"At some point, we have to consider the possibility that the problem with VR is that people don’t actually want it."
This is what I think. I used to be a metaverse evangelist and entrepreneur, but now I think the problem is and has always been that we-the-people don't really want it. It requires too much sustained attention. We wanted Facebook, and that's what we got.
I think you're exactly right about the limits of longer-term predictions about technology, way too many hidden variables. Zuckerberg is clearly all-in on his bet the farm move. The $1500 visor reminded me of Apple's $1000 laser printer, first of its kind and outrageously expensive at the time for personal use, but the only option if you wanted pro-looking quality. It was a hit. Even Zuck must realize the VR interface quality is crucial to adoption, so he must be hoping early adopters (and corporate users) will pay that price for a quality experience.
But what's it for? "Hanging out" doesn't seem that compelling a use model. Clearly he has no idea beyond building (and owning) the infrastructure, so he must be hoping someone comes up with the "killer app" for a VR world he owns. A virtual office for WFH is dumb enough to entice some corporations, but that's a gamble and seems more a way to buy some time than a plan. I'm too lazy to see if there's an API for developers to write to, but if there is (or isn't) that's a clue to what Zuck is thinking. If he's thinking Facebook, but in a VR, he's doomed. VR will take a far greater level of commitment than scrolling a page and clicking Like, and there needs to be a really compelling reason for it.
One other thing is that Internet evangelists' dismissiveness about the fax machine says too much. The fax machine *was* a big deal - in Japan it's still a huge deal - in moving our expectations about the velocity of text towards "instant" even when the Internet didn't quite afford it, over the existing infrastructure of the time. The prevalence of fax materiel in early William Gibson books is one of the things that he got "wrong" but he didn't, really - the concept was exactly right, just the embodiment was a few degrees to the left.
"At some point, we have to consider the possibility that the problem with VR is that people don’t actually want it."
This is what I think. I used to be a metaverse evangelist and entrepreneur, but now I think the problem is and has always been that we-the-people don't really want it. It requires too much sustained attention. We wanted Facebook, and that's what we got.
I think you're exactly right about the limits of longer-term predictions about technology, way too many hidden variables. Zuckerberg is clearly all-in on his bet the farm move. The $1500 visor reminded me of Apple's $1000 laser printer, first of its kind and outrageously expensive at the time for personal use, but the only option if you wanted pro-looking quality. It was a hit. Even Zuck must realize the VR interface quality is crucial to adoption, so he must be hoping early adopters (and corporate users) will pay that price for a quality experience.
But what's it for? "Hanging out" doesn't seem that compelling a use model. Clearly he has no idea beyond building (and owning) the infrastructure, so he must be hoping someone comes up with the "killer app" for a VR world he owns. A virtual office for WFH is dumb enough to entice some corporations, but that's a gamble and seems more a way to buy some time than a plan. I'm too lazy to see if there's an API for developers to write to, but if there is (or isn't) that's a clue to what Zuck is thinking. If he's thinking Facebook, but in a VR, he's doomed. VR will take a far greater level of commitment than scrolling a page and clicking Like, and there needs to be a really compelling reason for it.
One other thing is that Internet evangelists' dismissiveness about the fax machine says too much. The fax machine *was* a big deal - in Japan it's still a huge deal - in moving our expectations about the velocity of text towards "instant" even when the Internet didn't quite afford it, over the existing infrastructure of the time. The prevalence of fax materiel in early William Gibson books is one of the things that he got "wrong" but he didn't, really - the concept was exactly right, just the embodiment was a few degrees to the left.