One perspective that might complicate the “$80B failure” narrative is that much of the investment may have been laying the groundwork for something slightly different.
A lot of the VR R&D Meta funded, including computer vision, environmental mapping, sensors, and optics, also happens to be the core infrastructure needed for practical augmented reality. In that sense, the headset push may have functioned as a stepping stone toward mixed reality systems rather than a pure attempt to build the fully virtual Metaverse described in Snow Crash.
The shift toward devices like the Ray Ban glasses suggests that Meta may have concluded something similar to your point: people are far more comfortable augmenting the real world than replacing it. A digital object appearing on your actual kitchen table is often more compelling than sitting inside a completely virtual room.
The other wrinkle is that generative AI arrived at exactly the wrong moment for the Metaverse narrative. AI dramatically expanded cognitive capability across writing, speaking, and creating media, while the Metaverse was trying to expand sensory immersion. For now, the cognitive upgrade seems to have captured most of the public’s attention.
It will be interesting to see whether spatial computing becomes more attractive once the novelty of flat AI generated media wears off.
I read in Scientific American--sound like an old guy, now--but there are prosthetics that can read the electrical pulses in the brain and move as intended relatively well. Enough to get really funded, don't know. But turning goggles into helmet VR gear is way cooler, pilot-fighter type stuff. Reading electrical pulses in the brain may be a way to turn game immersion to a subjective experience.
I think Facebook's involvement was a strong net negative for modern VR.
The original zeitgeist around Oculus (and its competitors) was energizing. The technology seemed like something different (even if it wasn't conceptually all that new) and attracted enough enthusiasm to make it feel like it will grow and eventually become important in some general way. Most importantly, there was a distinct and positive subculture forming around VR games and gadgets: online magazines, projects, meetups, etc. It felt a bit like the Web felt back in the 90s.
Facebook took this all this positive energy and killed it with a marketing campaign full of creepy corporate cringe. Moreover, they made sure that some of the best VR titles were stuck as exclusives for a single platform. Then they integrated accounts of that platform with their "social" network.
I own a couple of VR headsets. While I use them less often that I should, they're still likely the coolest technology in my house. My favorite aspect of it all is not the 3d view, but the room-scale movement and the ability to directly manipulate virtual objects.
I enjoyed this piece.
One perspective that might complicate the “$80B failure” narrative is that much of the investment may have been laying the groundwork for something slightly different.
A lot of the VR R&D Meta funded, including computer vision, environmental mapping, sensors, and optics, also happens to be the core infrastructure needed for practical augmented reality. In that sense, the headset push may have functioned as a stepping stone toward mixed reality systems rather than a pure attempt to build the fully virtual Metaverse described in Snow Crash.
The shift toward devices like the Ray Ban glasses suggests that Meta may have concluded something similar to your point: people are far more comfortable augmenting the real world than replacing it. A digital object appearing on your actual kitchen table is often more compelling than sitting inside a completely virtual room.
The other wrinkle is that generative AI arrived at exactly the wrong moment for the Metaverse narrative. AI dramatically expanded cognitive capability across writing, speaking, and creating media, while the Metaverse was trying to expand sensory immersion. For now, the cognitive upgrade seems to have captured most of the public’s attention.
It will be interesting to see whether spatial computing becomes more attractive once the novelty of flat AI generated media wears off.
ELI5: Goggles? outside the mind.
AKA zero opportunity for genuine empathy. No need to ingest a world, put oneself into another's place and imagine 'what if'?
Artists only work inside the mind and if your tools don't allow for that, those tools will fail.
I read in Scientific American--sound like an old guy, now--but there are prosthetics that can read the electrical pulses in the brain and move as intended relatively well. Enough to get really funded, don't know. But turning goggles into helmet VR gear is way cooler, pilot-fighter type stuff. Reading electrical pulses in the brain may be a way to turn game immersion to a subjective experience.
I think Facebook's involvement was a strong net negative for modern VR.
The original zeitgeist around Oculus (and its competitors) was energizing. The technology seemed like something different (even if it wasn't conceptually all that new) and attracted enough enthusiasm to make it feel like it will grow and eventually become important in some general way. Most importantly, there was a distinct and positive subculture forming around VR games and gadgets: online magazines, projects, meetups, etc. It felt a bit like the Web felt back in the 90s.
Facebook took this all this positive energy and killed it with a marketing campaign full of creepy corporate cringe. Moreover, they made sure that some of the best VR titles were stuck as exclusives for a single platform. Then they integrated accounts of that platform with their "social" network.
I own a couple of VR headsets. While I use them less often that I should, they're still likely the coolest technology in my house. My favorite aspect of it all is not the 3d view, but the room-scale movement and the ability to directly manipulate virtual objects.