The Wild (and Slightly Terrifying) Future of Inescapable AR Ads(beyondthescreen.substack.com)
beyondthescreen.substack.com
The Wild (and Slightly Terrifying) Future of Inescapable AR Ads
https://beyondthescreen.substack.com/p/the-wild-and-slightly-terrifying
58 comments
> I have no plan to ever buy one of these headsets.
I used to be in a social circle where a couple people claimed they would rather die than ever own an ebook. I wish I had written down which people they were so I could RemindMe in ten years to see if they were enjoying the afterlife or not.
When we are in the early adoption phase there are always late adopters who expect to be never adopters. But peer pressure happens, and some products actually listen to complaints and improve the product to overcome reservations.
And then everything goes to hell in a hand basket.
I used to be in a social circle where a couple people claimed they would rather die than ever own an ebook. I wish I had written down which people they were so I could RemindMe in ten years to see if they were enjoying the afterlife or not.
When we are in the early adoption phase there are always late adopters who expect to be never adopters. But peer pressure happens, and some products actually listen to complaints and improve the product to overcome reservations.
And then everything goes to hell in a hand basket.
Except I never bought cryptocurrency and I don't have TikTok and you being right about eBooks has no bearing on the success or failure of personal AR
Youtube is giving you TikTok whether you want it or not.
Not all fads get adopted. AR is in my opinion still a tech before its time, which makes it a fad - for now - but not necessarily forever. Cellphones and particularly smart watches are a form of ambient technology that have caught on, and I think it's only a matter of process shrinkage and battery tech before it happens. Say another 7-10 years for battery density to double again. Early ebooks were objectively as bad as current or last generation VR equipment. Nobody was going to adopt that. It's a matter of connecting the dots.
If you don't like the idea of everyone in AR, that's fine. Then I recommend you start now to participate in environmental and conservation special interest groups, because there is a day coming when philosophers, ascetics, and people who touch trees on purpose are the main demographics of people who actively reject augmentation for augmentation's sake. There are loud opinions in each of those groups, and they have merit.
And frankly we could use a few more science-minded tree huggers to dilute the conspiracy theorists.
Not all fads get adopted. AR is in my opinion still a tech before its time, which makes it a fad - for now - but not necessarily forever. Cellphones and particularly smart watches are a form of ambient technology that have caught on, and I think it's only a matter of process shrinkage and battery tech before it happens. Say another 7-10 years for battery density to double again. Early ebooks were objectively as bad as current or last generation VR equipment. Nobody was going to adopt that. It's a matter of connecting the dots.
If you don't like the idea of everyone in AR, that's fine. Then I recommend you start now to participate in environmental and conservation special interest groups, because there is a day coming when philosophers, ascetics, and people who touch trees on purpose are the main demographics of people who actively reject augmentation for augmentation's sake. There are loud opinions in each of those groups, and they have merit.
And frankly we could use a few more science-minded tree huggers to dilute the conspiracy theorists.
Just wait until you can't see a restaurant's menu, in-flight announcements, traffic advisories, etc.
The pandemic opened the door to making a piece of technology a mandatory requirement to participate in society. It used to be possible to live without a smartphone, now you really need to be able to read and produce QR codes¹.
Why couldn't the same thing happen with AR, considering how expensive it is for governments and companies to put displays and audio announcements everywhere?
¹: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/04/my-lif...
The pandemic opened the door to making a piece of technology a mandatory requirement to participate in society. It used to be possible to live without a smartphone, now you really need to be able to read and produce QR codes¹.
Why couldn't the same thing happen with AR, considering how expensive it is for governments and companies to put displays and audio announcements everywhere?
¹: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/04/my-lif...
Around here (Ontario) places that insisted on QR code menus seems to be starting to roll it back. Probably under backlash from public (esp older people) who sees it as obnoxious.
Myself I raise a stink every time; I don't like the tracking implications. If businesses insist on it, I try to take my business elsewhere.
Myself I raise a stink every time; I don't like the tracking implications. If businesses insist on it, I try to take my business elsewhere.
I do art projects involving QR code, at first I was happy about this development because it was getting people to scan QR codes (no mean feat on the OS whose logo is a trash can) but I found the backlash disturbing.
You don't actually need a smartphone, which is good because a lot of older people do not have them or can't use them.
