To demonstrate this concept, IBM owned the network domain in the '80's. Cisco disrupted IBM in the '90's with routers and switches that didn't depend upon the big mainframes for operations. Now, new flat network architectures are forcing Cisco to look to software and servers to supplement the routers and switches.

The make matters more difficult, most data centers require half of the total cost of operations as up-front investments. A 3MW system may have a $90M TCO for a 15 year operating life. As a result, many of the forward-looking projections may be off by significant amounts in time or costs.

The basic metrics for the review considered impact, speed of implementation, and likelihood of becoming commercially viable within the given time frame. A score of 5 indicates the technology is ready now, 4 is soon, 3 is in the near future, but needs to be kept in view, 2 is questionable and 1 indicates minor or unrealistic. The technologies mostly have low or no adoption in current systems.

The most disruptive technologies or roadmaps are all in the future, and don't include many new technologies that are more current. Some of the areas not considered include those technologies that are too far out, and anything related to virtualization and cloud. The newer technologies that already exist may not be used to full effect at this time, but are already commercialized.

First, low power servers using ARM processors offer high throughput at 10 percent of the power per server. The problems are that the memory and I/O use half of the total power, so the total power savings are not that big. In addition, the CPUs are not x86, so the code and app conversions could be challenging. Score was 3.53, implying this is something to watch closely, but watch out for the other costs.

Second, is on-site clean power. This technology sounds good, generating power at the data center, but the systems need storage and maintenance. The initial high costs and issues of scalability result in a score of 2.62.

Third is advanced DCIM. These tools can match data center management and demand in a closely constrained control loop. The benefits are in increased system utilization and better load leveling, but it also requires agile planning and some amount of over provisioning. You need to consider this as it ranks at 3.72

Fourth, is cloud-level resiliency to move more operations to a cloud system. The benefits are increased virtualization with software-defined networks and systems. The changes should result in reduced capital expenditures and increased availability. The downsides are in total network capacity limits and possible latency issues. This is a complex system modification that is a long-term play. It ranks as a 3.79, so it is not to be taken lightly.

Fifth is silicon photonics. This technology to combine the optical interconnect drivers and the electronics is still in development. the move to higher network speeds will require optical interconnections, but there are no useable standards for this technology. It ranks a 3.55, so is important even though it is still in development and will call for completely new architectures.

Sixth is chiller-free data centers. Eliminating the chillers can greatly reduce both capital and operating expenses, but depends upon climate and extended temperature operating ranges for all the equipment. This technology is too risky at present, but some of the other changes could make implementations easier. It got a ranking of 3.48

Seventh is power proportional computing. If you can define a realistic baseline workload, it is possible to obtain significant power savings by adjusting power and operating frequency with workloads. This system will require new management software and could have very wide power swings as peak loads can be 2-4 times the base workload. At a rank of 3.40 it probably will happen mostly by integrating the functions into the CPU designs.

Eighth is flash storage. All flash arrays are capable of operating 10 times faster than HDDs, reducing operating expenses through lower energy use. The speedup comes with increased initial costs and data reliability issues. The present trend will allow flash-based storage to reach bit-cost parity with rotating media in about 5 years. This one is the big hitter at 4.11

Ninth is prefab modules. The promise is fast deployment and minimal integration. The inflexible scale issues and discrete increments are problems a the margins. The use case needs to be defined better. Rank is 3.62

Memristers are the last technology to be considered. The devices are still in the lab, so the technology might be over 10-years out. The biggest downside for a device that stores data with changes in resistance is it will work in a non-lab setting. All of the software will need to be rewritten to take advantage of the nonvolatile storage configured as RAM. Rank is 3.34, so to be considered over time.

score of 10 disruptive data center technologies

The greatest impact is likely to be in the flash storage. Followed by cloud-level resiliency and advanced DCIM. Mean value for all categories is 3.52, implying that most will need to be considered fairly soon, certainly in the 5-year time frame.

Capacity planning for all infrastructure will become a greater need, so it is important to watch the roadmaps for the existing infrastructure. The data center is already disrupted, but further changes will increase efficiency over time. Put a technology assessment process in place in your company to keep up with the changes.

Existing evaluations are based on rigid financial models and common financial ratios. Instead, a set of simple creation and evaluation models can provide good approximations and incorporate strategic factors with a structured approach.

A better financial model uses financial metrics that are normalized for a 10-year total cost of operations per watt. It uses cumulative cash flow and quickly identifies break even or crossover for operating and capital expenditures. The idea that a simple model is sufficient for quick iterations and is close enough to identify major benefits and drawbacks is fairly unique. The caveat is that it is not to the same level of detail as a full budget.

