Reminder: VR is still not useful. Also, tech journalism continues to be a bad joke.

Spotted today, on Tech Republic: "5 top use cases for AR/VR in business, and how you can get started."

Challenge accepted! Shall we keep score?

According to an Altimeter report by analyst Omar Akhtar, the combined market size for augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) is expected to grow exponentially from about $18 billion in 2018 to $215 billion in 2021. With this growing push toward immersive technology, many business are questioning how they can utilize it and how to being implementing it into their strategies.

Analysts have been making equally aggressive growth forecasts for VR for the past two years; as yet, this forecast growth has not materialized, and there is no sign that it's going to suddenly start happening anytime soon. I've noticed that Altimeter are now rolling AR and VR together into this number, which is probably wise considering that VR is not a thing, but there's no evidence yet of AR being ready for prime time, either. Not a good start. F.

Emily Olman, CEO of VR/AR at Hopscotch Interactive, said in the report that immersive technology implementation is a question of "when, not if."

"The sooner your company is able to understand the language [of AR/VR] and become fluent in what the possibilities are, the faster they are going to be able to react," Olman said in the report.

When people with a vested material interest in something keep predicting that it's just about to happen, for years on end, with no sign of it actually happening, you should be very suspicious. Someone whose job title includes "of VR/AR" definitely falls into this category, as do Altimeter themselves, whose actual business is "providing research and advisory on how to leverage disruptive technologies." I'd recommend that you take any of their recommendations with a healthy pinch of salt, if double handfuls of salt weren't actually needed here. F.

Here are the five use cases for immersive technology outlined in the report.

This is where things really start to go downhill.

REALLY not ready yet...

I've blogged before about my opinion of VR as an everyday work environment - suffice to say, I think there's a reason why rows of tiny pods, each just barely big enough for its immobile, goggled-in occupant, is often how dystopian science fiction envisions the most horrible workplaces of the future.

Well, it would appear that those sci-fi dystopias are pretty much spot on, according to Andrew E. Freeman from LatopMag:

When you boot up a Windows 10 Mixed Reality headset, you land in the Cliff House, a serene ranch flanked by a lake on one side and a mountain on the other. Birds chirp. You could stay awhile.

On the walls are a bunch of Windows 10 apps. I thought that would be enough to get me through my workday. I thought I could work in the Cliff House. But I was wrong: It was 8 hours in hell.

Before I go any further, I should tell you not to try this at your workplace. Keeping yourself in virtual reality for that long at a time, especially without frequent breaks, can be taxing on your eyes and possibly even your mental health.

The problems Freeman goes on to describe are all pretty much the ones I'd envisioned: horrible ergonomics, increased mental and physical stress, inefficient work-flow, and reduced productivity that only got worse with time, rather than improving. And those are just the technical issues:

Besides all of the technical issues, there were social problems. We have an open office, and I sit among all of my colleagues. While I could hear their voices with the headset on, I couldn't see them, and I felt isolated from the rest of the team, trapped in a dream-house-turned-prison. I was lonely. I didn't dare put headphones on, lest I lose my grip on reality entirely.

[...]

Speaking of the time, it's tough to hit a deadline in VR. The Cliff House is like a casino — it has no clocks — so it's hard to tell how much time you've spent there. My options were to hit the Windows key, which brought up a version of the Start menu; open an empty desktop to see the task bar; or, in my descent into madness, frantically type, "What time is it?" into Google.

The symptoms being described here are not unlike those that Michael Stevens of VSauce describes experiencing in his isolation experiment, as documented in this Mind Field episode:

This is way beyond the problem of social VR not being a thing -- prolonged isolation can permanently alter your brain, doing damage that you'll never recover from, which is a serious problem with solitary confinement in prisons, and why advocates are trying to have the practice banned entirely as a cruel and unusual human rights violation. Goggling in for 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, risks causing permanent neurological and psychological damage to those who are forced to spend their work weeks in these virtual solitary cells, in addition to the RSI.

And then there's the public humiliation Freeman endured, on top of it all:

Unable to see the outside world, I opened myself up to all sorts of practical jokes. Many colleagues took photos of me working with the headset on. Senior writer Caitlin McGarry posted one on Twitter (have you ever been on Twitter in VR? It's awful), which was then retweeted not by other colleagues, but Tom's Guide itself.

