Pervasive Computing 2.0

Currently, I am taking a course titled Emerging Mobile and Distributed Systems. The class focuses on pervasive or ubiquitous computing. The fields founder, Mark Weiser, once described how "the most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it." Weiser's very apt and concise comments have inspired several engineers but I highly doubt ubiquitous computing will reach the level he conceived. The problem? Social ignorance and selfishness.

Let me first describe the notion of social selfishness. Individuals act greedily, acting upon impulses with foreseeable, immediate benefit. Systems where users provide information that other users can then use later, such as Cooltown, will ultimately fail unless each provider gains something. What will work is a system where users gain something immediately, i.e., entertainment, money, a relationship, or perhaps a service. If a user is to post something for the benefit of others he must find at the very least some entertainment value. He should consider his work as fun and therefore his time spent worthwhile.

My second argument is social ignorance. Let me briefly describe what I mean by it. Concerns over privacy, client thickness, energy management, etc... do not really matter as long as what's available is the social norm. For example if a battery only lasts 10 minutes when running GPS, Satellite TV, and XM radio, but every device on the market has the same limitation, then users will not care. A more important example, is privacy. If every location based application requires full disclosure of location, then no user will worry about sacrificing his privacy. But, the applications must provide some value or else why sacrifice privacy at all in the first place.

To understand how these two social constructs will hinder ubiquitous computing, let me argue against the CarTel system. CarTel is a system where by users with GPS tracked cars relay their position through open WAPs. The system works great if enough cars have WIFI enabled GPS but most don't. And social ignorance will make users not pay more for WIFI GPS unless either it's standard in every GPS device or they reap more benefit than simply knowing traffic patterns (social selfishness). Arguably one could use a GPS enabled smart phones but proliferation might take a while.

Another example is LBS social networking. Users willing to participate in a LBS social network like Loopt receive benefits of knowing which friends are nearby, ratings of nearby restaurants, taxi hiring, ridesharing, and neighborhood announcements. Arguably each of these applications can be designed separately except the nearby friends feature. I argue this feature is not enough to persuade millions to use Loopt. Having friends or family know exactly where one is at all times is not necessary and has more risk than reward. Loopt mix however that allows users to meet new users with similar interests could work if meeting someone online had less stigma. However, if meeting someone online was the norm then social ignorance would precede past judgment and users would use the service.

Another example is the omniscient pervasive computer much like HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. HAL would never work. Mostly because humans cannot design a system smarter than a human. HAL would have to differentiate human emotion, something humans have difficulty deciphering. Furthermore, unless there was a standardization across all platforms of technology, HAL would not have the contextual awareness or balanced proactivity to help users without annoying them. Again HAL must act smarter than humans. A simple version of HAL might be the robot in the fifth element that automatically cleans up broken glass. To create such a system would require either excessive technology or extensive training neither of which would coincide well with social selfishness.

What will work in ubiquitous computing? Arguably no application that tries to connect a room full of strangers will ever work. Society will never allow random individuals to meet random individuals. It's the same reason we don't introduce ourselves to every living being we can see. Hence social network used as a filter not a connector is what will matter. Secondly notions of publicly shared hardware will never work again because of social selfishness. Hence what nees to happen is the growth and development of mobile devices. We are already seeing this with Android and iPhone. However application development should be cross-platform and until we see a standardization on platforms, perhaps even just a JVM, social applications will not reach critical mass. Only social applications with enough mutual benefit will work. And ubiquitous systems that try to connect users to the physical environment must not only be seamless as Weiser wisely describes, but have a significant benefit.

In conclusion, a large part of Ubiquitous computing tries to design a system that allows people to either be more time efficient or to allow effective use of slivers of time. This notion seems to be biased to American workaholics . Would a lackadaisical European ever bother during his summer to worry about being connected? Ultimately the most pervasive system is Mother Nature. Not until embedded systems make me wonder my existence or impress upon me a ray of warm sunshine will I agree that ubiquitous computing has succeeded.