Mediated Reality
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2008/05/theres-no-3-d-w.html