I would not take marketing around things like VR and AR very seriously because nobody knows whether any of them will catch on, and their track record isn't very good. Oculus, for the most part, is a niche. A lot of people have an Oculus but it's primarily for games, and it hasn't reached the level where everyone's gotta have one.
Only time can tell whether Metaverse has something that Second Life did not. My guess is that it will be considered a joke in 5 short years, but I don't actually know. Overall, I think Silicon Valley is overestimating people's willingness to wear headsets and paddles for extended periods of time. Just because 12 year old boys will do it doesn't mean that everyone else wants to.
>Overall, I think Silicon Valley is overestimating people's willingness to wear headsets and paddles for extended periods of time.
I think the issue is that a significant portion of the population will have issues consuming the content and not ending up with eye strain or getting sick. It was one of the factors which killed off the resurgence of 3D in the 2010s and VR headsets suffer from many of the same problems.
Bumping up the frame rate didn't fix it, nor did all the other tricks cinematographers and cinemas employed to make stereo screenings less jarring.
The two main problems with VR not feeling quite right is the virtual world not reacting to focus and aperture changes in our eyes. The brain gets confused, and that creates this sense of confusion and that something is wrong.
These can be solved some day though by following the eye's aperture and focus and adjusting the "world" with minimal latency.
To be fair, after motion pictures was initially invented, audiences are legitimately frightened by things that were happening on-screen. Yet here we are today with over 100 years of cinematic history and nearly everyone watching some form of entertainment at home.
I have a feeling that future generations will simply know how to mentally process VR in a way that fully grown adults can't easily adapt to.
> To be fair, after motion pictures was initially invented, audiences are legitimately frightened by things that were happening on-screen.
For what it's worth, there's no record of that ever happening. There's been no account of this sort of thing, even in newspapers of the era, which at the time tended to exaggerate spectacles with catchy headlines, nor are there any police reports describing panic. As far as we know, people enjoyed the film and sat and watched it just fine.
Unless we come up with a way to override the inner ear I can't see future generations being able to mentally process away the sickness that comes with VR motion.
Palm pilots didn’t become pervasive. So you could have applied that argument to iPhones. It is a matter of if the technology is ready. When it is, it will take off
That's definitely a factor, but these technologies need to solve real problems for people. Modern phones have a clear advantage over not having one because they are so general purpose. They've effectively out-tricorder'd the tricorders from Star Trek in their usefulness. VR not only pales in comparison to the holodeck, but it isn't clear whether they have any real utility beyond being a toy. Is VR more efficient at relaying information than a standard phone or laptop? That's yet to be seen. Is VR better for socializing than real life or even Discord? Maybe for some people, sure, especially for the immobile or those who can't leave home, but the answer isn't clear for a wide general audience. Does VR help people do their jobs? There are already VR surgical operations, but is Zuckerborg the one who's gonna make it even better?
My best guess is that until we can beam visions directly into our eyes and brains, VR will end up in a similar domain as 3D printers (remember all those articles touting how we would have "santa claus machines" in every home by now?). For the average person, 3D printers don't solve anything despite how many people would consider a 3D printer to be a "cool" thing. Most people won't deny the cool-factor of VR, but that doesn't mean they will use it for any reason. After all, personal computing didn't really take off until it started to solve more problems for the average person other than word processing and playing Oregon Trail. (yes I'm oversimplifying, don't jump down my throat, I was using computers before we had the web)
Again, I don't really know, and nobody really does. Maybe people will want to join the Metaverse. Hopefully Zuckerborg doesn't set back the adoption of VR by virtue of association with Facebook.
I feel like most people got it as soon as they saw the iPhone in action.
A similar “you’ll know it when you see it” applies here I think.
For iPhone it was “everyone has a phone, and now that phone can give them turn by turn directions anywhere. Everyone will want this.”
For vr, there’s no incumbent device to disrupt. Glasses are the obvious choice, but they’re not in the same category.