For demonstration purposes, some assumptions for total cost of ownership for a 10-year timeframe might be $62/W with rates increasing 5 percent a year. A remote worker is $225/hour for 1 hour per month, and a 3 percent TCO discount rate. The decision process would be to define there strategies; evaluate the existing plant and clean it up, increase server density, or add capacity with new facilities. If you outsource, the costs of hardware and other facilities is zero, and in included in the costs for the services. See more details in the white paper at http://www.apcmedia.com/salestools/VAVR-8HF8DC/VAVR-8HF8DC_R1_EN.pdf In addition to the whitepaper, the company has an interactive tool for evaluating build versus buy options at http://www.apcmedia.com/salestools/WTOL-8ZVREZ/WTOL-8ZVREZ_R1_EN.swf

The first scenario is to pick the low hanging fruit. If we assume a TCO of $17/W plus $2.10/W for the upgrade. The costs of this effort are much less than outsourcing. A second scenario is to increase density. The 10-year TCO is $32/W plus an additional $4.80 for equipment. Again, the total costs are less than the outsourced $62/W

By adding to capacity with new facilities, the 10-year TCO is $27/W with upgrade costs of $8.75/W. Here, the cross-over for new versus outsourced is about2 years. Here the new focus is on cash and cash flow.

If the plan is to build a completely new data center, the key assumptions for the TCO numbers are an issue, but the financial people will want to see the impact of the cost of capital. The simplified model is sensitive to capital costs for TCO. So as cost of capital increases, the move to co-located facilities becomes more attractive. At a 26 percent rate, the TCO for building and outsourcing are equal.

In addition to the costs, another area where the decision might be influenced includes the organization's "soft" issues. These include the company culture, the comfort of the IT manager with housing equipment in shared space, IT access to the data center, suspected onerous contract terms, and critical facilities expertise, especially for energy management. More complex issues include regulatory issues, life expectancies of the data and the equipment, deployment timeframe, total capital expenditures and timing, and total cash flow. Different companies will have different issues, and any of these might be critical to the company and its data operations.

The decision makers need to take the time and get the assumptions and soft issue lists to a manageable state. Once this process is firmed up, then the various affected parties can make quick what-if iterations and have a common framework for the overall evaluations and decisions.

The market forces are driving upper layer resiliency and reducing costs. Co-location providers are making system-level and architectural changes that are reducing the costs for enterprise data centers. The co-location model is moving towards a modular data center, and the concept of a much more dynamic data center. As these changes take place, the reliability is increasing, to the point where some of the cost assumptions for a tier 4 system can be displaced by a lower level system at a greatly reduced TCO.

The changes in systems is becoming documented in the open design standards. The co-location systems are reducing the cost of all designs with reference designs and standards. One result is that prefabricated builds are more realistic. A partial build is probably optimal, since the cost of square footage is cheap, and the availability of an existing area allows for incremental upgrades.

A tiered data center can be set up for tiered apps. The mission critical apps go on a tier 4 system, and lower level apps can reasonably operate in a tier 1 or 2 level of reliability. This approach provides an opportunity for facilities and IT to talk, review standards, and assess the underlying assumptions. The process brings about coherency of the various business models.

Respondents indicated that 82 percent are managing more than one site. 58 percent are in enterprise environments and 70 percent added or renovated their data centers within the past 5 years. One common metric for this industry is cost per MW of space. 40 percent are spending less than $5M / MW, 25 percent between $5M and $10M, 14 percent between $10-15M, 7 percent from $15-20M, and the balance over $20M per MWatt.

Although the spending is going up for buildings and equipment, overall budgets are shrinking as companies are cutting the number of sites under direct supervision. Now, budgets are paying for 3rd party services and 63 percent of respondents are spending at least 10 percent more on external services. The challenge is to prove that a new or renovated data center is worth the expenses compared to the costs of outsourcing in North America.

The evaluations are for cost per performance at the enterprise. One issue is that most IT managers do not report their costs to the C-suite. Almost half of the third-party suppliers report costs monthly, and gather even more cost data for their internal consumption. In comparison, only 40 percent of the IT managers report to a c-level executive and most don't give regular reports on costs. Now, for many IT departments, getting the operating cost data is a matter of personal survival, get the numbers or lose your job to an outside service provider.

One area is the cost of energy. Reducing consumption is very important, but only 16 percent of IT managers pay the power bills. In 80 percent of the companies, all power costs are attributed to the facilities manager. As a result, there is little incentive for the IT managers to save by raising data center efficiency.

In the big data centers, those with over 5 thousand servers, power utilization efficiency (PUE) is the key metric. The larger companies are moving towards "green" operations with certifications for LEEDS, or Energy Star going up. The big data centers have the facilities, people, and capital to make the significant changes needed for higher efficiency. In these big data centers, technology adoption is twice that of smaller companies.

The bigger and more progressive data centers are installing data center infrastructure management (DCIM) tools as the driver for capacity planning and management. 38 percent of users have DCIM tools installed and 17 percent plan to buy these tools within the next 12 months. An additional plan to buy the tools in the next 24 months, while 31 percent have no current plans for these types of management tools.

While there is good interest in modular data centers, the reality differs. 47 percent of IT managers are interested in the idea, but only 9 percent have adopted the actual hardware and pre-built systems. Modular data systems promise flexibility, quick delivery, and a pre-configured data center in a box, boxes may be too much of a one-size fits all solution that doesn't quite meet the needs of most data center managers. Just because some big third-party suppliers are using modular systems doesn't mean that the systems are applicable for a company's specific needs.