I think people sometimes forget that you can inconvinience a waitress without being an asshole about it (they are there to provide service) and that being able to be a customer is important enough that most businesses would prefer staff spend time helping you.
Sure they would prefer you have a smartphone, and it may be less convinient but that doesn't mean they can't work to accomondate you.
I think people sometimes forget that you can inconvinience a waitress without being an asshole about it (they are there to provide service) and that being able to be a customer is important enough that most businesses would prefer staff spend time helping you.
Sure they would prefer you have a smartphone, and it may be less convinient but that doesn't mean they can't work to accomondate you.
I haven't scanned a QR code for years and I live in a major city.
I used one QR menu during coronavirus and then started going elsewhere. To be honest restaurants during the pandemic were awful anyway, far more fun to just have friends over for dinner.
I have a fairly varied social life, if anything I probably drink too much. This doesn't match up with reality to me.
Unavoidable means just that - cannot be avoided. To avoid using QR codes doesn't even involve trying.
I used one QR menu during coronavirus and then started going elsewhere. To be honest restaurants during the pandemic were awful anyway, far more fun to just have friends over for dinner.
I have a fairly varied social life, if anything I probably drink too much. This doesn't match up with reality to me.
Unavoidable means just that - cannot be avoided. To avoid using QR codes doesn't even involve trying.
If AR glasses become the only device we have (no macs or iPhones), then these ads could be everywhere. Almost like modern tech billboards. Obviously you can just not buy the product, but when everyone else has one it will be hard to do that. Imagine not owning a smartphone right now (a quick example).
I'm skeptical we'll see that any time soon. I interned at a NASA Ames lab that was testing AR, and there seemed to be no way to get depth perception correct on rendered objects directly overlaid on a see-through lens; there was lots of unpredictable variability in perceived depth by subject and background and even time of day. And I don't see us walking around with Geordi LaForge-style visors—simulated AR—any time soon.
The idea that everyone is going to walk around outside constantly using a headset is not a version of reality that I ever think will happen.
There are enough people who like, enjoy breathing normal air and seeing plants.
Maybe if it becomes a brain implant at some point. I hope to be long gone before then.
There are enough people who like, enjoy breathing normal air and seeing plants.
Maybe if it becomes a brain implant at some point. I hope to be long gone before then.
> Maybe if it becomes a brain implant at some point. I hope to be long gone before then.
This has been a big fear of mine since I started studying CS. Implants that are still not fully proven safe, but create a massive productivity gain. This might make the choice to get a sketchy implant or be unemployed.
This has been a big fear of mine since I started studying CS. Implants that are still not fully proven safe, but create a massive productivity gain. This might make the choice to get a sketchy implant or be unemployed.
I can imagine it, but not if there are intrusive adds.
It'll be basically like smartphones and computers now.
The more savvy users will have a better experience, exerting more control using free (or crowd-funded) tools which block ads. The mainstream companies will continue to make the computing experience an ad-filled privacy nightmare for everyone else.
Also like now is the "Wargames" aspect of it - the computing landscape is already such an ad-filled privacy nightmare that, "The only winning move is not to play".
The more savvy users will have a better experience, exerting more control using free (or crowd-funded) tools which block ads. The mainstream companies will continue to make the computing experience an ad-filled privacy nightmare for everyone else.
Also like now is the "Wargames" aspect of it - the computing landscape is already such an ad-filled privacy nightmare that, "The only winning move is not to play".
Hyper Reality by Keiichi Matsuda:
http://hyper-reality.co/
http://hyper-reality.co/
Yes, that's the classic. I've linked that video before, but didn't know the creator had a web site. That's what I expected Facebook/Meta/Oculus/Zuckerberg to ship as augmented reality. It's quite do-able with Apple's new headgear, although that thing is too bulky and doesn't have the battery life for full-time wear.
There's a line in the Ready Player One movie where the big bad is discussing how much of the human visual field they can fill with ads before inducing seizures. I was expecting this years ago, as Google Glass 2.x, but nobody has yet been able to get the size and cost down for untethered headgear.
There's a line in the Ready Player One movie where the big bad is discussing how much of the human visual field they can fill with ads before inducing seizures. I was expecting this years ago, as Google Glass 2.x, but nobody has yet been able to get the size and cost down for untethered headgear.