I don’t think there’s room for more than one digital device that people carry everywhere, which means vr will need to disrupt the phone again.
Carrying that to logical conclusions, apple seems like the best bet to pull this off.
Facebook making this move seems very strange. Building tools for a gold rush that isn’t possible yet or even in sight. I’d imagine it’s more about recruiting than anything.
I've for years argued that the iPhone didn't succeed because of the technology (or at least technology in solutions had been sufficient for a while). It succeeded because it was an iPod a phone- a logical progression of something people were familar with and loved.*
VR suffers from a number of technological problems still (eye strain, etc) but a major issue is how much a departure it feels like from other things we do.
* Apple also utilized the proved wild popularity of iPods to wield tremendous power over its carriers and partners to keep them from interfering with the experience. Other smart phones of the were sold with carrier firmware mods that kept you doing things like transfering photos unless you paid the carrier a dollar per photo.
I agree. VR is allows for great game experiences, but today's devices are still cumbersome and we won't see a VR device get mass adoption until we have something that is:
- Not much bigger or heavier than a pair of glasses
- Lets me work all day on virtual screens to replace my monitor. It would be great if it also connected to my phone to give me more screen real estate there, showed my notifications etc.
- has pass through video so I'm not totally unaware of my environment and other people.
Outside of VR, AR glasses need to be all of the above, plus offer something that works better in glasses than on a phone - like indoor wayfinding, using the cameras to allow people to search by image for things they are looking at, virtual assistants that are proactive and context/location aware, or just being able to do things quickly and privately without pointing a phone at something. Or it could just be that the immersive/spatial experience is just better than looking at a small phone window.
Facebook / Meta is working on all these things, so I think the Metaverse talk kinda distracts from some of the more concrete and useful applications and paints an unrealistic picture for how much time people will want to spend in VR worlds.
There are so many challenges and so much interoperability required to make this happen and be useful - I think it will be some time before it becomes a reality. But, the original iPhone was pretty limited initially, and I can remember lots of people saying "Why would I use a smartphone when I can just browse the web and send emails on my computer more easily?". I think it's likely that VR/AR will follow a similar trajectory with it becoming much more powerful and easier to use as time goes on.
> or just being able to do things quickly and privately without pointing a phone at something.
From what I've read, you'll more or less have the opposite effect. People assumed Google Glass wearers always had the camera on, or were taking pictures, even if they were unambiguously not. Wearing any gadget with this capability will not be significantly different from pointing a phone at something, I believe.
I'll start thinking more seriously about it when I know anyone who's not hardcore into gaming, or a deep technologist, who owns one.
I can count on one hand the number of people I know with something like an Oculus.
Two of those people don't use it because they couldn't feel comfortable using it, but they like seeing other people try it out the first time, as a novelty.
Oculus devices have this strange effect. The first time I got one, it was a total "wow." Then I put it on the shelf after a week and never touched it again.
Same here. When I first experienced HD VR, I knew it had the power to be extremely addictive. However, the plug and play experience isn't there. Yet. Still waiting for the killer app.
Yeah, I think the main use case for VR will be just be porn with connected devices. I do think there is some ability to do a VR-ish remote tele-presence use case. Think Google Street View data capture for walking the Great Wall of China. So real life data used to power a VR world you can explore as you wish.
There are reasonable industrial and commercial uses for VR. Product design, architecture, interior design. Where VR is actually a superior way to virtualize the product. Still, most of the work will happen on as it does now.
I don't see any reason why I would want to have VR meeting. I can see point with in person and white board, but VR? Not really...
Only time can tell whether Metaverse has something that Second Life did not. My guess is that it will be considered a joke in 5 short years, but I don't actually know. Overall, I think Silicon Valley is overestimating people's willingness to wear headsets and paddles for extended periods of time. Just because 12 year old boys will do it doesn't mean that everyone else wants to.