Scalie opened that VR systems are complex, with a high potential for failure. They incorporate many sensors, like gyros on your head and in your weapon. Now the equipment is going wireless and adding optical tracking. Even as the first games come out, the need for better middleware and more refined heads-up displays and tracking technologies. The games need to work better to suspend disbelief and provide a track to reality. There are diminishing returns on visual improvements since visual immersion and natural reactions leading to greater emotional gains are hard. The underlying hardware and engineers are getting better.
Luckey noted that technology advances enable improvements. VR headsets with head tracking and better displays are becoming available. Motion tracking is getting less expensive.
Greenleaf commented that after 30 years of research, neuroscience and VR are approaching an inflection point in technology and acceptance. So far, users have been slow to adopt the technologies. The combination of visual and audio produces greater immersion and the improving game engine performance is leading to more natural interactions. The changes in technologies and mass market availability are making the devices more affordable.
Outside of gaming, medical apps are providing the greatest impact. From surgeon training to treatment of mental health issues like PTSD, behavioral modification, and phobias, the VR technologies are helping people. One challenge is that the medical industry is very conservative and is just starting to adopt game and computer technologies.

Challenges?
Scallie offered that in the '90's, everything was proprietary, platforms and algorithms. Now the difficulties are economic, the field needs content. Another problem is motion sickness with a wide field of view. Cutting the cord will reduce friction and offer a more natural interaction with the environment. The industry needs fine-grain hand motion sensing.
Greenleaf considered that the barriers are not technical, but economic and regulatory. The VR industry needs more entrepreneurs. The basic technologies have few barriers left, the algorithms and engines are available. The gaps are in everyday activities like hugs and crying.
Luckey agreed that the technology issues are not the main barrier to adoption. No economic incentives are available. User acceptance is an issue since this new operating mode represents a change in the user experience. Gaming has been a social activity, but VR is only really available as a single person mode, resulting in lower emotional content.

Parallels to the '90's and lessons learned?
Greenleaf noted that the main difference is that the 90's happened. There was lots of hype which won't repeat. The culture is different.
Scallie suggested that the progress in technology offers a different landscape. The ecosystems exist—content creation, render, hardware platforms, etc. and now there are commercial products and standards.
Luckey said that technologies keep improving and costs drop. 3-D high frame rate and high dynamic range are possible.

VR help the senior community?
Greenleaf responded that moving VR into the senior citizen market is a great opportunity. The elderly are disconnected and the boomers are technology ambivalent, but connected. There is a big economic opportunity in senior health.
Scallie added that low friction and ease of use are important.
Luckey suggested that the boomer generation is low technology adoption. They use tools like Skype and others, but don't interact with the data. The natural interfaces in VR allow better interactions versus the mouse. As an example, the Wii with a simple interface is much more popular than the PS in elder populations.

Minimum latency?
Luckey commented that sensor fusion is an issue, especially for stereo 3-D HFR. The phones are not capable yet, but mobile hardware will get there in 5 years. Less than 20ms latency can be improved with predictive tracking. One issue is the power for render.

Autism?
Greenleaf mentioned that VR is good for teaching social skills etc. but the patient still needs a partner.

Emotions and techniques?
Greenleaf offered that workarounds are possible, and evolving facial recognition software can detect micro-expressions. Users need stress inoculation and training. Getting to body language and facial expressions is hard.
Luckey captured videos and mapped them to game characters. This facet is over exaggerated in VR, so the industry needs to move to more natural views.

Does VR improve hard to treat outcomes?
Greenleaf considered that part of the effort is to get all of the brain involved. Need greater immersion, and the user needs to practice reactions to get a lower relapse rate. We need more studies.

Latency to perceive? Psycho-physiological testing shows that this response varies with conditions and takes a long time to acquire.
Luckey offered just try something, the hardware is cheap.
Greenleaf acknowledged that the degree of immersion is important, so staged evaluations with the app is important with layers of immersion.

Killer content for VR?
Luckey mentioned that indie and AAA game developers are looking at the technology. There is interest in the development teams and at the engine developers. VR is wanted.

First mainstream killer app?
Luckey said this is a chicken-egg issue. VR is still something people want to do, but have no clear idea of what it will be. Possibly porn?
Greenleaf suggested gaming 1st, then to other niches. Medical will be big as well as education and training.

Flynn described the system as a table-top display with embedded games. The system captures metrics and provides reports for evaluations. Eventually they will export the data to electronic health records. The games include self-assessment through play, using standard assessment scales.
Faulkner talked about an inconspicuous portable EEG like a phone earpiece. The device can monitor 24-hours a day to detect mental issues like depression. Integrated neural feedback can provide recommendations for personal self control and monitoring. The hardware teaches changes for ADHD, meditation, and other neurological metrics.
Gordon is working on a database for all modalities (www.brainnet.net ) to discern key facets of thinking and self-regulation. They post their research results after 20 sets of game play to provide standard data for developing control groups and other metrics.
Mahncke addressed cognitive training. Their site www.brainhq.com is looking at validation, efficacy and use for training. Results show that tier games are better than crossword puzzles. The intent is to make the training more fun. More like "Call of Duty" or a soccer simulation than "Angry Birds".

