Use an augmented reality product and your reaction is, “This is useless.”

Augmented reality kicks ass in demonstrations but fails miserably in usability. That’s because for augmented reality to work we need a screen to overlay around the world. While our phones have screens and are small, to hold them up in front of our face as we’re walking around is not realistic. It simply doesn’t work.

Some other examples of augmented reality don’t require any movement, such as augmented reality over a magazine picture. Here’s an example of that.

Also, at ad:tech in San Francisco this year, I saw one potential usable version of augmented reality and that’s animating equipment, such as an office printer, that shows you how to fix it on your own. Once again, while cool, I think an instructional video could also accomplish the same result.

The history of augmented reality up until now has been testing, cool one-off tools that get a tiny spike in buzz, and really fun demonstrations. Read my summary of the history, benefits, and problems of augmented reality from Gene Becker, an augmented reality expert from LighteningLaboratories (“What you can and can’t do (but soon will do) with augmented reality.”)

While we’ve all been wowed by virtual reality and thought, “Gee, some day,” we simply haven’t found any real practical uses for it. We realized that augmented reality won’t become a reality until we have wearable computers that are truly seamless with how we move about in our lives. Check out this video I produced back in 1999 for ZDTV. It’s all about wearable computing and we were obsessed about it back then.

The big news from Google that blitzed everywhere yesterday, even on NYTimes Bits, is that Google has begun testing its own augmented reality glasses in a project called “Project Glass.” While the initial prototype glasses were very clunky, the new ones that they’re presenting in the photographs are very lightweight and fashionable. And Google also provided what appears to be a simulated video of all the things one could do wearing a pair of these “Project Glass”-empowered glasses.

Of all the demonstrations I’ve seen on augmented reality this one does two things:

• It’s seamless: It shows real usability in everyday life that doesn’t require one to actually pull out another device to operate.
• It integrates current social behavior online and offline: It takes into account how we’re communicating and associating with each other today.

Google’s introduction of “Project Glass” really explains a lot about how to leap over the industry’s inability to go from demonstration to actual usability. Now understandable we don’t all have the dollars of Google to pretty much pull off anything we want, but when you’re introducing your product, demonstrating everyday usability is absolutely key. And to get to that point you need to do real world testing and engaging with beta testers.

The more stories you can create out of usage the better your audience can see how they could incorporate your tool into their daily lives. I know after seeing these videos I’m eager to get a pair of “Project Glass” glasses. The question is, will they fit over my current glasses, or can I get a new prescription that’s got “Project Glass” built in? Eager to find out.

Photos provided by Google.

After some uncertainty, Google is blaming this paid link fiasco on an ad buying vendor, Unruly Media.

First, what did Google expect when they hired them? They’re called “UNRULY” Media. They’re not called “We’ll listen to whatever you say” Media. I guess that’s what they have in their contract. Sure, we’ll sign this, but remember, we are called “Unruly Media” so caveat emptor.

Are we still fooled by bogus “search engine gaming” content?

What this story underscores is the fact that even with all the blocking and tackling Google and other search engines do, those who want to still can and will find ways to sidestep the system. Even Google will do it to itself. But all that means is they’ll be able to push their bogus content to the top of the search engines. It doesn’t mean people will actually accept it and take action on it.

Yes, non relevant links make a search engine less valuable because we count on receiving relevant results.  But when there are a few outliers, are we as humans really thrown by this? Would someone see an article “Google Chrome Helping Small Business,” not see any content about Google Chrome for business, and then switch their business to Google Chrome?

Or would it actually have the negative effect?

Would someone realize that the article actually has no content about Google Chrome for business and feel that someone is trying to pull a fast one. You’re too smart for that. Screw you Google Chrome.

We talk so much about the insidious tricks that are played by websites to fool search engines, but when you get right down to it, it’s ultimately a human’s decision. Why do people spend so much time and money trying to game the system when you could spend the same time and money actually working within the system to create content that people actually want. Then you’re not fooling the search engine nor are you fooling humans. How hard would it have been to actually make those articles actually about how Google Chrome can help your business? An article was written and a video was produced. I don’t understand why they just didn’t actually create relevant content.

Someone is still being fooled by these tricks, but it’s not me and I don’t know who it is. Got some ideas why these tricks still work?

2) Allow for Social Media Aggregation: It might be a bit of a gamble, but perhaps Google+ could benefit from an AOL Lifestream-type model in which they allow users to manage all their existing social media profiles through a central dashboard.

This great article by Drew Neisser in @FastCompany (http://bit.ly/q0iOF2) should make you question whether your company is simply waving at social media as the blogs, articles, posts and tweets float by you, or are you truly committed to making your enterprise a social business.