> Imagine not owning a smartphone right now
I don't, and life goes on as before
I don't, and life goes on as before
In the US, I think you can still survive fine without a smartphone, although it becoming more difficult. During the pandemic we had to install an app to check our kid into preschool. Ridiculous, but I guess you could argue I could have made a stink or switched preshools.
Asia and European sound a lot more far gone in this area though and I feel like the days are numbered here.
Asia and European sound a lot more far gone in this area though and I feel like the days are numbered here.
> Asia and European sound a lot more far gone
As a German: Why? All scam-app checkins during the pandemic were also doable via paper (I refused to install the damn app), pretty much everything I can do on my phone, I can also do by paper (which I have to for my health insurance, damn TK is not only the most digitally progressive health insurance, they also seem to be the only app existing on Android with an almost uncircumventable root detection). The only exception would be my bank, but that’s because I chose a neobank which requires a smartphone to even sign up.
As a German: Why? All scam-app checkins during the pandemic were also doable via paper (I refused to install the damn app), pretty much everything I can do on my phone, I can also do by paper (which I have to for my health insurance, damn TK is not only the most digitally progressive health insurance, they also seem to be the only app existing on Android with an almost uncircumventable root detection). The only exception would be my bank, but that’s because I chose a neobank which requires a smartphone to even sign up.
Glad to hear it isn't as far gone as I've been led to believe, but the situation does sound similar to over here. Not using a smart phone increasingly gives you a second class citizen status and some companies even require it. I don't hold much hope for a reversal of the trend.
> some companies even require it
which? If they require a works phone they will give you one. Leave it at home and use it only for work.
which? If they require a works phone they will give you one. Leave it at home and use it only for work.
Why would adblock be less effective on AR glasses than it is on my phone?
adblock assumes a world where the web is an actual supported first-class medium of society
I think it's pretty clear where that trajectory is already headed. Proprietary Apps are not the web, and your adblock browser extensions are irrelevant when everything relevant is an App.
FTR this is not the future I want, it's just the future I see.
We need a new and better Mozilla analog to champion the web browser and push things forward to where the best way to develop the best Apps is the open Web. It's a huge problem when companies clearly vested in a closed-App walled-garden future dominate the browser market.
I think it's pretty clear where that trajectory is already headed. Proprietary Apps are not the web, and your adblock browser extensions are irrelevant when everything relevant is an App.
FTR this is not the future I want, it's just the future I see.
We need a new and better Mozilla analog to champion the web browser and push things forward to where the best way to develop the best Apps is the open Web. It's a huge problem when companies clearly vested in a closed-App walled-garden future dominate the browser market.
The trajectory seems toward exclusive AR apps is not that strong in my opinion. There are still billions of people out there without access to XR headset and have no incentive to spend upward of thousands of dollar for one yet.
We already have AR/VR (XR) being built into the current web (W3C webxr), and people building out Web based AR. Take a look at 8th Wall.
There will be a long transition period where webxr have the chance to shine and prevent the wall garden future of private apps.
We already have AR/VR (XR) being built into the current web (W3C webxr), and people building out Web based AR. Take a look at 8th Wall.
There will be a long transition period where webxr have the chance to shine and prevent the wall garden future of private apps.
If everything is an app, then just... don't download the apps that have bullshit ads.
Besides the obvious option of not using those apps, I have an adblocker on Android, and it works perfectly fine with my apps, so I’m not sure why that would change.
> I have an adblocker on Android, and it works perfectly fine with my apps, so I’m not sure why that would change.
That's simply unsustainable long-term. It happens to work today that you can trivially block them at the network level, because they're still unsophisticated about how ads are delivered, in this still mixed open-Web-transitioning-to-closed-Apps world.
Long-term, ad-serving becomes more sophisticated, in-band, and indistinguishable from any other App data over an encrypted stream from the App vendor and/or walled-garden provider, or just bundled with the now-normalized constant App "updates" without the need for network access when displaying them at all.
You're on the losing side of an arms race when everything's closed.
Even if you prefer living in walled gardens, preserving the open Web escape hatch does a lot of heavy lifting in the checks and balances department. If it's entirely deprecated by society, the walled gardens will get exponentially worse with their increased leverage.
That's simply unsustainable long-term. It happens to work today that you can trivially block them at the network level, because they're still unsophisticated about how ads are delivered, in this still mixed open-Web-transitioning-to-closed-Apps world.