Efficacy established?
Flynn responded that efficacy is essential and critical but with limited funding not easy. They are getting into testing after the games are developed. They have added hooks for other functions and metric acquisition. The science is critical, but you need money and partners to do the science. You also need partners for entertainment pacts.

FDA regulations and efficacy?
Faulkner plans to establish efficacy with help from universities and the Canadian government. They will help to evaluate comparable electrodes. They are not registering with the FDA because the devices are non-invasive and are considered neurological supplies.

Skepticism of efficacy?
Gordon noted that the missing information is precisely what the FDA is looking for—a protocol, plans for testing, and a submission of results to the FDA showing the ability to predict and treat depression. This process is just basic science, but will cost $20M and take 2 years to prove a level of efficacy.
Mahncke commented that they are in trials now. Software developers fear the FDA, but clearance is not that difficult. You just need a good study. The FDA has the authority, but doesn't have the time, resources, or expertise to regulate all the software.

Engagement and tricks?
Flynn responded that entertainment and fun are a part of the game design. The games have dynamic difficulty adjustments to maintain interest and challenge. They work with clinicians and patients at early design levels to get the components working right. Without engagement there is no value and any efforts are not maintained. They integrate existing guidelines into the games.
Faulkner commented that their device changes levels and keeps scores. They have unlimited potential to grow.
Gordon mentioned viral marketing as one facet of the expansion. Their deep brain model has no push, but new discoveries keep appearing. They add personalization and dynamics to the game.
Mahncke wants a more serious focus. Having fun is not the issue, but training is more important. The game has to generate applicable metrics and data while still being "pretty". No game is right for all people, so the industry needs a diversity of games. the deeper commonality is brain training. We have to change the definition of fun, a hard problem.
Faulkner disagreed, if you add fun, you get better results. You need different reward systems. Many types of games are needed with different colors and actions.
Flynn chimed in that fun experiences lead to better results due to more activity and compliance. The results are really self-deterministic for issues like control, success, autonomy. You need to add fun, and be able to share successes in a social environment.
Mahncke debated the context. If something is framed as a game the "fun" is not as good as a "real" game.

Choose games and change popular games?
Flynn noticed that off the shelf games level up quickly and have overly complex graphics. If these games can work, then use them, but there is no data showing any value. The industry needs to generate lots of new data, since current data are not specific enough.
Faulkner offered that commercial games can be easy and portable. Simple games give rapid responses.
Gordon commented that boredom is one aspect of ADHD, so existing games are possible. The issue is to balance engagement and distraction. Gamifying depression treatments can be negative to pointless. The treatments have to be faithful to biology first then you can transfer the intent into a standard game.

Need to meet FDA standard protocols, with the levels of inspection going up.
Faulkner acknowledged that this is a difficult protocol proportional to the asymmetry with elements. You just have to look for a negative ground state. The patient still needs to see a doctor and get medicines. The games are a supplement.

Is the issue not the FDA but insurance?
Gordon agreed that you have to sell the idea to the large insurance companies like Aetna. The FDA is not a scare tactic and you avoid the issue are your own peril. Insurance companies are more interested in the ROI.
Manhcke agreed that insurance is important. The FDA is not the same as the insurance companies. In many cases, using a game is much less expensive than a neurological practitioner at less than $1k per year. Payers are easier than MDs and the FDA because they understand the changes result in saving money.
Faulkner commented that payers are not interested with FDA issues. They are looking for low cost therapies.
Flynn suggested getting medical side and payer discussions. Get pilots rolling for an evidence-based program. For example, software and sensor fall prevention. The payers are interested because it will reduce costs.

How to fit hardware, technology, and content into neuro games?
Kelly noted that interactive smell and haptics, etc. are currently at the gimmick stage. They need more refinement and the ability to be location based. The extra sensory inputs are not good or bad, but memory associative, and raise the possibility for interactive use in a game.
Hedges offered audio is a part of game design. There is growing interest in adaptive audio with branching, layering, etc. to make the game more immersive. Just like scent, audio is nostalgic and different from visual in increasing immersion.
Wiles stated that the technologies have been evolving for years. Scent is one of the last pieces to become a part of the gamification of life. Expect apps in automotive, senior care, etc. and the technologies will create new markets.
Coleman works with researchers in developing fragrances.
Horowitz noted that sound for games, TV, and film is moving to 3-D, which changes the interfaces. The sound is a natural link between technology and the mind.

