http://wireless.sys-con.com/node/1087364
*Stewart McKie is right, those ARE different. They may not feel much different as a user-experience, but I'd bet good money that they spectacularly fail in different ways. We're gonna see bundling, unbundling, blending, mash-ups, disaggregations, in-device versions, in-cloud versions...
*The time-honored use case of a wine-bottle shows how much hidden spime potential exists in these technologies. If it's about tracking and identifying objects, real-time in three dimensions, well... does it matter if it's "image centric," "content centric" or "location centric"? If you're a developer, heck yeah that matters. If you're a user, you're not gonna know or much care.
"MIR is image centric. It is concerned with recognizing an image – wherever and on whatever it is located – in order to deliver content linked to that specific image. MIR could also use location-based data to vary the content delivered depending on location. MIR is great for:
• Leveraging existing images (e.g. book/cd/dvd covers)
• Linking brand logos in print/on posters to online content
• Associating a face with online content
"A drawback with MIR is that the image needs to have been processed and added to a back end database before it can be recognized and resolved to by the MIR-enabled phone camera.
"MT is content centric. It is concerned with recognizing a specific kind of image - a tag - located on or next to a specific object or place or printed item (e.g. an advertisement) in order to deliver content linked to that tag. MT doesn’t care about location since this can be ‘pre-coded’ into the tag and in any case tagged objects are often not location-specific. MT is great for:
• Putting on physical items to link them to online content
• Linking a specific thing to specific online content
• Linking content in printed matter to online content
"A drawback with MT is that the tag needs to be created and then deployed (i.e. stuck on, printed on) to the physical object.
"Use Case: A Winery..."
