You talk in such absolutes that I wonder if you've ever done any research on past technology endeavors. LaserDiscs, interactive TV, VRML (yes, "VR"), 3D TVs, Google Glass, and (probably) smart watches.
VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone do more.
While I can appreciate your enthusiasm, there are always doubts.
It has billions in investment already, FB is putting hundreds of millions into Oculus and funding applications/games. HTC has basically pivoted their entire company to the Vive.
This isn't going away, VR/AR is going to replace current keyboard/mouse/screen interfaces, because why wouldn't it? The aforementioned are even further from replicating what I am trying to do on a computer. Why do I have to move a mouse in two dimensions or tap on a flat display to interact with many concepts much easier to work with in 3D?
Apple Watch sold millions, and it's about to fail. Same with all the other smartwatches.
VR is going away, since it's such a terrible user experience compared to laptops/desktops/smartphones.
First, where's the evidence that the Apple Watch is about to fail? Every day I keep seeing more and more Apple Watches in the wild. Just the other day I was getting lunch and noticed that at the table next to me every single person had an Apple Watch on. Every time there's a get-together in my family, I notice one or two extra relatives who've ended up getting one. That's pretty impressive for something that's on the verge of failure. It actually feels comparable with how smartphones slowly started assimilating into our lives years ago.
Second, consumer VR right now is for video games, period. Maybe that will change later on, but that's what VR is all about right now. So comparing it to laptops/desktops/smartphones seems strange. What are the dimensions of this comparison? Turning on Steam VR, then putting on the headset doesn't feel all that different to me from turning on the TV, then sitting down on the sofa.
For FB, I see it as a moonshot project much like the various things Google does. Being a moonshot project doesn't guarantee you success.
As for investments, I think we've entered an era where everyone is afraid of being disrupted by a startup or missing out on a unicorn. Now, you have large companies putting money into VR projects and VCs scrambling to fund anything VR-related. I think a similar thing happened with smart watches and wearables.
I don't know enough about the state of VR interfaces for work, but it seems ideal for specialized industries (medicine, military, etc.).
I've lived through all of those and this generation of VR feels like a different thing.
I'm normally reticent to buy into bleeding edge tech. (I'm a 'wait til the price drops' kind of guy) and I opened my wallet for a new PC and a Vive within 3 weeks of borrowing a DK2.
This hype is enthusiast and consumer led - and not in the way Laserdisc had it's "enthusiasts" - it's the kind of tech that makes people want to switch careers.
I think it's fortunate that VR has coincided with the rise of crowdfunding and the renaissance of indie devs. That is going to help see it through it's difficult early patch.
VR on the other hand is a technology evolution. You could argue we're too early in the adoption hockey stick. But I doubt you could even begin to compare it to those other products.
It seems like there are already enough early adopters to fuel the growth it will require (product-wise) to get mainstream adoption.
As others have mentioned, this has only scratched the surface in the consumer market. But the B2B applications are so wide that this could be huge there alone in terms of simulation, training, and business process automation.
I doubt someones poor experience with some early stage VR tech is enough to discredit the wider potential of the platform. Even if the consumer gaming side is niche for another half decade.
1. VR has been tried in the past and went nowhere.
2. Adoption of mainstream things is usually pretty steep (cell phones, PCs, TV, Internet access)[1]
If you're saying current VR hardware are the "mainframe computers of the 60s and 70s" and we're still yet to see what the "personal computer of the 80s/90s" will be for VR, I can maybe buy that but I still have unanswered questions and would bet against it.
Also, current VR is also an add-on to a commodity product (PCs and gaming consoles).
You say niche for half a decade ... he says an "explosion" in less than 2 years. I don't get it.
I'm not saying that it's a mainframe. In regards to the consumer market I think it is the personal computer but rather a PC with Windows 3.1, while the market is waiting for Windows 95 - and the explosion in software that came with it.
> Also, current VR is also an add-on to a commodity product (PCs and gaming consoles).
PC's are a commodity product but not the software that runs on them. Which is why one generates trillions more dollars than the other.
What device and apps did you try? Did you try room-scale? VR controllers?
Whenever I watch movies in my virtual living room I drop things on the ground because I try to put them on a table that isn't really there.
> let alone do more
I can watch movies on huge screens. I can take a dive underwater. Go in space. Shoot zombies. Talk to real people around a campfire.
What I'm getting at is this argument stems from semantics. Of course VR is never going to replace the real world. That was never its intent. The goal is to not replace reality but rather to simulate it. That's why the name has "virtual" in it.
Why does that make any sense? That's like arguing Pac Man doesn't replicate reality so video games are bad.
It's funny LaserDiscs are on the list when DVD and Bluray took off like crazy -- LaserDiscs were just ahead of their time once the technology was right, it took off. The same is true for VR -- the question is not whether or not it will take off but whether or this is the point it's viable.
I just got a Gear VR last week and while it's not perfect it feels like the right point and that's just powered by my cell phone.
> Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsn_(file_manager) (Free Software clone: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsv/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquet_Project
The one big non-entertainment application that 3d worlds are good at has been teleconferencing. There are a bunch of what are essentially 3d chat clients around, and many more have gone out of business.
3D TV didn't last long. I never got one and didn't really see the appeal but I wonder if widespread use of VR headsets would make that technology mute anyway.
if you meant to use "doesn't"- then you're only proving OPs point. VR is a matter of when, not if.
if you meant to use "can't"- well- that seems a little short sighted for something that is so obviously in the realm of physical possibility.
> Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality ...
He/she is saying "VR replicates reality and more", while I'm saying "no, VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone anything beyond it"
No need to get pedantic about the grammar.
"Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality"
i'm assuming OP meant "VR [has the possibility to] not merely replicate reality." or "[ideally] VR can not merely replicate reality...".
we're trying to predict a trend- how well developed the technology is now seems less relevant than it's end-game.