Technology is moving to mobile, and game centers in the home, possibilities?
Coleman observed that 3-D audio is awesome, and adding scent will bring the holodeck even closer. Mobile technology can increase integration to enable smaller footprints.
Horowitz stated that biofeedback is powerful, and is now used in immersive game simulations. When you read emotions and change the sound and music with the experience. The sounds and score have to adapt.
Hedges commented that the potential for surround sound is in the mix and the audio focus is a film mix. This mix is not to simulate reality , but to enhance the whole experience. The challenge is that game play is non-linear, and changes the game play and the audio. They remix on the fly with inputs from biofeedback.

Surround sound leads to the same for scent?
Hedges would focus on one scent
Wiles offered that in a home entertainment system, scent needs to be built in. One issue is how to clear scents, another is how much scent to present. You need a way to flush the atmosphere. 5-7 scents will overload the nose, so the environment as a physical medium is important. There will not be scent in theaters because there is no flush mechanism.
Kelly added that the spatial issues like room size will lead to personal devices. One issue discovered in the Space Station is that constant exposure to smells causes one to lose the sense of smell. A personal smell device will probably come out of NASA first.
Coleman commented that flushing with air over the substrate causes the scent to dissipate quickly.

Smell and sound, moods and palette?
Coleman responded that there are no names for most scents, but the scents are experienced based. Some scents and their properties are known, but most scent responses are subjective.
Kelly postulated that scent information is conditional and cultural, so no vocabulary or taxonomy is realistic for games.
Wiles noted that scent creators have no fixed palette, but use a range of variants, and create by tweaking smells.

Music creates an emotional user experience?
Hedges declared that there is s difference between music and sound. There is no natural set with existing vocabularies and conventions. The parallel between sound and smell is that some are pure and natural. Sounds are universal and real sounds can be created and sophisticated.
Wiles suggested that you could combine both smell or sound. In a predictive game, the AI could adjust either or both

Most opportunity to adopt?
Wiles responded kid and educational games get up to 4 times better responses with smell and sound. With VR, it would be total immersion. The best way is to marry all the pieces. Also, the combinations could be used to manage emotions in a car.
Coleman stated that one could use smell for anything, gamification and training.
Horowitz noted that game play is getting to be standard to include sound and other enhancements to the video. Gamification is moving into health care, etc. to increase involvement.

Future music and game fantasy scents?
Coleman has created a zombie smell.
Wiles explained that a superhero smell could be integrated into the game and get more effect. Adding smell would crate a new environment with new smells.
Hedges commented that smell is similar to sound in terms of real and fantasy. We use Foley for realistic sounds and make up sounds for spells.
Horowitz offered that the point depends upon the game and action, how realistic or abstract is the action. You could make up loser and winner smells.
Kelly suggested abstract games could use synthesized smells as tracking and navigation aids.

A medical issue. Could you stimulate smells in the brain? A prosthetic like a hearing aid for smell?
Wiles declared that one could retrain the brain. There have been some general experiments.
Coleman said that it is possible to bypass brain paths but needs more research. Google Glass uses bone conduction for sound, so other paths work.

Scent hardware can extract from people and pheromones?
Coleman noted that this is a bidirectional process and in research.
Wiles mentioned that a baby can recognize mom's smell. This is very difficult because the identification of the scent needs different hardware. Smell has lots of shades that are hard to match.

Taste?
Wiles questioned that it is possible, but why? The food companies are interested.
Kelly agreed but that there are ethical issues involved. Integrating taste into a game can be done, but identifying specifics is hard. For example allergies, health issues, etc.

Yang opened with the migration of games through sensor development. Now developers' intent is to make machines conform to people for a better user experience. The first apps were for biofeedback for athletes like the US Olympic archery team and the Australian golfers. Both groups need to manage physiological activities through brain calmness.

Newer areas of research include brain training for ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). The brain training sequence takes 25 half-hour training sessions. The tracking and progress data are available to the parents and medical staff for evaluation and training modifications.

To make it easier for developers to incorporate brainwaves into an interface, they have a SDK wit 30 EEG parameters.

Grunnet-Jepson in the perceptual compute group is looking at the use of devices to make natural, intuitive and immersive man-machine interactions. Some of the user interfaces are starting to look like "Minority Report", with gestures, voice, and other sensors for a more lifelike interface. They have a SDK for 3-D vision and another for voice input. Development reference platforms are defined for various interactions.

Israr is performing research into machine outputs like haptics. They are looking to see how perception and physiological responses differ with enhanced output devices. Eventually they will transfer these technologies to the business units for application in products.

One challenge is that of surface area versus location sensitivity. They need to use existing technologies for their research to provide directions for the technologies, but the long-term goals are to incorporate new technologies in products. Other issues are practical versus cost, and personal and effective versus invasive and intrusive.

One new project is a Tesla touch device. The user gets a tactile sensation from electrical fields under the touch surface glass. The sensations can generate feelings of surface texture and hardness. Another project is free-air haptics. This uses nozzles and vortices to generate off-hand sensations. Tools for development are coming.

