Yesterday, Apple announced it’s first major product launch since the advent of AirPods in 2016. Apple Vision Pro (the world’s first ‘Spatial Computing’ apparatus) is the firm’s first swing at VR/AR, in a combination they call ‘mixed reality’. It’s very obliviously Apple’s response to Meta’s heavy investments in what it is calling the ‘metaverse’. While I mostly enjoy writing about things that won’t change (credit ratings, auto loans, and next day delivery), the future of computing is something that everyone should be aware of, if not informed on.
Since Zuckerberg’s very awkward and violent redirection toward the world of augmented and virtual reality in late 2021, I have been extremely sceptical of this as a charismatic modality of computing for consumers. Virtual reality most of all. This is best encapsulated in the idea that VR is a destination, not an accompaniment. The available time one can devote toward VR has to be limited by the nature of the commitment necessary to use it. Having to put on a headset, and then be in place where one can use that headset safely are huge barriers to mass adoption. Naturally, a lot of investment is going toward building the applications that will make using the headset alluring. Couple this with the fact that the ideal use case for VR is that you can bring presence to digital interactions with other humans. It’s not dissimilar from multi-player gaming only really being appealing to other young men while they aren’t at work.
There seems to be other insurmountable hurdles to VR being adopted on a truly large scale. Not to be underestimated is the fact that most people find it nauseating to use. Applying our senses to a world that isn’t quite right seems wrong, not just for the fact that many users seem to get vertigo while using it - but also for the point that this kind of technology takes us ever further away from presence in the real world. This has been bemoaned by Boomer parents for decades. More recently, research has come to bear that the kind of social malfunction and emotional turmoil expressed in many Millennials was the result of over-stimulation brought on by social networks and other modern digital creations. I’ll argue that diving ever deeper into the digital vortex is not the answer to ‘disconnectedness’.
The idea of ‘augmented reality’ - think the digital world layered on-top of the real world - seems much more charismatic in my mind. The idea that we can bring the internet to the real world is compelling. It does, however, have a few serious drawbacks. Firstly, we don’t have the technology yet to make this a reality. Zuckerberg himself has said as much. Of course, for something to supersede the ubiquity of the smart phone, it would need to be an order of magnitude greater value add. As many have already noted, to bring the computing power of a smart phone to eyewear that you would actually want to have on your face would be an engineering feat of some achievement.
Meta’s pivot to the metaverse is a strategic move - it’s not a road to Damascus moment. Of all the large technology companies they stand alone without a platform or real world infrastructure to support their key digital properties. This has made their achievements more impressive in a sense. It has also made their strategic positioning vulnerable. Even though we don’t think much about it now, Facebook’s transition from desktop to mobile computing was a herculean task that had no guarantee of success. We’d be more familiar with the recent ATT changes Apple made that seriously upended (for a time) their multi-billion dollar advertising business. These experiences have made them hyper aware of the need to establish themselves at the infrastructure layer of what the next computing platform may be. Although it feels as though they’ve jumped the gun in several ways.
Primarily, there seems to be a serious timing question at play here. The kind of Cambrian moment for adoption was easily observed with ChatGPT last November. The same moment occurred with the launch of the mosaic browser in the 90s. Hell, I even remember the burning desire to get a Facebook account in 2009. Timing is never an easy thing to master, but it’s some combination of technology, pent up demand, and mass cultural acceptance. If I may be so bold, it seems we’re a bit short on every front. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice that smart people are building cool things - but as a legitimate business strategy there is a lot left to be desired.
Apple’s new headset - which would allow users to either access VR or AR - is a beast of a different description. From the use cases on display, it seems that their idea is to use the headset as an extension of their existing product offering. Pragmatically, this is smart. Being able to easily sign in with one’s phone, and access all of the metadata or applications you already have in the Apple ecosystem makes the initial phase of adoption so much easier. It doesn’t alleviate, however, the fact that you still have to wear a weird piece of technology on your head. Again, consumers have not been willing to adopt this in the same kind of way that they have with smart phones.
The whole concept of the headset is set in stark contrast to a couple of ideas one would think of as synonymous with Apple’s brand. Firstly, there’s nothing sleek or minimalistic about a headset. Quite the opposite in fact. Secondly, it’s simply not cool. This is compounded by the fact that this initial headset has to be supported by a battery pack attached to the device via a cord. The mass adoption of all Apple’s key product is predicated on the fact that other cool people are using them. You can’t send a girl a green text and expect to get a second date. For a while, AirPods were heavily associated with wealth and success - see the likes of Gary Vee. Thirdly, the price point is almost 7 times as expensive at Meta’s flagship product. It’s over 3 times more expensive as the current iPhone. While I don’t doubt for a second that the initial sales of these devices will be oversubscribed, I am going to doubt the longevity of the product as a serious business for Apple.
This isn’t to say that all this work is in vain. I don’t think companies working on these technologies should discard them all together. It will be a much more circuitous route to where computing ends up next. It’s good that tech companies are throwing things against the wall - I just wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
Larry.