1. Deploy or Die: A choice for Application-Led Ubiquitous Computing Research Richard Sharp Intel Research, Cambridge

2. Why “Deploy or Die”?  For 15 years UbiComp has explored how computers can be “woven into the fabric of everyday life”  … yet most UbiComp apps are published and forgotten before they have any impact on everyday life  We must address this before the disparity between the now cliched rhetoric and the lack of real-world impact drives the field into disrepute

3. Talk Overview  It is now possible to deploy “UbiComp” research; we must embrace this opportunity  Attitudes hampering deployment  PlaceLab: an example of a successful deployment- driven project (albeit “infrastructure”)

4. New potential for deployment  [Weiser91] Hardware required for UbiComp will come in 2 parts:  Cheap, low-power computers that include equally convenient displays  A network that ties them all together  Remember 1991 was a very different time…  … but Weiser’s requirements have been satisfied for at least 5 years now!  e.g. WiFi, PDAs, programmable cell phones, laptops

5. A Deployment-Driven Methodology 1.Build well-engineered UbiComp app that exploits existing infrastructure 2.Release app publicly 3.Attempt to build real-world user base around application 4.Study this user-base to learn from users’ experiences Seems obvious, yet we’re not doing it! (cite UbiComp 04 proceedings)

6. What defines success?  Most projects will fail to achieve a real-world user- base  Should not be considered failures.  … but if UbiComp is indeed relevant then some will succeed  Validating UbiComp research via much needed real-world impact.

7. Attitudes that need to change  Repeating PARCTAB  Back then, building infrastructure was only hope of “glimpsing future”  Now, real-world impact is opportunity cost of building custom infrastructure  Stop working alone – Need community-wide efforts  Share implementation effort via open-source development techniques  Other communities can do it; why can’t we?

8. PlaceLab  Deployment-driven from the start  Location using existing WiFi APs, GSM cell towers  Well engineered: robust implementation available  … but still infrastructure. Any real applications?  Not a new idea (cite Radar etc.)  But scaling beyond the lab generated many interesting research challenges  Generated much needed impact for UbiComp community  Insights into what real users do with software

9. Conclusions  Infrastructure for UbiComp is here  Lets try and deploy some of our ideas for real  Both past ideas + new ideas  No-one else is going to do it for us!  Some deployment-driven projects required  Some attitudes in the community must change  UbiComp is not perceived well by other CS disciplines:  “A sideline to the exciting developments in mobile computing.”  Disparity between rhetoric and actual achievements  These are valid criticisms.  We must address them or be discredited (due to lack of tangible achievements).