Perceptions of the markets?
Yang observed that consumer reactions are changing. The first EEG products are getting greater acceptance. People don't have a problem wearing sensors on the body, but have a reluctance to put something on their heads. The latest product is NeuroCat Ears, low technology, fun. and engaging.
Grunnet-Jepson offered that it is an exciting time. The public is ready for more sensors in gaming and they are willing to try new interfaces.
Israr noted that haptics have been around a long time. The difficulty has been in getting a fine level of feedback to make higher granularity and richer information. By creating new feedback mechanisms, they enable lots of new gadgets.

Is the market ready now? Accelerators?
Grunnet-Jepson noted that the PC form factors are changing with more sizes. The public is willing to try something from the many vendors.
Yang considered that consumers are lazy, and want everything to be easy. Technology advances enable smaller and easier to use devices that can be intuitive. Cost is an issue for some of the platforms, but only if they don't provide lasting value.
Israr noted that there are few success stories. The proliferation of technologies increases acceptance and experiences. Once the technology exists, people will be willing to try and use it. New interfaces change the user interface and experience.

Next 3-5 years, more changes in the markets?
Israr stated that the markets are growing, but need to have a driver. The new interfaces need context and content to increase consumer uptake. More computing reduces costs. The resources exist and are easily available and in wide use.
Grunnet-Jepson acknowledged exciting hardware. Wireless is making wearable sensors for any platform. The issues are in software and sensor standards to totally redefine the user experience and interfaces. Standards and sensor fusion software with applicable design tools will reduce friction for developers.
Yang agreed that bio-sensors are increasingly being integrated into systems. The wearable devices will take from 1-3 years to get to market, so lots of products will emerge in the next 1-3 years. Gaming is a saturated market, so the new consoles will use more types of input devices.

Why is neuro-gaming important?
Grunnet-Jepson responded that there is a need for more immersive and "smoother" interactions. Neuro sensors can simplify the controller by reducing the number of buttons, increasing the social elements of gaming. Easier is better for interfaces.
Israr stated that natural interfaces increase interactions and immersion. Changing the interface can simplify the game play. New technology allows the game makers to focus on something other than the existing market. Now, both older and younger players can use the natural and easy interfaces increasing the total gaming population.
Yang agreed that wearable interfaces are a tend that leads to more intuitive and easy systems and will attract larger audiences. Games need to be intuitive and fun. Some mental health benefits come form easy and short games with intuitive controls.

Challenges?
Israr offered the lack of content and the technology not up to the requirements. The software doesn't exist and good APIs and SDKs are rare. All of these tools will benefit game developers. Improvements in technology are relatively easy, but introducing them into the market is hard.
Grunnet-Jepson underscored the lack of apps, distribution, and common platforms all hinder the new developments. Development tools and marketing are needed.
Yang identified the out-of-box experience now needs content and hardware. The challenge is that users want a plug-in and play mode for instant gratification. Their cat ears are cheap, but the video got 1.6M hits on YouTube in 5 days, because people like the price, experience, and good marketing.

Sensitivity at the consumer level?
Israr noted a fine line between invasive and an effective experience. The key element is to design the effects.
Grunnet-Jepson added that the user experience changes with increased functionality and accessories that do more.
Yang stated that with the Mattel Mind Flex, the wow moment came when they provided a new user experience.

Brain interfaces replace dedicated controllers?
Yang pondered the issue and noted that one prototype replaced a RC controller, but needed training and instruction on use. The head sensor freaked out users. Now their SDK offers lots of features and is not technology limited, but user adoption limited. Other interfaces will not replace existing controllers, but will provide an enhanced dimension. New control modes can increase emotion and novelty, but people either totally like or dislike the new interfaces.
Grunnet-Jepson proposed that interfaces other than hands will allow better multi-tasking in a multi-modal game controller. Interfaces will include speech, eye tracking, etc. and are not technology limited. Facial and micro expressions, especially in kids, can be used as game modulation inputs.
Isras noted that increased levels of emotion have a direct correlation with immersion. Providing the sensations of breathing and heart beats can trigger emotions.

Role-playing games invoke the most emotions and most are story driven, and many feel that this value can be increased.
O'Connor offered the creative perspective for stories in games. Stories help learning and encourage connections with others. We hear stories and the experience increases our data processing functions. Verbal processing takes about 40MBps while non-verbal takes 11 Gbps. This raises the question, where are games going, as software or entertainment? Users want a mix of passion and entertainment. Just as movies changed from silent to sound, games can speak and learn to listen to the characters.
Gutberlet suggested that eye tracking can be added to games to identify the scan path and point of focus over time. This tracking will note the percentage of attention, allowing the export of emotion into the game. Physiology provides multiple data paths from vision inputs, leading to behavioral and cognition recognition.
Emotion has the characteristics of valence—pleasant or unpleasant—and arousal. A multimodal sensor is required to capture the indicators for these areas, but users are reluctant to add more sensors to their game setup. Eye track provides remote access and capture, and adding EEG makes a good combination. Ultimately, you will want to integrate modalities of eye, EEG, EKG, etc.
Garten noted that EEG developments since '03 have enabled thought control, measurements, and feedback. Open SDKs and research results can be used to add emotion to game play. A game is one of the most engaging experiences and integrating emotion into a game extends the player further into the game.
Ambinder commented that biofeedback measurements can be integrated into games to map into the action. The screen can tap into emotions for novel and compelling game play with dynamic input. By using skin conductance as an input, the game can have a measure of level of arousal. Eye control has greater accuracy and speed than a mouse. The potential for increased game immersion can come with changes in the controllers.

