Well, just to prove that "XR" wasn't some sort of isolated incident, I give you VR 2.0, courtesy of Fast Company:
In the two years since consumer virtual reality hardware first hit store shelves, it has struggled to catch on. There are numerous reasons, but one is that all current VR systems work only when connected to an external computing device—a gaming-quality PC, smartphone, or game console.
Horse hockey.In 2018, that dynamic will change with the release of several standalone VR systems. Get ready for VR 2.0–an evolution that could help the technology fulfill some analysts’ predictions of it becoming a $38 billion industry by 2026.
Fast Company's entire argument is predicated on a single, outdated assumption: that "computing systems of all sorts inexorably get smaller, cheaper, and more efficient." That might have been true ten years ago, but it really isn't anymore. The simple reality of computing today is that new computing systems aren't getting smaller, cheaper, or more efficient. There's a reason why sales of new PCs have declined year-over-year for six years now, and counting; there's a reason why even smartphone sales are levelling off.
As the size of processor elements shrinks below the micro-, and towards the nano-, quantum mechanics replaces classical electromagnetism as the dominant force governing your designs' properties and performance. This "quantum threshold" translates to an increase in the cost and difficulty of reducing the size and efficiency of processors, rather than a reduction. With costs increasing exponentially, and sales decreasing, the economics of processor design all trend in a single direction, which is why my seven-year-old PC sports a six-core, 3.4 GHz AMD CPU which can still keep pace quite nicely with the six-core, 3.6 GHz Ryzen processors of six months ago.
Moore's Law really has stopped being a thing, and tech writers need to start thinking about what that means, rather than reflexively repeating decade-old common wisdom which no longer applies to the current reality of tech development. VR headsets are not poised for a leap forward in onboard processing power, which means that gear which leverages more powerful PCs for their processing will continue to provide more varied and better-performing experiences than their standalone cousins. Which means, of course, that the likes of Oculus Go are unlikely to supplant the likes of HTC's upcoming Vive Focus as the main drivers of VR innovation.
Which brings us to "VR 2.0," which, much like "XR," is an attempt to convince consumers and investors that weaksauce, crippled VR is somehow much more appealing than the higher-performance, PC-driven VR experiences that haven't exactly set the world on fire, either, up to now. Which is why Alphr and Fast Company are trying to rebrand VR in the first fucking place, and using exactly the same M.O. to do it: weak arguments, vague promises, and a goalposts which are perpetually moving down the field.
VR is not useful, and it's not new anymore. Until the VR industry grapples with these fundamental facts, it will continue to struggle to catch on with consumers who haven't been awed into dumbfounded compliant consumerism by vague promises and a few neat tech demos. It's not enough to build them, and hope that customers will come. Consumers aren't coming now unless you convince them; it's time to figure out why they should come, so that you can tell them why they should be spending money on VR... whatever initial consonant or version number you choose to stick on it.