The subject of the article, IBM’s Ethan McCarty, asserts that the time has come to move from social media to Social Business and that Social Business is the future even for companies, like IBM, who are aren’t even selling to consumers anymore. My takeaway…inherently you need to be committed to being social to have a successful social strategy. You can’t farm it out, you can’t set up a page and call it a social strategy. You, and your company as whole need to be engaged, and engaging, in a social dialogue, hey if IBM can do it….

So what do you think, are you a Social Business or a Social Bust? Drop us a note and let us know.

You can even grab them from the library – which although is not always the latest selection, does offer up a few interesting pieces from time to time. My latest is Ken Auletta’s Googled – The End of the World as We Know It. It’s described as taking “a ride on the Google wave” and basically tells the story of the company.

It’s a great listen, with lots of unique insight. Have you heard most of the main points however? Absolutely. Everyone basically knows what Google does. For me that wasn’t the point though, because what the book did was bring a layer of perspective that the daily grind tends to gloss over.

Google was incorporated on September 4, 1998. Around 13 years ago, the company was two guys in a garage, nothing more. Given it’s revolutionary size and dominance, that just doesn’t sound right does it? The mind instead files the company into spaces reserved for IBM, GE, and the like…

But they are much, much younger. IBM has been in business since 1911, and has a $206B market cap. And Google, not even two decades old, already has a marketing cap of $160B. 13 years ago, you couldn’t even perform an accurate search online. Now, the word Google is a synonym for accurate results…And the products have been heavily diversified.

Thinking about this has re-hardened an old perspective of mine, that our current market situation produces change & value at a rapidly accelerating pace compared to previous industry.

Everyday, we all troll around the “big news blogs” like Mashable looking for a snippet of killer information, and where to find a killer explosion. Has Facebook surpassed 600 million users, and when is it going IPO? The Pope sends his first Tweet from an iPad. Spotify raises over $100 million in VC funding, but when is the US launch?

Everything we read is about analytics, venture funding, new offices spaces, or how somebody on one executive board or another was thrown under the bus. But for a moment, take a step back and ask yourself what happened to just two people in a garage trying to change the world through radical programming? And how often do you think they stopped to check in on the latest start up gossip?

The best way to accomplish great things is to build a team that feels empowered and believes their work is intrinsically valued – the IPO talk and ordering a new Porsche 911 Turbo must wait. Starting with an exit strategy in mind means you already have one foot out of the door, when it should be firmly planted on the ground beside your team.

It’s sometimes hard to remember that when you decide to hop into the trenches. But if you need any more evidence of why it pays off – I suggest you try the audio book.

Just published earlier today, here’s an interview David did with Cantech Letter Editor Nick Waddell in which he discusses all key Intertainment Media divisions including Ortsbo, Itibiti, Ad Taffy, and Magnum Printing.

Here’s a piece from the San Jose Mercury News, “Google, startup Ortsbo bring ‘Star Trek’-like translation to smartphones, chat sites”.

The Mercury News is considered the “paper of the valley” – that’s Silicon Valley. This is a fantastic opportunity to shine as, as the columnist Mike Swift covers Google, Facebook, Twitter, and all the heavy hitters in social media for the paper. Now Ortsbo is mentioned in the same article!

Another great piece is from the New York Post, “App translates your e-mails”. The Post is one of the largest papers on the East Coast. The article itself focuses upon the upcoming Ortsbo for Outlook launch.

And finally, a piece from the Financial Post that moves through it’s opinion towards investor logic in the social media space.

Just had a debate with an industry friend and some colleagues around the office about this. Now, does it look cool? Absolutely, yes. Would I switch into 3D and have mess around from time to time? Sure. But will it really be that useful? I don’t think so and here’s why…

1. I’m not Superman, and won’t be scaling the walls of downtown office towers anytime soon, needing to correspond their heights while saving someone in distress.
2. Last time I checked, I’m also not a bird that needs to avoid flying into windows. I’m usually on the ground, looking straight ahead, or maybe a few stories up. It’s tough to see the top of the Sears Tower from the bottom.

What’s far more useful (but not as recent, as I’ve been informed) is matching up buildings that I see in front of me with Street View, or orienting myself using the compass. Don’t think me a Luddite here folks for bringing the 3D feature down a peg, I’m glad it’s there. But just not sure how much I’ll actually use it in the real world.

What’s really more day-to-day helpful out of the announcement today is that maps will now be rendered in vector, as opposed to image based. That’s why 3D is now possible – but what it also means is that when you zoom-in on the map it will load cleaner and all at once instead of in tiny little gray squares.

Now 3D television… that’s a different story!

Here’s the product demonstration video:

The show brings in over 3,000 attendees from 26 countries worldwide, and talks include such notables as Twitter’s Jason Goldman, Google’s Marissa Mayer, and Zynga’s David Ko.