Biofeedback measurements, how to use them, and how to put into the game?
Garten offered EEG in games can use the alpha, beta, and delta wave frequencies to identify a combination of modalities.
Gutberlet added that fast algorithms can decompose an EEG into other parameters like source and intensity. This is an area of great promise, but the processing loads may be a challenge. If biofeedback is the desired result, then we know how to do this. If game play is the goal, then we need other data sources from multimodal sensors.
Ambinder objected that the EEG signal extraction is not easy, due to the high signal complexity and poor signal-noise ratio. The signal and functions are complex. Instead, skin resistance is better. Skin pH changes more with arousal and low-cost sensors are available. by time stamping on-screen events and pH, you can detect valence information with a time lag of 2-5 seconds from the stimulus.
O'Connor considered that the inputs might be interesting. Getting user experience information is important in the areas of protagonist versus hero. The changes in emotion are very intense, so the congruency of potential action and emotion are critical. The data need validation as a part of game design.

Sensing emotion?
Gutberlet observed the basic areas of three states, heart rate and rate changes, skin conductance, and respiration. The first two are easy to measure, but respiration is a challenge due to cost. Together, these give an arousal dimension. The heart rate drops up to 8-10 beats per minute with increased arousal. Facial feature measurements are compute intensive even though SDKs exist.
Ambinder considered that facial expression is a promising area for emotional state. The algorithms are getting better, but one caveat is that emotion is more than 2 dimensions. The software is available, but is not consumer-level yet.
Garten noted that EMG artifacts from the EEG sensor can be used to detect facial functions.

Game design with biofeedback?
Garten opined that this is easy to do. You can track and inject the brain state into the game to create environments with reflections of yourself in the game.
O'Connor stated that you can create a mirror of your self, but it's a distorted mirror. For example, if you are not calm, it may be a good time to scare you. This changes the relationship between the developer and player.
Ambinder has done manipulations to show the opponent's state and see the effects and results of those modifications.
Gutberlet raised a philosophical issue. Game developers want to create immersion, but biofeedback can add moral and other issues to the player and his avatar. If there is little separation then I see myself in a game and may transfer those activities to real world activities.
O'Connor declaimed problems if properly done. People with PTSD use games to get back into the real world.
Ambinder added that games help kids with burns.

Emotion brings more interaction, increased emotion with connections and other players?
O'Connor said that the story is a third party, and all of the other players are also getting greater interaction and immersion. The social aspects of games like pride and shame call for new ways to mirror and surprise the player.
Garten looked at the human experience. In pro-social behaviors the bio-signals synchronize when in close contact and in deep intimate connections.
Gutberlet pronounced that all the measurements of some form of behavior can be fed into games. MMOGs can go to new levels through changing of complex social skills and interests.

Sound and music?
Garten responded that the apps developers include an audio designer as a part of their team.
O'Connor commented that the dialog changes from the music to show different states at the same time.
Ambinder stated that they have an audio engineer in-house to integrate with the rest of the programs. Sound is used to induce a state, since there is correlation between sound and moods.

Technology is emerging from research. One of the challenges relative to the state of functions versus game penetration?
Oxley is focused on product development, so he doesn't know of other markets.
Kruse identified a need for gathering all the people in a space. Game development is an iterative process that needs a team. New interfaces create more opportunities, but integration is a challenge.
Hardy is interested in training and increasing cognitive functions. The market is shifting to lighter, interactive games and the existing engines are moving to a more casual format on more platforms.
Berka noted that existing technology and platforms can use new I/O devices that there is no integration. This creates new areas for applications, which is a disconnect with the researchers and game developers. Developers need APIs and looks for interfaces at the operating system level. Scientists need help with graphics and game design to accelerate learning.

Integrating sensor information into gaming?
Hardy considered that this integration is not too advanced yet, and still mostly in research. Everyone is still developing baseline data, and products need refinement. The stimulation side may also be good for improving cognitive growth.

Latency versus frequency for fidelity?
Berka responded that closed loop parameters require a millisecond basis. They have to synchronize to visual stimulation, so most sensors are too slow. Galvanic skin responses area slow and heart rate change, although faster, cannot meet this latency requirement. They can capture up to 128 channels of data in real time, but the processing algorithms have to be done off-line, or slowly in situ.

EEG and neural feedback for cognitive exercises?
Hardy commented that this is traditional biofeedback. Integration into games is unknown at this time. Their primary focus is to measure up outputs and responses, so they don't know enough yet. Any additional data can be useful to change game parameters.

