Beyond VR?

If you're looking for more evidence that VR in its current incarnation has already failed, I think one need look no further than the fact that some of VR's proponents are already trying to rebrand it as something other than VR. Something more useful and less problematic, perhaps.

From Alphr:

We are at a frontier. Just ahead, almost within reach, are a series of technological developments that are finally growing out of their infancy and will change not just the way we think about technology, but the way we think about reality and existence itself.

These developments will form part of what is called extended reality, or XR. The term describes the entire spectrum of reality, from the virtual to the physical, from augmented reality to augmented virtuality, virtual reality and everything in between. But what it implies is a dramatic, potentially species-defining change in human experience.

To many people, this kind of talk will likely sound overly conceptual, but XR’s implications are highly tangible. Psychiatrists could treat a phobia using VR to simulate, with near-perfect precision, the physical and psychological environment required to induce the phobic response. At the Tribeca Film Festival, ‘Tree’ gave guests the opportunity to immerse themselves in a rainforest and take in the sights and smells of the Amazon while running their hands on the trunk of a centuries-old tree. These examples barely scratch the surface of what is possible. XR’s potential is nearly limitless and in 2018, it will arrive.

[...]

This arrival of XR represents the collapse of the virtuality/reality divide. Within the new XR framework, virtuality and reality are no longer opposites. Neither are digital and biological. XR implies a far more complex relationship between these things – one in which virtuality can make things real.

If you're thinking that this all sounds a lot like the case that VR's advocates and apologists were making for VR itself, not that long ago, then you're not alone. From the promises of "nearly limitless" and yet somehow still vague potential, with the same tired old examples that still "barely scratch the surface of what is possible," to the promise that it will all arrive next year, in exactly the same way that VR has been predicted to explode into mass adoption sometime in the next year ever since Oculus Rift was released in 2016, this is exactly the same tired, old, VR sales pitch that has utterly failed to captivate consumers for two years now, and counting.

What's new, though, is the deliberate attempt to shift the discussion away from the VR label, to a new term, "XR," which allegedly combines Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Microsoft Mixed Reality, and any other, similar technology, into a seamless spectrum that "represents the collapse of the virtuality/reality divide," with virtuality and reality ceasing to be opposites.

Of course, exactly why consumers are supposed to want this next year, when they didn't last year and don't this year, is not specified; neither is there any mention of a specific technological development or breakthrough which will make this happen (next year, remember), in precisely the way that all existing VR/AR/MR headsets have so far failed to achieve. There's still no mention of a specific use for "XR" which is quantitatively different from any existing experience, desirable for the average consumer, and which also requires "XR" technology in a way that simply isn't the case for existing VR technology.

That qualitative enhancements to existing experiences are simply not enough to shift large volumes of expensive VR headset is plainly evident in VR's still-lacklustre sales numbers, and in the VR content developers who are retooling VR offerings to work without the tech. Neither is there any reason to think that the "XR" technologies of literally tomorrow will be able to "simulate, with near-perfect precision," any sort of environment at all, when existing VR headsets can't, and when the PCs that drive them are not increasing significantly in processing power. Have I mentioned lately that Moore's Law isn't a thing anymore? And while VR hardware developers are making incremental improvements by iterating on the display technology, there are any number of other problems with VR that aren't directly related to the quality and feature sets of the displays.

Let's be clear: VR is not currently a thing. It wasn't a thing last year, it didn't become a thing this year, and absent divine intervention, it's not going to become a thing next year, either. AR might have more potential, as demonstrated by the likes of Pokemon Go, but it's still in a profoundly primitive state, and years away from enabling any "dramatic, potentially species-defining change in human experience." While machine learning and automation are definitely fuelling profound changes our society and economy (the Singularity, already in progress), there's no reason to think that it's going to have any specific application to VR/AR any time soon. And Microsoft's "MR" headsets are just VR headsets with different branding... which is exactly what is being attempted in Alphr's article.

"XR" is not on the verge of taking off, any more than VR is on the verge of taking off, and the folks at Alphr are whistling past the graveyard. I stand by my prediction: VR will continue to not be a thing, and 2018 will be the year when tech media outlets finally start to admit it.

The search VR's "killer app" continues.

Microsoft's Fall Creators Update for Windows 10 dropped this week, with a heavy focus on "Mixed Reality" - Microsoft's attempt to rebrand VR into something that might actually appeal to consumers. Mixed Reality has a couple of advantages: MR headsets are entering the market now with signifcantly lower price points and PC hardware requirements than the likes of Oculus' Rift or HTC's Vive, and at least the potential to be used for Augmented Reality (AR) applications as well as VR.