The few positive aspects of the experience ("there were fewer points during the day when [co-workers] bothered me unnecessarily") were offset by related negatives ("I would've welcomed the interruptions, considering the loneliness thing"). There were no actual benefits at all, just physical and mental stress, with a high risk of permanent physical and mental damage with prolonged exposure, all to achieve a reduction in productivity. Why does anyone think that this is a desirable future?

In short, Freeman's one-word description of the VR workplace, "hell," is not hyperbole. This is, literally, hell, a cruel and unusual practice that we must not allow buzzword-addicted corporations to force onto defenseless employees. Seriously, if your employer ever announces that they're exchanging your office's desks for VR headsets, unionize immediately.

And the biggest problem here, for the VR industry, is that these issues are all fundamental to VR. It's a lot like the problem of VR/simulation sickness, which is caused by human physiology and thus can't be fixed purely by iterating on the tech; these problems simply aren't going away, which means that any potential VR applications have to take them into account.

People simply can't be required to work in VR for any prolonged period of time; it is not, and cannot be, a productivity tool. Which makes for one more thing that VR just isn't any good for.

Still not ready for prime time

From BBC News:

It must have seemed like a good idea. As a taster for a big announcement about Oculus VR on Wednesday, send Mark Zuckerberg on a little virtual reality trip, including a stop in Puerto Rico.

But the reviews are in - and they are not good.

The sight of Mr Zuckerberg using VR to survey the devastation of an island still struggling to recover from Hurricane Maria may have been meant to convey Facebook's empathy with the victims.

The fact that he was there in the form of a cartoon seemed to many the perfect visual metaphor for the gulf in understanding between Silicon Valley and the real world. 

It looks like VR still isn't ready. Surprise!

Facebook, who own Oculus, are one of the industry leaders in VR hardware; with Facebook having a keen interest in making Social VR into a thing (even though it's not going to be a thing), one could be forgiven for assuming that this represents the cutting edge of Social VR:

Cutting edge, baby! Woo hoo!

Why Zuckerberg thought that virtually touring a disaster zone, using other people's suffering to showcase his social VR experiment, was a good idea, will forever remain a mystery. Why Zuckerberg thought that a social VR experience filled with painfully low-fi cartoon avatars would appeal to consumers, even without the disaster zone, is even more of a mystery. Seriously, why would anyone with even half a brain think that any part of this was a good idea?

Apart from Zuckerberg, natch, who clearly thought this was genius, and who still doesn't seem to understand how badly he's stepped in it.

"One of the most powerful features of VR is empathy. My goal here was to show how VR can raise awareness and help us see what's happening in different parts of the world. I also wanted to share the news of our partnership with the Red Cross to help with the recovery. Reading some of the comments, I realize this wasn't clear, and I'm sorry to anyone this offended."

You should be sorry to everybody, then, Zuck. Because even those of us who weren't offended by your attempted exploitation of Puerto Ricans (which is already most of us, BTW) can still be offended by the fact that you seem to think we're stupid enough to be impressed by your lame-ass VR bullshit. Empathy, my ass.

You see, Zuck, in reality, VR's most powerful feature is actually the sense of presence that it gives to people who are experiencing it directly. This is why VR evangelists keep saying that it's critical to convince people to try the tech. There are times when looking at a thing through the aperture of a 1080p screen really can't convey the true sense of the scale of what you're looking at; VR, however, can, providing the sense of scale that images on a screen lack.

But that only works for people who are strapped into their own VR headsets; it doesn't work if you stick a carton avatar in front of the thing, and then display it on the same 1080p screen that had already proved inadequate for conveying the scale of, say, a fucking disaster zone, to the viewer. Touring a disaster zone might convey a sense of the scale of the disaster to people who are taking the virtual tour themselves... but that's not something you can share with someone who isn't "there," unless you lend them your VR headet so that they can take the tour, too.

With one small publicity stunt, Mark Zuckerberg has managed to make social VR look profoundly heartless, aesthetically ugly, and fundamentally limited and isolating, all at once. VR experiences aren't easy to share with others... and, thanks to this, the attempt to share them now looks a lot less appealing in every conceivable way. Clippy had lower hurdles to leap over than this PR disaster has now put in front of social VR.

