Pokemon Go is a cultural nod between nerds – serious, retro, 90s kid nerds – and will soon join that wedge that’s existed for a while now between nerd-culture and mainstream. Yet, while enhancing social cohesion in more isolated instances, our unpredictable loitering and erratic stop-starting will not be welcomed on every street corner. Everyone not currently connected to the madness around you may be somewhat disrupted, and you may well be disrupted by them.
The potential for Pokemon Go to jeopardize people’s safety or invade members of the public’s personal space are also in question. Many residents across North America and Australasia have already reached out to local news stations, taking issue with Pokestops and Gyms being located too close to their home; the irritation for those that do not play, or do not understand the game is obvious. Moreover, the New Zealand Herald recently reported an incident whereby a Pokestop was located within a Hells Angels compound, which is probably not the best place for young children, or anyone for that matter, to be attempting to enter and catch Pokemon.
Quite apart from the social confrontations that might arise as a result of Pokemon Go’s design, the implications for tech are, of course, enormous. Pokemon Go is yet another example of Google effectively utilizing its APIs to create Google Maps Mashups, tools that have been used by law enforcement, corporations and retailers in a surveillance capacity before.
These kinds of collaborative software ventures call for innovative licensing and partnership agreements that continue to evolve as they adapt to the technological space. Collaboration between giants such Google and Nintendo results in consumers finding something truly interesting, and innovation is normally good for our society. Yet, there is cause for trepidation that the outcome of the partnerships also result in unprecedented levels of corporate control over the tech industry, and that’s obviously hugely concerning.
Consider the advertisement opportunities afforded to retailers through having hundreds of thousands of Pokemon Go players actively moving around the city. Location oriented advertisement is an attractive proposition for many retail owners and Google partnered products such as mobile video games provide a perfect opportunity for those factions to make people aware of their location.
Is it that far fetched to assume a retailer would pay inordinate amounts of money to have Google or Niantic Inc. send players to a giant retail outlet in search of Pokemon? Or would a government agency be above using Pokemon Go players to scout the inside of a suspected terrorist hideout? Maybe, but the implications for allowing online entities to have that level of where we have been and what we’re likely to be doing next is worth considering and questioning.
Google and a handful of others currently control the lion’s share of mass-marketed, highly innovative technology. We can see from Pokemon Go that the potential for augmented reality technology is astounding. But should we be worrying that Google, with its Maps, will both drive the train and clip the tickets? Will they accumulate billions in revenue from consumers like us that effectively provide them with hundreds of hours of free labor in the form of our personal data, our movements and coordinates? Or do we shrug it off, sit back and enjoy playing through the next popular fad on our mobile device?