Virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier on Apple’s Vision Pro

Jaron Lanier is considered a pioneer of virtual reality technology and developed the first commercial VR hardware with his company VPL Research. Among other things, he built the first data glove in 1986 on behalf of NASA. A few days ago, Apple brought its virtual reality headset onto the market and the first reviews are mixed: On the one hand, revolutionary and sophisticated technology, on the other hand, heavy and sometimes buggy and the old inherent VR Problems are still not solved, primarily: isolation of the user from his environment and a big question mark regarding the use cases. Here are a few links to some of the reviews: The Verge (“Magic until it’s not”), Reddit (“I cringed into the future”), John Gruber (“it feels like using the Force”), Andrej Karpathy (“it was rushed a bit to just ship”), Rob Hornig (“a device that is designed to control what you see”), iFixit x-rayed the thing and disassembled it and Casey Newstat skates with it through New York City. Consensus: Mixed but also great but also shaky and you don’t know for sure. In New Yorker, the VR pioneer Jaron Lanier mentioned at the beginning has now written down his thoughts on the introduction of Apple’s VR/AR headset and his attempt to share his early enthusiasm his modern-day disillusionment makes this one of the most interesting texts about the Vision Pro. He describes his 1980s dreams of a VR technology that would allow users to “play(ing) the world into existence” and becomes almost psychedelic when he describes VR as “enabling a different geometry of bodily experience.” But he also writes about how current digital environments psychologically manipulate the user through attention economic conditions, and that should VR one day become established, it will again be monetary corporate interests that will set the conditions of this reality. The virtual suggests an infinity, and “Infinity is a fake drug, but a powerful one”. But: “There are no infinities, only S curves.”Technical culture often longs for freedom from finitude. A profound truth, however, is that the greatest mysteries are found in conserved systems, which can become rich and complex, not in infinite ones, which stretch out like blank white sheets to the edge of the cosmos.—I could do that Apple Haven’t tested Vision Pro myself yet, but aside from Lanier’s great writing, I’ve still had my own thoughts. In a report in Vanity Fair magazine, Apple designer Richard Howarth said there was “nothing that could have been done to make the device smaller and lighter,” while Tim Cook raved about having Ted Lasso projected on the ceiling on the sofa seen lying down. Both statements point to the fundamental problems of VR hardware: complicated application and isolation. Complicated because it’s difficult, you have a constant screen in your face and long-term use of the technology for hours seems questionable. And who benefits from watching the VR Ted Lasso projected on the ceiling if you can’t turn away from the action for a moment, look at your partner while watching the film and give a quick look and a quick laugh because such and such a scene is somehow great was.There are also much more pragmatic, unromantic objections to virtual reality. At least in this first generation, Apple doesn’t seem to be getting much out of the principle of so-called “spatial computing”: A large part of the applications are rendered flat on virtual windows that now float in space instead of physically glowing behind the keyboard of my laptop. Like Benedict Evans, I don’t see the usefulness here: data and text and files are not three-dimensional entities. There’s a reason why the desk in our offices hasn’t evolved much for hundreds of years, basically since the table was invented not a thousand years ago. In order to work, especially as knowledge workers, we need clarity and an overview. One-dimensional information processing is too slow because of its sequential nature, but three-dimensional information processing seems to me to simply add unnecessary complexity for little to no benefit. A two-dimensional surface on which I can prepare, sort and arrange information along two axes without losing overview and manageability seems to me to be optimal, at least for knowledge work. (Of course, there are applications in which 3D environments and virtual reality and “spatial computing” can shine: anything that has to do with modulation, creative tasks in sculpting CGI meshes, or simulation applications — but none of these things seem to me To be the killer application needed for the technology to break through to the masses.)Unless Apple manages to shrink their VR/AR device to at least ski goggle weight and size and complexity, I don’t see any real one Mass adoption of technology. However, I could definitely imagine that in a few years after a few iterations a critical point will be reached, possibly due to competitive pressure from Meta’s cooperation with Ray Ban, from which XR (Mixed Reality) technology will no longer be a block in the face is that cuts off the user from the outside world. Hopefully that wouldn’t be the false suggestion of a boring infinity, but rather a meaningful enrichment of the real world, in which one or two killer apps can then appear. Until then, there will still be a few Vision Pro v12-x-3000 iterations and go, with whom we watch Ted Lasso on the ceiling more or less alone.