The Institute for the Future is a forty-two year old nonprofit research group based in Palo Alto, California, dedicated to “aggregating group opinion about the future,” says senior researcher Mike Liebhold. A technologist who was the director of the Atari research lab in the 1980s, and was later chief technology officer in The Times Mirror Company, Liebhold has done a lot of thinking about the future of augmented reality.
Read, for instance, last year’s report “Blended Reality: Superstructing Reality, Superstructing Selves,” an excerpt of which reads like a science fiction movie voiceover: “Cyberspace is not a destination; rather, it is a layer tightly integrated into the world around us. Technology enables this transformation but, as is always the case, when we invent new technologies, they in turn re-invent us.”
CJR assistant editor Lauren Kirchner spoke with Liebhold about how journalists and news organizations can start to think about the potential uses of augmented reality technology. This is an edited transcript of that conversation.
Lauren Kirchner: So when people ask you at parties to predict the future of the news industry, what do you say?
Mike Liebhold: News is going to be much more entrepreneurial. It’s probably not going to be enough just to simply tell good stories. Journalists are going to have to find a way to create, or collaborate with other people, to get their stories from the real world out there. That’s sort of the macro, macro view of journalism. But the fundamental nature of information is changing, and the way people are experiencing information in their lives is changing. It’s not just going from a paper page to a web screen, or to an iPhone or an iPad screen; there’s something much more fundamental going on. And that’s that information is moving from screens out into the physical world around us. We’re walking through very, very dense information spaces, and we’re just beginning to learn how to decode the information all around us, and how to tell stories based on the information all around us. So I think there are some great new intellectual challenges for journalists.
LK: What’s your opinion on the partnerships that are already forming between news organizations and location-based services? We at CJR recently tried out The Wall Street Journal’s “layer” on Foursquare, and it seemed to have great potential to bring new readers to their enormous archive of articles, based on the user’s current position. That one hadn’t quite been populated at the time, though, so it was mostly just restaurant reviews. Is that the kind of thing that you mean when you talk about “augmented reality”?
ML: Well, no. Augmented reality is really being able to view physical information. It’s not just walking around seeing red dots on the map of your handheld. Probably by about 2015 we’ll have the first augmented reality glasses, and probably by 2020 they might be really good. I would bet they’ll be made by Apple or Nike or someone like that, and they’ll make them really cool. Also probably by about 2020, contact lenses will be coming out of the laboratory.
LK: I was just reading somewhere about scientists who are developing wi-fi contact lenses, and I couldn’t believe it.
ML: I think it’s inevitable. Probably in about ten years, we’ll be walking around in very, very dense information spaces, and we’ll have to have very, very robust filtering tools to screen out all of the noise, the spam, the visual advertising that will be floating around in the world around us, so that we see only the information that we want. There’s also some challenges for storytellers. We’re sort of at day one here, we are just beginning to layer information onto the physical world. Already, for about ten years, we’ve been putting map data online. We’re now beginning to put web coded information in—geo-coded tweets, geo-coded Facebook posts, geo-coded Gowalla, Foursquare, and so on. There’s now a significant effort going on to make web standards for annotating places.