Virtual Reality – already retro?

How could Meta, one of the world’s most valuable companies, with all the talent they have accrued over the years, get it so wrong? Or—were they even wrong? Maybe it is actually, inspired by the huge leaps in AI technology of late, inching closer to a breakthrough? SQLI’s Ola Linder shares his thoughts on a matter that has lost most of its shine over the last years.

I was as stunned as anyone when the vision demos, underlining the decision from Facebook to rebrand into Meta, was unveiled. While there was a load of cool gimmicks, no one seemed to be able to present any real, practical usefulness (or attractiveness, for that matter). Of course, us digital people threw ourselves at the opportunity to be first on a new trend and countless, (mostly) pointless campaigns and proof of concepts followed. While this is not the point of this article, I can’t help but bring this Wal-Mart demo up that went viral several years after its release and this hilarious (but unfortunately Swedish-only) clip from the Swedish humor show Dips about snobby diplomats trying to have a VR meeting.?

Is it dead then? RIP Meta, and with them all the billions of dollars spent on the Metaverse and other VR/AR solutions? Well, I don’t think that calling me obstinate is wholly unjustified. I can’t help being skeptical when the public is head-over-heels on something, and when the tides finally turn you cannot help but think that it maybe shouldn’t. My point is that what has been over-optimism might just have shifted place with over-pessimism, and it could potentially hold us back when no one wants to touch a technology that might be inching closer to a potential breakthrough?

The keyword for every digital innovation is usability. Just think about what happened when ChatGPT bursted onto the AI scene. We’ve seen many demos of AI over the years being gullible, stupid, or even nonsensical. There are many examples, but the one that comes to mind for me is Microsoft’s Twitter AI-bot Tay, that in 2016 turned into what can only be described as a “racist asshole” in less than a day after being subjected to the wilderness that is human-powered social media.

That was in 2016, with many believing that practical AI was a distant reality—and some even considered it impossible. Meanwhile, algorithms kept improving and in 2022 ChatGPT was launched, which instantaneously brought about a paradigm shift in AI, soon countered by competitors launching their own AI platforms. The race is on, and this highly practical technology will only keep getting better, and its impact on human society is likely to become indelible very soon.

You’re probably already guessing where I am going with all this. In 2021 Facebook threw all caution to the wind and rebranded to Meta. So deep was the conviction of one of the biggest tech companies on the planet that they changed its name to position themselves as leaders in the field. The question is of course – were they wrong? Or are we still waiting for a paradigm shift to come, just as with the advent of AI?

I have no doubt it will happen—it's just a matter of time.? The issue so far is that vendors have been rushing into the AR/VR space, releasing technology that isn't mature enough to be truly useful. Google tried with Google Glass in 2012 (if you tried them, you’ll understand why they didn’t take off), and Microsoft followed with the Hololens (which was recently discontinued). Apple launched the Vision Pro in early 2024, while Meta has been heavily investing in its Metaverse and Oculus VR headsets.

So why have they all failed? Or have they? ?In my view, they’ve all established their foothold in a world that’s destined to emerge, driven by a strong fear of missing out. And as such, I think that some of the big tech companies involved are not all that displeased with the situation. The work has begun, and they all hope to be “there” when it turns mainstream. However, before that happens, these things need to be solved:

• Breaking out of the solitude. With its Vision Pro, Apple stated that “VR has just been too solitary so far”. Its solution, placing the user in an AR setting where you can still interact with the physical world around you rather than entering a confined VR space, is surely a part of the solution. I don’t think that the size of a virtual world (sorry, Meta) is the key, but rather how it blends in and out with the real world.
• The hardware. Let’s face it. While some are willing to try anything that’s new and might even enjoy looking weird in public – most don’t. The hardware still has to shrink considerably. The leaders (at least until recently) in this space are not Meta, but rather Snap Inc. Its approach with the Spectacles focuses on evolving regular glasses rather than shrinking VR headsets into space helmets. Old news? You should check out their latest version, I have a feeling this tech is going places. Still too clumsy but getting close. And recently, Meta launched its new Orion AR glasses with a form factor hinting that they also believe this could be the way to go.
• Usability. This is still the holy grail. We have yet to see a really usable feature (at least for mainstream usage). Most efforts so far could be divided into trying to mimic the reality (like the Wal-Mart example) or by trying to create a parallel universe like the Metaverse. In my opinion, we need technology that justifies its existence by addressing real user pain points, rather than starting with gadgets and tech for their own sake. There is just no way you will bring out your Meta Quest 2 headset from the box again, simply because you have run out of awe of the novelties that its world contains. It’s cool, but not useful - and can no longer deliver the dopamine it used to.
• Target audience: businesses or the individual. Meta has decided to go for the latter and that makes sense to me. Look at your Android or iOS device and think of how much it has been designed to fit you as an individual, rather than the company you work for (who probably paid for it). But it also means that it will be hard to charge the money needed for R&D and any profits will be far off in the future. And while businesses might have more resources, it’s hard to see for instance Apples Vision Pro becoming an office staple as long as it costs >3500 USD and remain a “computer on your face” as The Verge described it. Meaning it’s cool, but in terms of usability it relies largely on the same features as your regular laptop—and almost weighing as much, sitting on your face.

In summary, I firmly believe the technology is on its way and treating it like a fad from a few years ago is probably a big mistake. Along with discussions about timing and tech specs, it will also be fascinating to see which philosophy will come out on top. My bet would be on those trying to start with a design that’s as un-evasive to your life as possible i.e. glasses/sunglasses that are enhanced by tech rather than “traditional” VR headsets. What’s lacking, aside from the form factor, is that one, special functionality that will make them truly essential. And I believe that function to be simple and unpretentious. More of an iMessage or Google Pay rather than a full-fledged Metaverse. That the great idea will trump money – and perhaps even tech pedigree.

I also think we’ve reached a point where sheer perseverance will show who will come out on top. Microsoft has decided to drop out just as Apple decided to join. Meta is shifting its focus from slicing fruit with lightsabers to exploring the more practical approach of Snap Inc., which offers simpler AR features that enhance everyday life. And this, together with that one usable feature that we are looking for, might very well be the final key needed to unlock the world of VR/AR.

So, to the million-dollar question: what should you do? Should you start putting your budgets into VR and AR? I wish I could say “Yes!”, but even if I believe in the field the truth is simply a lot more complicated than that. As of now, AR and VR hardware are exotic things only found at very select companies and homes. And even then, there are multiple operating systems and environments, leaving you to try to select one or trying to adapt your solution to several of them. So, if your intent is to try to reach a wider audience, simply stay out of it. Again, it’s the magic feature you need, and had there been a simple solution to this it would, most likely, already be out there. If your intent, however, is a very select audience, for instance in a B2B setting, there might be a good chance you could create applications so helpful they would not only provide competition advantages – it could provide entire customer behaviors that will make you the only eligible provider.

When evaluating your idea, the key question should be: “Are my customers willing to buy the necessary hardware to use my application?”, instead of testing an idea and hoping that your clients already have the required behavior and equipment. Because I hate to say it – it’s just not going to happen. You need to have the budget, determination (from your entire organization) and idea to be able to persuade your clients to adopt a behavior they don’t have today. And that in an era where the last thing people want to see is another stock image bank photo of people wearing VR headsets. So, a tough sell indeed.

But as the saying goes, “Fortune favors the brave.” For me, the question isn’t if it will happen, but rather who will lead the way—and when. And maybe we are wrong thinking it will be like when the smartphones burst onto the scene, that everyone will adopt them almost overnight. Rather, it might be that we will see singular strong cases being launched as a slow trickle, with more to follow at an increased pace in the coming years. I know one thing – I am really looking forward to the new age of creativity it will bring.?