Developing VR Tech Has Taken a Lot Longer Than You Probably Think
And why it’s still only the beginning
In 1968, Ivan Sutherland found himself staring at a digital cube suspended in air. The unique part of the situation, however, was what Sutherland used to look at the cube. He wasn’t using the display of a computer, nor the screens of early mobile phones. No, he was using a virtual reality (VR) headset. In 1968.
VR, Spatial Computing, AR (Augmented Reality), whatever term Silicon Valley uses, the technology seems relatively recent. Before the VisionPro’s introduction, the earliest memory for most is Meta’s failure with ‘the Metaverse’ in 2022. For others, their knowledge of AR might extend further back to 2014, when Google publicly launched Google Glass, a device that gave users Internet access through a digital display augmented by the glasses itself.
But few expect that a working VR headset was built more than 50 years ago. Naturally, this raises a question: If a VR headset, albeit a primitive one, has existed for this long, why are most people only seeing one now?
One reason for this timeline is simply because this is how mass-produced digital technology works. The technology starts out as a primitive model, meant only for individuals at the forefront of technological innovation. The ENIAC, a digital computer designed to calculate artillery firing tables for the US Army, was invented in 1945 and used only by a select few.
Then, within the next decade or two, early models of the technology are manufactured and designed for the masses. Examples include the Programma 101, the Microsoft Tablet PC, and any Blackberry phone from the 1990s. These early models offer a small glimpse into the future of the technology and its use cases. However, it generally takes another decade before the technology finally reaches millions of users or achieves its “true form”.
The ENIAC was invented in 1945, but it took thirty-two years, when computers like the TSR-80 and Commodore PET were launched, for computer sales to reach the millions. In terms of smartphones, it took two decades after the first smartphone’s invention to achieve our current form of phones —high-end touchscreen phones that were designed for mass audiences (rather than businesses) and relied on app stores and services for profit (ie. the first iPhone).
In other cases, reaching millions of users and achieving the “true form” has coincided. In 2010, forty-seven years after the first digital tablet, Apple released the iPad, moving tablets away from mimicking computers’ functions to becoming portable devices designed for media consumption and creative purposes. By the end of the year, 8.8 million iPads were sold.
With this long technological timeline, it is important to note technology takes a long time to be socially ready too. Apple could have removed the home button years before it did, but only in 2017 did it feel consumers were ready to use phones without a home button.
Roblox, a low-fidelity gaming platform launched in 2006, failed to garner any significant users in its beginnings. However, as prolific essayist Matthew Ball notes, notes that often for new technologies to become popular, a new generation needs to grow up using it. In Roblox’s case, it needed millions of ‘iPad native’ kids for it to become popular. By 2018, Roblox had exactly that.
Technology’s long timeline, however, still doesn’t answer everything. Thirty-five years after the first mobile phone was created, over 62% of US population used a smartphone. In 2001, thirty-seven years after the invention of the desktop and just twenty years after the invention of the laptop, 56.6% of domestic households owned a laptop. Only government employees and academic interacted with early versions of the Internet, yet almost half of the American population is regularly online 40 years later.
In 2022, however, which is fifty-four years after the Sword of Damocles was invented, estimates are that only 17.7% of the US population owns a VR headset, forget regularly using it. In other words, even by technology standards, VR has taken a long time. And still, it has not reached mass audiences. Instead, it is just beginning to enter the mainstream conscience.
VR’s unique timeline is largely because VR technology is really hard to develop. On his blog, Ball notes VR not only has to have the computing power of a PS4 or PS5, but also its own display, sensors that both scan the environment and understand it, and hardware that fits into the size of the headset. There are even further implications of the last point — all the displays, sensors, batteries, fans, etc. (basically, anything that could aid in computing work) have to be significantly smaller to fit into a headset.
“VR/AR/MR devices will always fall short of a video game console. Always. This is because the “work” performed by these devices is far, far harder while the constraints are far, far greater.” — Matthew Ball
And all of this is to just become an additional device in a household. VR devices are nowhere near the point where they will replace a tablet, laptop, or even phone.
Silicon Valley has begun to recognize this harsh reality too. In 2016, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney predicted that 5–7 years later, we would have PC-grade VR devices the size of Oakley sunglasses. Yet, in December 2022, Sweeney wondered if AR/VR was coming in 10 years, 30 years, or even his lifetime.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has had a similar transformation, calling the challenge of “fitting a supercomputer in the frame of glasses” one of the hardest technical challenges of the decade. For comparison, he originally predicted in 2016 that AR glasses would be part of daily life by 2025.
While that bleak timeline is uninspiring, I’d like to emphasize something before I conclude.
“Technology takes a long time to enter the mainstream conscience, both technologically speaking and socially too.”
VR technology isn’t yet ready for prime time. And if the response to Meta’s Horizon Worlds is indicative of anything, it is that we, as social creatures, are not ready for VR either.
That being said, VR is not too far from when it will be ready — the VisionPro and Meta Quest 3 are two examples that serve as proof. Furthermore, there are several existing use cases that might not be popular to mass audiences, but still demonstrate a range benefits:
- For more than a year now, Johns Hopkins has used XR devices for patient surgery, the first instance being spinal fusion surgery.
- YouVisit creates VR tours of colleges, allowing viewers to have 360-degree panoramic views and consume related video content.
- In the 2016 NBA Finals, the Cleveland Cavaliers distributed cardboard VR headsets for fans to virtually be inside the locker room, watch player intros, and observe the national anthem courtside.
- Companies have used VR to develop employees’ soft skills, considering it much more impactful than traditional methods (e.g. videos).
- Six Flags debuted the first VR coaster in North America, where riders become co-pilots in a battle to save Earth.
- AR/VR isn’t limited to headsets. Snap’s ‘Dress Up’ AR feature allows users to try on different pieces of clothing and share it with friends for their thoughts.
These examples paint an image of VR as a useful technology, but only for specific purposes. I’d argue, though, that these use cases represent something larger: the beginnings of a technological shift. If experts feel they can rely on VR to do surgeries right now, what do the use cases for VR look like in five years? They only grow. The same can be said for VR itself — the technology will only grow.
