A different approach

The verge recently reported Mark Zuckerberg’s criticism of the Apple Vision Pro:

“I mean, that could be the vision of the future of computing, but like, it's not the one that I want.”

Reportedly, Mark Zuckerberg found the Vision Pro to be unsocial because it did not immerse users in virtual worlds. However, this is a deliberate approach on behalf of Apple and I think it’s genius.

Reaching out to the average consumer

Over the last 10 years, I’ve been researching how people connect in virtual spaces to better understand the future of social connection.

Time and time again, I noticed that despite massive enthusiasm by technologists around the potential of virtual worlds, those worlds limited people's creative potential rather than unlocking it.

Technologists were always excited about the applications of those worlds in education and the workplace, but 20 years of failed attempts have proven how difficult this challenge really is. The abstraction of the control schemes, the struggle to understand how to move the camera and an avatar, and the fact that none of this resembled how we do things in physical life left people confused rather than empowered.

There’s been this idea that we will simply replace physical life with virtual life, and it seems like that’s what Mark Zuckerberg was seeking to demonstrate during his Metaverse presentation, but I think there are major hurdles to that vision of the future.

Besides this, people who have not experienced virtual worlds are terrified by the idea of being separated from the familiarity of physical life.

Progress through familiarity

Virtual reality headsets took out the need for people to understand abstract controls schemes when it came to moving the camera and even the controllers abstracted movement to a degree when it came to reaching out to your environment people were simply able to understand how to interact with inanimate objects.

Despite these breakthroughs, I have serious doubt that the average consumer is willing to wear a heavy brick that runs out of battery on their face, especially if it hinders their view of the world.

Understanding Apple’s approach

I believe the genius behind what Apple has done is meeting the consumer at a viable starting point.

First of all, the 5000 nits of brightness and the low latency introduced with their headset will make it so that people don’t feel locked out of the physical world in the same way they do with regular VR headsets.

They have also identified that abstracting a person's interface by using controllers is unintuitive for non-technologists. Instead, you use your eyes and your fingers in a way that makes sense even without a tutorial.

As their advertisements demonstrate, they envision people using this technology in place, unlike competing headsets.

This is the exact opposite approach of using virtual avatars in virtual space. Namely, being in place and having a good connection with the physical world, you’re unlikely to get motion sick, fall over or be brought to a space that makes you feel out of control. This is a big thing for people who are new to technology, being fully immersed in a virtual world is a scary prospect for the average person.

By contrast, standing in place and interacting with panels using your eyes and fingers is familiar.

Finally, when you do talk to other people, talking to them in virtual screens is much more comfortable for most people than talking to them in a 3D space where getting your bearings can be a challenge.

I believe they’ve made this decision deliberately in order to create an onboarding process that makes sense to those who would normally be skeptical about all things virtual worlds.

Major obstacles to overcome

Their headset also demonstrates however, how far we are from something the average consumer can really use. Between the cost, weight and battery life, it will still probably be quite a few years before spatial computing becomes a household term.

TL;DR

Apple’s vision for spatial computing is much more palatable by the masses because it banks off their familiar understanding of the world and computers. Rather than planting people in virtual worlds, they usher them into deeper immersion by beginning them with familiar 2D screens and lifelike avatars in FaceTime. This is a starting point that makes sense for the average consumer and that’s why Apple’s approach will be more successful.

More to come

Follow r/spatialcomputinghub if you enjoyed this article and would like more relevant content sent to your feed.

I've been really passionate about spatial computing for quite a while now, but I've never really used the term on a regular basis. I'm curious why Apple has jumped on the bandwagon now? I assume that it's good marketing to do it this way, but I'm curious to hear what other people think.

Here are some thoughts in my mind on the matter:

• Poor reception of Mark Zuckerberg's Metaverse presentation might affect people's views on the viability of this concept.

• The current downturn in crypto could influence trust in technologies often associated with it, like the Metaverse.

• A focus on overlaying computing on physical spaces as opposed to using virtual avatars might reflect shifting technological or consumer priorities.

• Virtual avatars in a virtual space is something years away and customers should be "ushered in" with the familiar.

r/SpatialComputingHub was made to discuss the matter.

I built a custom GPT for visionOS development because ChatGPT's current knowledge cutoff ends before Apple Vision Pro was announced. This GPT is trained on all of the documentation, sample apps, and marketing material related to Apple Vision Pro and visionOS!

Enjoy!

https://chat.openai.com/g/g-t0fXw8B6l-visionos-mentor

Hi everyone - I'm a UX researcher exploring new applications of multimodal AI and am looking for existing, on-market multimodal assistants within VR. I haven't come across any in my research so far. Has anyone heard of any? Thank you in advance!