A couple of things that have captured our thoughts:

1.) Contextual discovery. The term used by Google’s Marissa Mayer, head of all consumer products for the company, to describe when relevant results are returned to you without asking for them. What would this look like? It’s based upon what Google already knows about you, and from a mobile perspective where you currently are. IE: you walk into a restuarant, the menu is automatically sent to your device, and it’s overlayed with what your friends recommend you eat there. The current catch phrase is “Search, before you Search”.

2.) MySpace. From what’s being reported, nearly half the audience walked out when CEO Mike Jones was announced to the stage. This drastic reduction coincides nicely with the one MySpace is seeing across all the site’s metrics. Check out the Alexa profile and notice that all key figures have fallen drastically over the last 3 months (with no assistance from the confusing and brand disparaging “My _______” campaign). That’s because social networks need to focus on real connections to excel. MySpace will exist as a content portal, but that won’t drive Facebook like engagement. These numbers will continue to slide until the site equalizes with it’s new reality.

3.) Angry Birds. Rovio CEO Mikael Hed spoke in detail about the development process for his the company’s flagship game Angry Birds, one of the most successful to ever hit the mobile arena. It all started with one screen capture, the concept behind which, Hed claims to have not understood. And now they’ve sold 12 million copies of Angry Birds to date, and moved 30 million downloads of the free version. And the team involved in the game is now over 40. The point here: if you have an idea just action it… Who knows where it will lead.

Anything that you’ve seen that’s interesting from the conference, drop us a comment below.

As the article elaborates on, the world’s population is projected to reach seven billion by the end of 2011. Nearly two billion of these individuals will have internet access. This is a massive group of people; a great percentage of whom will not speak the same dialect.

This creates market opportunity. As people look for ways to connect, reach out, and stay in touch with friends or family, digital companies who are smart will position themselves as providers of tools allowing people to do just that: connect.

With our product Ortsbo, we’ve identified a niche in this space. We provide a product that performs translation on the fly, integrating with all the major instant messaging platforms. Our goal is help enable ubiquitous online chat between people, regardless of what language they speak.

At current count, Ortsbo provides real time translation in over 50 languages, tapping into the power of translation providers like Google Translate. And wee know more languages are coming… Google’s search product for example, is now available in 136 languages.

We also tap into the biggest & fastest growing chat networks available including Facebook, Windows Live Messenger, Google Chat, and Tencent QQ. The critical mass of these networks already exists. What we bring to the table is real time translation.

The Huffington Post article asks why is translation important, speaking to of access to information. We believe this is true, but that it only captures one part of the picture. Translation can also bridge worlds socially, and bring together international networks of people.

And that’s a beautiful thing.

If Google first asked permission, nothing would actually get done. Just think of the simple process you run into where you send out a question to five people via email and you say, “Hey, could I get your response to this?” And then they don’t respond. So then you have to follow up again with them, this time pushing them, “Hey, I really need your response on this.” With all your pushing, you get four people to respond, but there’s always that one person that doesn’t respond and you have to call them. And when you finally get them on the phone you get some excuse, “I’m so sorry I didn’t respond to you, I’ve been really busy. Sure, I can give you a response.” And then in less than 15 seconds, he gives you the answer.

That’s just a story with five people. Imagine thousands or even millions. It’s simply not possible. So the answer Google goes with, “Let’s just do our next project, take the content we want, and let them complain about it afterwards” or more appropriately, “Let’s just do it, everyone will see the enormous value that they won’t care that we didn’t ask for permission first, and for those who do care, we can remove things after the fact.”

It’s a lot easier to operate like Google and like many other similar companies. Simply take the content without permission, and wait until you receive that cease and desist order. If you deal with the consequences after the fact, it’s an unknown quantity that may or may not be costly. The alternative method, ask permission first, is a well known and expensive option.

Is this the new model of publishing and content online? Just go ahead and do it and deal with the fallout afterwards? Look at Napster. That’s how they built their model. Sure it was a completely illegal platform, but they built a brand on it and people wanted that brand.

Google didn’t ask permission to search your site, but why would they?

Not many people realize this but Google Search operates under the same “do first, deal with consequences later” principle. Google indexes your site and the entire web and they do it all without first asking our permission. If you want, you can set up a robots.txt file to alert Google’s web spiders to pass over your site. Very few people know about this, nor do they employ it, because who wants to be invisible to Google? It would be like wanting to take your company’s name out of the phone book.

That’s kind of a dated analogy (“be like taking your name out of the phone book”) since almost nobody uses a phonebook anymore to find phone numbers. We all rely on Google. So go ahead phone company, take my name out of your book, but Google, please keep me in.