Ready, (Head)Set, Go!
The battle to control your virtual reality begins
“Every demo that they showed was a person sitting on a couch by themself. I mean, that could be the vision of the future of computing, but like, it’s not the one that I want.”
Metaverse overlord Mark Zuckerberg has been reflecting on Apple’s vision for the future, and I can’t believe I’m actually about to type this; I almost agree with him.
Apple’s staged demo of the device was oddly isolationist. Having mulled it over for a week now, the overwhelming feeling is just sadness. There was never a shot with two people wearing the headset at the same time, nor was there any example of how multiple users would interact together. The shot of the father watching his kids play while wearing a Vision Pro was Black Mirror-esque; the shot of the woman watching a film through her headset while her headset-less friend was sitting right next to her was just depressing. It seems either Apple hasn’t figured out how it will be used by more than one person, or, more likely, it’s accepted that this device is designed to be used alone.
If that is the vision of the future of computing, count me out.
Zuckerberg also shared his thoughts on the headset's design and threw in a few potshots for good measure:
I’d say the good news is that there’s no kind of magical solutions that they have to any of the constraints on laws of physics that our teams haven’t already explored and thought of. They went with a higher resolution display, and between that and all the technology they put in there to power it, it costs seven times more and now requires so much energy that now you need a battery and a wire attached to it to use it. They made that design trade-off and it might make sense for the cases that they’re going for.
Again, I’d have to agree. For years, the rumors have persisted that Apple wanted to figure out the Google Glass concept. But it seems even Apple, the once great innovator, couldn’t overcome the technological barriers that exist right now. So instead, they’ve specced it out some ski goggles, chosen fancy materials, and slapped an extraordinary price tag on it. We might have laughed at the Oculus and its capabilities, but it’s evident now that this is where the technology is at right now. There are obstacles that can’t be overcome yet. Condensing it all into glasses - the only way this tech will become mass-adopted - is many years away.
The reason I can't fully agree with Zuckerberg is that I don’t particularly want his vision either. In his comments, he said,
“More importantly, our vision for the Metaverse and presence is fundamentally social. It’s about people interacting in new ways and feeling closer in new ways. Our device is also about being active and doing things.”
He might tout the same lines about “connecting people,” but even the Metaverse will make us fundamentally lonely. Why? Because, much like the connections we form on social media, most of them will not translate into the real world. You’ll take your headset off when the weight on your neck becomes unbearable, and you’ll be confronted with the reality that you’re alone where it really counts, IRL.
What is clear from the past week is that battle lines have been drawn in the sand. During the Apple conference, the company never mentioned the Metaverse. Nor did they even mention VR or virtual reality. It might even be fair to say it’s being marketed as the “anti-Metaverse.” We’re going to hear a lot about spatial computing. Conversely, Zuckerberg’s reaction and his seemingly unwavering determination to pursue the Metaverse, means there are now two visions competing to win the future. It’s AR versus VR. Spatial computing versus the Metaverse. Both are vastly different and will cater to different markets. Apple’s concept strikes as more of a tool to work within its device ecosystem, perhaps as a creative extension. Meta’s concept shoots for more of a social tool like a social media platform played out in a digitally rendered environment.
What vision wins out?
It’s a safe bet to assume we land somewhere in the middle, with companies eventually offering devices that do the same thing and allow you to access most of the same functions and worlds.
The more risky bet would be to assume one stands a better chance of winning. It pains me to say this, but I find the Metaverse concept more compelling. Apple’s device looked like a different way to use your iPhone, only this time, stuck one inch in front of your eyes. While early forms of Meta’s Metaverse are pretty awful, it seems reasonable that transporting oneself into a hyper-realistic virtual world to do crazy stuff with friends beyond the realm of possibility in real life could have wider appeal.
The ideal outcome would be that both concepts flop and society moves on, free from this dystopian vision our tech masters are so desperate to force on us.
The Metaverse has been a disaster that’s cost billions of dollars. It’s currently an empty, soulless world, and the Oculus device does more to showcase the weaknesses of VR than its strengths. Its sales have been underperforming this year, despite huge price cuts. How Apple’s Vision Pro performs remains to be seen, but it could be one of the company’s few failures. With an astronomical price point — you could buy an iPhone, MacBook and AirPods for the price —and the fact it can’t answer the question, why do we need this?, it might land with a thud.
If it does, and the Metaverse continues to stutter, virtual reality could virtually be over.
Apple seems to following the path the led them to become Apple. They started in the business of creating the best computing platform for content creation.
The headset is the most advanced technology that could be focused on content creators not on consumers. They are focusing on creating an ecosystem of content creators first. Those content creators provide service to other businesses and high end consumers.
Facebook's concept is average consumer. If the past is a prediction of the future, the only meta-verse people will pay for initially is the porn-verse. Facebook can't play in that domain because of its "puritan" corporate perspective.
Apple created a headset to create outstanding porn that people who are into it will pay for. Once they have some "crossing-the-chasm" apps, they can optimize the cost to focus on those apps.
Apples strategy makes sense to me. Facebooks strategy has no historical basis for success.
“If that is the vision of the future of computing, count me out.”
I mean...that’s been the reality of computing for the past few decades up until now. You don’t sit in front of your Mac Pro with your friend, do you?
The problem with many takes on the Vision Pro is that most keel framing it as the next iPhone evolution (and this article does the same), but it’s not. It’s not a mobile computing evolution, it’s a desktop computing evolution.
The Vision Pro likely won’t replace the iPhone, it’s more likely to replace the Mac Pro.
I won’t be surprised if in a few iterations they double down on its Mac Pro use case, such as;
- Remove the external battery. Chances are as they double down on desktop, the big battery issue goes away; it plugs into a main.
- Keyboard 2.0. I’d expect some sort of “Air Board” additional device. Like a giant blank board that provides some sort of haptic feedback. With a headset on, it can be overlayed with a keyboard, or whatever design reference you need it to be (digital drawing pad etc).
- Bundle them together, as you would expect for s computer.
Frame it as a mobile iPhone evolution then yeah, it’s gonna be a failure. Frame it as a Mac Pro desktop device, and it’s use case will become more obvious in time.