Companies are still waiting for augmented reality to become a thing so that they can correct this problem and place ads on every available surface within your field of view no matter where you are.
- https://www.uniqfeed.com/our-solutions/football/
They have on their websites some neat examples. For example Supponor literally replaces the ads in the live stream (see the hockey example on their front page).
Not sure if it's the same two companies, but you can find an impressive result video here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/blackmagicfuckery/comments/uf0re1/d...
I watch a lot of football, I watched >90% of games at the Euros on UK TV, I've never seen a pitchside advert on TV that wasn't showing the same as what you would see if you were sat in the stadium.
Edit: it was only on US, Chinese and German TV - https://invidis.com/news/2024/07/virtual-ads-wysiwyg-on-tv-a...
There are far more clever and profitable ways to monetize MR than to shove ads in your face wherever you look.
I very much doubt a modern company would take an approach this dumb when they could likely make much more money doing something much more subtle.
There are, but the problem with ads (and surveillance) is, they're purely additive on the margin. Any of the clever and profitable thing you do to monetize MR, you can get a bit more money if you also put in ads. Then the competition puts more ads. Rinse repeat, eventually ads overwhelm the experience - but not before you make bank.
That's the cancerous nature of advertising. It metastasizes to every new medium, feeds on it, and ultimately consumes it.
The ad model yields worse product and are actively killing off any attempt to improve, because the majority of people don't understand the downside of financing products using ads, rather than direct payment.
The ad funded model is only successful if you view the world solely in terms of profit. I think Windows is a good example, the product doesn't improve when Microsoft loads the install up with ads and telemetry, but it is more profitable, and therefor more successful, if you're a stockholder.
And really, for it to be all encompassing, you'd need everyone to have to use such systems, such as forcing everyone to have such devices to log in to services, or even order food, or pay for things, and no one would force people to have a device to even pay for things, or eat.. I.. um, oh right, smartphones.
(I firmly suspect that within 25 years not only will brain implants -> visual cortex happen, but that if you don't have one you won't be able to work effectively, you won't be able to identify yourself effectively, and you probably won't even be able to pay for things)
mcmcmc: Nowhere did the GP state that AR would be inescapable. Yes, I know. I stated it. See above?
My whole point revolves around the fact that I believe, just as with smartphones, that people will be severely hampered without said tech. That it will effectively be a requirement to have such tech. Statements such as "But you can just...", fail to realise just how much is dependent upon it. In many respects there are NO workarounds without a smartphone, there are jobs that require you to own one, there are tasks/things you do in life that absolutely require it, and if you don't have one?
Often you cannot find a work around, or the work around is literally a monumental task, thus people simply capitulate.
This is what brain implants and AR will be like in 25+ years.
Enough people that it eventually becomes unavoidable for the rest. See: all the other horrors of modern civilization that you cannot avoid without becoming a hermit.