Long-term, ad-serving becomes more sophisticated, in-band, and indistinguishable from any other App data over an encrypted stream from the App vendor and/or walled-garden provider, or just bundled with the now-normalized constant App "updates" without the need for network access when displaying them at all.
You're on the losing side of an arms race when everything's closed.
Even if you prefer living in walled gardens, preserving the open Web escape hatch does a lot of heavy lifting in the checks and balances department. If it's entirely deprecated by society, the walled gardens will get exponentially worse with their increased leverage.
Good points.
I'd like to mention, that I don't prefer closed gardens and out of principle don't use anything app only. My phone is for calls, the bath, and my bed. Plus the rare traveling.
I'd like to mention, that I don't prefer closed gardens and out of principle don't use anything app only. My phone is for calls, the bath, and my bed. Plus the rare traveling.
Because the OS vendor is an advertising company and they have designed the OS to resist attempts to block ads. They may even built advertising functionality into the OS.
You can count clicks with eye tracking. If you look at it then they know.
It's worth noting this kind of thing is why the Apple headset OS is designed specifically to keep eye tracking information to an OS-only layer, at least outside of traditional VR style full immersion apps.
How many times are we going to fall for this? It's all fun and games until Apple is facing a bad quarter which is not if but when.
And even if they don't share it- they can still use it for selling ads on their platform.
And even if they don't share it- they can still use it for selling ads on their platform.
Apple has been pretty good at sticking to the premium market and not exploiting its users. However, even if we assume that Apple stays that way, their products might not be affordable for all users and many will choose less privacy if it comes with a reduced price, especially if they can barely afford a device as is.
It'll be amazing if that level of tracking proves advertising is grossly overpriced and only modestly effective.
Apple is extremely transparent and they'll definitely share data that proves the ads they show are a ripoff.
A fair point well made.
They could rotate the code every few seconds.
“We can sell up to 80% of a user's visual field without inducing seizures.”
From 7 years ago, a funny/spoof video on gig culture, AR etc. https://youtu.be/YJg02ivYzSs
So I get the Minority Report vibe here, but my great grandmother moved faster than that in a grocery store. Maybe the AI has a little bit of a point in nagging her for being slow.
Hardcore Henry plus Black Mirror, amazing.
All those dystopian forecasts omit one important thing. Habituation. Humans are quite flexible and we will simply get used to it. AR ads will be as inescapable (and imperceptible) as banners today (both physical and digital alike). And after some time AR will be as immersive and exciting as TV today. Assuming it will take off at all.
Considering the incredible and rising popularity of ad-blockers and ad-free streaming, clearly decades of "habituation" hasn't diminished the desire to remove ads from our sight.
You know what people want more than less advertisement? Free stuff. It's like the old "How much sawdust can I fit in the cookie dough" question - how many ads will people endure before agreeing the end content isn't worth it?
Turns out, a lot. Worse yet, we've been habituated into choosing platforms we don't control and taking corporate interests for granted. Once Apple and Microsoft realized that, it became open season for ad nagging. Constant service pop-ups, advertisements for music streaming, notifications begging you to try a different browser, dishonestly promoted search results and data-collection on app launch have all become the norm. We're fully habituated, with the illusion that we "control" things by paying extra for nicer looking advertisements.
Turns out, a lot. Worse yet, we've been habituated into choosing platforms we don't control and taking corporate interests for granted. Once Apple and Microsoft realized that, it became open season for ad nagging. Constant service pop-ups, advertisements for music streaming, notifications begging you to try a different browser, dishonestly promoted search results and data-collection on app launch have all become the norm. We're fully habituated, with the illusion that we "control" things by paying extra for nicer looking advertisements.
I'd say it is more about removing intrusive disruption from our site. Ads in magazines or newspapers never bothered me. TV commercial breaks did. Billboards kind of fade into the background, but areas without billboards seem more pleasant.
I recall when baseball first started showing digital ads along the field wall -- at first they specifically made it look like static images, and would only swap out the digital ads during inning breaks (so you couldn't tell at a glance that it wasn't a static physical banner).
I recall when baseball first started showing digital ads along the field wall -- at first they specifically made it look like static images, and would only swap out the digital ads during inning breaks (so you couldn't tell at a glance that it wasn't a static physical banner).
Yeah, no thank you. There's something wrong with the culture if the answer to this worsening ad dystopia is "just deal with it".