Much like VR, though, MR suffers from a lack of a reason to exist. MR headsets must be tethered to a PC (or laptop, if your laptop's specs are sufficiently beefy), which will limit its usefulness for AR applications; and VR still lacks the quantitatively new experience which will sell it to consumers. And, yes, I'm including the new Cliff House feature in that assessment, as reported by Popular Science:

The home base for Mixed Reality is a virtual home called the Cliff House and makes navigating windows more like walking around a swanky dwelling with a nice view. Want to watch a movie? Head into the home theater. Want to use regular windows apps? Head over to the virtual desktop and get a 3D Windows experience.

This is neither quantitatively new, nor particularly useful. Bumptop* have been doing interactive 3D work spaces for years, something which Cliff House just expands from a potentially useful desk (where everything you might want to work with is conveniently located in one work area) into a much less useful structure, forcing you to walk around your virtual house in order to do different things, a setup with completely ignores the way modern consumers use PCs.

Por ejemplo, right now, I've got music playing in the background while game updates download in a second application, all while I compose this post in a third. On a desktop, that's easy to manage, because they're all in one place -- firing them up took just a few mouse clicks, opening three windows between which I can move back and forth with a simple ⊞ Win+Tab ↹. This took only seconds... in a standard GUI, with a keyboard and mouse interface. In the Cliff House, though, I'd have to waste extra time "walking" from room to room in my virtual house just to get everything started.

Also, while representing your PC's file structure as a Cliff House might be mildly interesting from a technical standpoint, if not very useful from a practical one, virtually touring a house is not a new activity; architects and real estate agents have been using virtual tours for years already, with no VR required. So, not only is Cliff House not useful, it's not quantitatively new, either; it's just a more elaborate (and less useful) Bumptop, with VR providing some qualitative enhancement. Just like every other VR application.

Cliff House is not going to become the new way you interface with your PC, and the FCU's MR package doesn't include any other new use for the technology, either, something which Popular Science acknowledge:

Right now, the challenge is finding enough interesting stuff to actually do in Mixed Reality. There are a few games out there like Halo Recruit VR, but overall support is spotty.  

Mixed Reality, much like Virtual Reality, is still not actually a thing. At least, it's not a thing that consumers want or need, and is therefore unlikely to be a thing which sells VR headsets. VR's "killer app" still waits to be found... assuming it exists at all.

* Bumptop, BTW, is more of a curiosity than anything else; it's been around for years, but hasn't really caught on, for the simple reason that it's not very useful, either. There's a reason why keyboards are still so popular, people: they're simple, effective, efficient, intuitive, and provide unparalleled responsiveness combined with audio/tactile feedback that makes each keypress an intrinsically satisfying experience. Combine with a mouse, which provides drag + drop simplicity when you might want or need it, and you really don't need any other way to work with your PC; there's a reason why Xerox PARC used this control scheme for their early GUI, why Apple swiped them for the Macintosh, why PCs followed suit, and why the combination of keyboard and mouse has prevailed over all other challengers for nearly four decades since.

Xbox boss says that VR success is 5 to 10 years away.

Well, I guess this explains why Microsoft's XBO-X rollout didn't include any mention of VR.

From mspoweruser:

It’a no secret that Microsoft has been very bullish on VR for the past few years. Debuting its Hololens headset at Build 2015, building mixed reality into Windows and so on.

In an interview with Time magazine, the Xbox chief Phil Spencer stated that tech firms were about 5-10 years away from creating the kind of VR service that could produce the amount of fidelity and consistent experience that would be needed to see consumer success at scale.

“I love that we did HoloLens, not because I think everybody should go buy a $3,000 HoloLens. It wasn’t made for everybody, we’ve said that, it’s a developer kit. Now we’re doing kind of the other end with Windows Mixed Reality and $299 with OEM partners. But even then, with all these cables hanging off the back of your head, especially in a family room environment, that’s hard.”

You know that VR is a flop when even it's proponents start putting distance between their upcoming efforts and the VR label. "Mixed Reality?" Really, Mr. Spencer?

Still, whether you call it VR, AR, MR, or VRARMR, the fact that it's not ready for prime time, and not appealing to consumers at all, is pretty damn obvious by this point. Honestly, I think that 5 - 10 years is being overly optimistic. The current crop of VR hardware is not going to see mainstream acceptance, and its failure may tarnish the VR name thoroughly enough to make it hard to sell anything resembling VR until a new generation of consumers exist to pitch to. We could be looking at another 20 years' hiatus... decades in which deep-pocketed VRARMR developers will have to be willing to spend money on research and development, with no expectation of a return on that investment in the near-to-mid term.

Yes, I'm saying it... VR is dead, and the big VR makers know it.

This is becoming something of a theme for the week, innt?

#VRisdeadandtheyknowit
#xisdeadandtheyknowit