Inputs and outputs from other stimulation? Realistic technology in next 20 years?
Hardy suggested that cognitive training will become ubiquitous some time in the next 5-20 years. Everyone seems to understand the need for brain training.

Changes in non-brain training games?
Hardy offered lots of ways to go, with lots of available technologies. The education market is a large one for games and neuro-games.
Kruse added that this situation echoes the short term focus on fitness and data acquisition.
Cognitive and physics are moving together in areas like education. We will see more wearable sensors that align with educational goals. In 20 years, we will get to the trans-human with implantable sensors. We need to think of gaming in other views, such as aging people increasing adoption rates.
Oxley mentioned that standards will make more sensors and actuators widely accessible and easy to use. A lot will depend upon cloud-based compute for the underlying functions. People will change. So far, the studies for their devices are following the products.
Berka offered close to ubiquitous EEG for education and training and disability mitigation. In 20 years, we will have much greater human-machine interfaces like exo-skeletons, prosthetics, etc. Group optimizations from 2 to thousands in the same process will result in social, neural games.

Where is the open source industry going?
Mathon noted that open source spurs rapid innovation and drives faster cycles in its application areas like mobile and social. The future is for more open source applications.
Peddobhotla added that it is a community with experience and contributors who develop robust software. The commercial support and distribution of open source apps is showing great momentum and new business models. Open source is moving into the enterprise through such apps as analytics in the cloud.
Wasko mentioned that open source is in many R & D functions, and has advanced from Linux and Apache to Open Stack and Hadoop, etc. The various products and services demonstrate quick innovation and improved reliability. There are enough successes and failures to establish a baseline for other new companies.
Yared commented that the top ten publishers of commercial open source apps are looking at all types of software. To contrast and compare, the commercial vendors are delivering cleaner software than open source developers, but the open companies are quicker at making changes and fixes that users request.

Linux is considered the most successful open source project. What else is there?
Yared declared that they are using lots of open source software including MySQL, Hadoop, etc.

IBM is in commercial, proprietary software?
Wasko suggested that you have to look at all layers. If something is a commodity, or performs some base layer function, it will be on open source. If the available tools are insufficient, then they will generate their own code. They are adding value on top of existing community efforts.

The technology goal is for all software layers work on the Intel platforms, since Intel is driving the pace of silicon forward. Users consume the software through IT houses and internal support in partnerships with vendor support.

Customers want support. In the Apache group, the customers are major contributors, because people will pay for cleaner software.

Does open source change skill sets within a company?
Yared responded that they need the capacity to take any install and run in 15 minutes. As a software type becomes mature, it migrates to free. Few customers contribute to the community development efforts.

Access to open innovations and the tradeoffs?
Wasko offered that companies need to evaluate how much to do on their own, and how much return they get by contributing. The areas of question are getting fewer.
Mathon declared that open source has to provide value to customers, some of whom want to contribute. Companies want to give back as well as consume. The challenges are in moving proprietary functions into open source. In the next 5-10 years, we will see many changes in models.
Peddobhotla said consumers need to consider what they plan to accomplish. The accelerating pace of change in technology calls for a change in internal functions to keep pace with the external changes.

Priorities and risks?
Mathon opined that you need to develop clear criteria for vendors, rating reliability, speed, cost, security, scalability, etc. The best solution is often open source, but you then need to accept rapid change as a part of the solution.

Is it possible to replace existing code with open source?
Yared responded that they replaced home-grown with DoubleClick and the order management moved on to another platform. The era of packaged software is ending as the market is moving to cloud services. Open source is cheaper, better, and is stable. They use a lot of open source tools in their business. Corporate IT is the cost driver.
Peddobhotla noted that the key is participation. Customers need to upgrade existing skill sets and be open to more possibilities to make changes. Differentiation and internal needs can be placed on top of open source code.

Open or die timeline?
Mathon offered that the premature announce of a demise has been around a long time. Open source may become dominate over time, but proprietary software will be around for a long time. It has already been here for over 30 years.
Peddobhotla considered that it depends upon how open source moves the industry forward. Open source helps all move to faster improvements. Nevertheless, both will co-exist.
Wasko jibed that we have been the year of Linux for over 5 years. The industry will move to open source over time. Mobile apps have used cloud APIs for many functions already, but we still have customers with 40 year-old software.
Yared decried the need for better interoperability in all phases and nature of software. Some are starting to move interoperability into projects, and some open source tools need to be replaced as they grow too big to be useful.

What to do for the next 1-2 years?
Mathon suggested that APIs, cloud services, and open source will always improve. You will need to look at everything from an architectural and standards perspective. Services and the cloud join with connectivity.
Peddobhotla said to think about when and how to consume and participate.
Wasko considered that open innovation and collaboration are key. Look and plan to go with whoever is going in your direction.
Yared offered use as much as possible, contribute, and keep bleeding edge out of production.

Legal issues and patent trolls?
Yared opined that companies should shift from accepting and paying, to sharing information with others in the industry and fight as a group. There is an indemnification issue that is starting to be addressed.
Wasko agreed that working as an industry is a better approach.