Jean Baudrillard would argue we are in an even worse fate: The VR/AR/Mobile/Disneyland world is a presented reality in a way we can dismiss it, while still accepting the world around us as real [0]. The danger is the simple call ("turn it off" or "remove it from your eyes") misses that the reality without the glasses is just as much a fiction. Slavoj Žižek makes the argument as forcefully against Ideology as a concept as well [1].
> Thus, everywhere in Disneyland the objective profile of America, down to the morphology of individuals and of the crowd, is drawn. All its values are exalted by the miniature and the comic strip. Embalmed and pacified. Whence the possibility of an ideological analysis of Disneyland: digest of the American way of life, panegyric of American values, idealized transposition of a contradictory reality.
> Certainly.
> But this masks something else and this "ideological" blanket functions as a cover for a simulation of the third order: Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the "real" country, all of "real" America that is Disneyland (a bit like prisons are there to hide that it is the social in its entirety, in its banal omnipresence, that is carceral). Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle.
> The imaginary of Disneyland is neither true nor false, it is a deterrence machine set up in order to rejuvenate the fiction of the real in the opposite camp. Whence the debility of this imaginary, its infantile degeneration. This world wants to be childish in order to make us believe that the adults are elsewhere, in the "real" world [...]
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20120309115319/https://www9.geor...
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVwKjGbz60k
> Thus, everywhere in Disneyland the objective profile of America, down to the morphology of individuals and of the crowd, is drawn. All its values are exalted by the miniature and the comic strip. Embalmed and pacified. Whence the possibility of an ideological analysis of Disneyland: digest of the American way of life, panegyric of American values, idealized transposition of a contradictory reality.
> Certainly.
> But this masks something else and this "ideological" blanket functions as a cover for a simulation of the third order: Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the "real" country, all of "real" America that is Disneyland (a bit like prisons are there to hide that it is the social in its entirety, in its banal omnipresence, that is carceral). Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle.
> The imaginary of Disneyland is neither true nor false, it is a deterrence machine set up in order to rejuvenate the fiction of the real in the opposite camp. Whence the debility of this imaginary, its infantile degeneration. This world wants to be childish in order to make us believe that the adults are elsewhere, in the "real" world [...]
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20120309115319/https://www9.geor...
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVwKjGbz60k
This article both scares and excites me. Sounds intrusive but will make for some really cool activations. I think Apple Vision will be a hit, especially when they progress from the expensive Pro to a cheaper mass market version.
> Companies must navigate these boundaries carefully.
I LOL'd at bit at this. The following paragraphs do capture the issues neatly, but that sentence just comes off either as inspirational at best or naïve at worst.
I LOL'd at bit at this. The following paragraphs do capture the issues neatly, but that sentence just comes off either as inspirational at best or naïve at worst.
Relevant.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XPGgTy5YJ-g
Apr 27, 1999
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XPGgTy5YJ-g
Apr 27, 1999
Totally inescapable except by taking the damn thing off your face.
This 'article' should not be on HN. Is alexanderbz the same Alexander who wrote it I wonder
Edit: I guess it is.
This 'article' should not be on HN. Is alexanderbz the same Alexander who wrote it I wonder
Edit: I guess it is.
The issue is that a technology becomes required for membership in society.
15 years ago you could reasonably tell someone "if you don't like it, then don't get a cell phone" but today that advice is no longer reasonable for cell phones. If AR ends up being a practical technology, we'll face the same issue in the future.
15 years ago you could reasonably tell someone "if you don't like it, then don't get a cell phone" but today that advice is no longer reasonable for cell phones. If AR ends up being a practical technology, we'll face the same issue in the future.
See my other comment where I point out that I do not own a smart phone. I do own a cell phone; it gets left at home most of the time.
Let me put it in simple terms: if you don't want to take part in that aspect of society, then don't. The only power which technology has over people is that which people allow.
Let me put it in simple terms: if you don't want to take part in that aspect of society, then don't. The only power which technology has over people is that which people allow.
I have no plan to ever buy one of these headsets.
If the streets of London became Minority Report-esque e.g. holographic loud projections, I can just move five or ten miles down the road to somewhere slightly less urban. It'd be significantly less expensive too.
I mean, almost all tube station adverts are still just paper billboards, clearly something is preventing them from being screens.