Which was never going to become a thing anyway, but still.

GG, Mark Zuckerberg! GG.

Is VR too isolating to succeed?

I'm not a huge fan of social media. I suspended my Facebook account years ago because I wasn't using it, never had a Twitter account, and cancelled my Battle.Net account, thus going cold turkey from the one online forum where I posted with any regularity. Perhaps because I'm an introvert, I spend a lot of time (quite happily, I might add) in my own head; one of my favourite ways to spend a quiet afternoon involves a good book and no other distracting people around.

Perhaps that's why, of all the problems facing VR, this is one that hadn't occurred to me.

From Ramona Pringle at CBC News:

Consider this: the most popular tech of the last decade has been social. Studies show that when we check email and social media, we actually get a hit of oxytocin, the same "cuddle chemical" that is released when we embrace, or fall in love. That's what makes it all so addictive, and why we keep coming back. Yet VR is the opposite: it excels at novelty, but falls short on human connection. And that could be the biggest factor in VR's stalled growth.

Early in 2016, the research group SuperData estimated Playstation VR would sell 2.6 million units. A few months ago, they revised that figure to just 750,000. At the same time, less than a year after flooding its locations with Oculus Rift VR "pop-up" stations, electronics giant Best Buy is closing down almost half of its in-store demos. Workers from multiple Best Buy pop-ups told Business Insider that it was common for them to go days without giving a single demonstration. People just didn't seem to want to try out the headsets.

That's a huge problem, because casual shoppers can't get a sense of a VR experience just by walking by. They actually need the immersive experience, which requires physically putting on the headset.

But that's where the inherently isolating design of VR headsets becomes apparent. Once you put on the headset, you're separated from the world around you. And sure, that heightened level of escapism is one of VR's great attributes. But if you're by yourself in the middle of Best Buy, putting on a helmet that blinds you to your surroundings may just be a bit more vulnerable than most people want to feel when they're out at the mall.

Even at home, where one can fully appreciate VR's capacity for immersion while in the comfort and safety of your living room, it's still equally isolating — a far cry from family movie night or a games night with friends.

It's obvious, when you think about it. At a time when gaming is pushing players harder and harder in an online multiplayer direction, VR games are all solo affairs. At a time when the President of the United States tweets incessantly, and when people get most of their "news" from Facebook and Twitter, VR cuts users off from the social media sphere completely. While some might see that as an advantage for VR, there's no real doubt about it: VR is swimming upstream on this one.

Cheaper headsets for PC don't fix this problem. PlayStation VR is already cheaper than the current crop of PC options, and although it sold better than the Rift, or the Vive, it still didn't sell well. 

Perhaps this is why Mark Zuckerberg has been talking for a while now about "social VR," even though nobody knows what that means or what it would look like, or why Sony tried to convince us that people were going to want to play VR party games, in which one person goggles in and makes an ass of themselves in front of a room full of casual acquaintances who then can't be seen as they mock you mercilessly. It was the closest that VR could come to any kind of social experience, and was deemed to be worth promoting, even if it sucked. 

If VR was actually useful for something that couldn't be done without it, and that people actually wanted or needed to do, this wouldn't matter so much, but VR simply isn't very useful. The fact that it's also expensive, uncomfortable, frequently disorienting, sometimes actually nauseating, and has so many other unresolved issues all pile onto this central problem. Add to that VR's physically and socially isolating nature, something that may well be fundamental to the technology, and you may have too many problems to be overcome... ever.

Facebook demos "Social VR" (VR's killer app, it ain't)

From Gizmodo:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg showed off the company’s experiments with social virtual reality experiences that allow you to chat with your friends using virtual avatars. It was really weird. The demo app allows you to chat with avatars of your friends, travel to places like Mars or Facebook’s Headquarters, and take virtual reality selfies to share to Facebook.

[...]

Zuckerberg didn’t mention when the app would be available. It appears this is just an experimental demo for now, which is fine, because we don’t want to anything that works like this.

I've said repeatedly that VR's biggest problem is that it just isn't useful for anything that people will want to do, and it looks like that continues to be true. Because people aren't going to want to do this, no matter how badly Facebook wants their $2B investment in Oculus to boost their social media platform.

Not exactly immersive, is it?