From Static to Dynamic
For many of us, virtual reality (VR) has been on the horizon of our collective consciousness for some time now. We’ve all seen or heard about some form of the technology. Whether it’s the Oculus Rift, Samsung Gear, Google Cardboard; or one of the many other iterations that have been introduced to the world. Today, I’m going to discuss the history of the VR industry, before introducing a new company entering the battlefield, and finally delving into the pitfalls of the VR mirage.
The notion of virtual reality has been around much longer than many people may think. In 1935, Stanley Weinbaum wrote a short story titled “Pygmalion’s Spectacles”. The story was the first depiction of a goggle-based virtual reality system. In it fictional experiences were broken down through holographic recordings incorporating senses like smell and touch.
It wasn’t for another 27 years that the first virtual reality machine came into existence and graced certain sects of society with it’s presence. In 1962, the Sensorama was introduced to the world by Morton Heilig. As the name implies, the Sensorama was intended to encompass all of the senses through five short films that were displayed on a screen.
The next big jump on the virtual reality spectrum came just a few years later when Ivan Sutherland created the first Head Mounted Display (HMD). It was developed in 1968 with the help of one of Ivan’s student, Bob Sproull. However, the devices was ultimately limited by it’s time. The environments within Sutherland’s HMD were comprised of wire-frames, and the device itself was so cumbersome that it had to be attached to the ceiling in order to be utilized. The project earned the unenviable name of “The Sword of Damocles”. From there the development of VR platforms went on a slight hiatus. There were still people operating in the field, but they weren’t making any big steps toward bringing the technology to the masses. Which ends up being a bit of a recurring theme, in regards to the hurdles the entire VR industry faces.
However, throughout this boom in technological development the term “virtual reality” still wasn’t even a part of our collective lexicons. It wasn’t until the 80’s when, Jaron Lanier popularized the term providing us with a newly colored lens to look at the world through. Soon Lanier’s ideas were promoting storylines in popular science fiction television shows like Star Trek. From there, science fiction writers began to delve into the depths of what VR could encompass. Ultimately, bringing their ideas to the silver screen with movies like “Tron”, “RoboCop”, and even the early 2000's hit “The Matrix Trilogy”.
The ebbs and flows of popularity are evident in most things. Including the VR industry; which had a minor fall from grace between the 70’s and up to the 90’s. The technology was still in use, but it hadn’t developed into a mainstream hit. General VR applications remained popular, but in the fringes of the tech society. It was being utilized by people working in the medical industries, and by the government for military based training procedures. But there was still a massive divide between the VR world and those in mainstream society who could benefit most from it.
The sheer costs of VR technology has created a steep barrier for entry into the small, but competitive market. The first big push to popularize it within mainstream society was initiated by video game developers. In the early 90’s Sega announced a VR headset called Sega VR. Interestingly enough, the Sega VR was actually based on an IDEO HMD. They had plans to introduce two versions of the technology. One developed specifically for arcades, and the other for home consoles. Unfortunately, this turned out to be too costly for Sega as they opted to roll out the arcade version, and scrap the home console. This highlights another example of an obstacle that the VR industry has faced, and has yet to overcome. Ultimately making it more difficult to become an everyday product.
Sasdly, the VR industry still faces an accessibility issue to this day. Most of the technology is still too expensive for average consumers to be enticed into the market. Making the barriers to entry incredibly steep for startups looking to make their mark in the fast-paced, and competitive landscape of VR. But just because something is difficult, that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. There’s a company out of San Francisco that I just learned about called Elsewhere, and they are trying to change our perception, literally.
According to Elsewhere’s website, “Elsewhere turns any video into an immersive 3D virtual reality by giving screens depth, pixel by pixel.” Which sounds nice, but the VR industry isn’t new to vague claims such as this one. Every few years someone is touting the next big game changer for the industry; which in reality just turns out to be a stereoscopic illusion. Since Elsewhere’s press release last week they have burst onto the scene, but they are operating in shark filled waters. Within the tech industry, and the VR industry especially, everyone is trying to tear their competition down because of what their products can’t do.
So Elsewhere decided to position themselves differently, they don’t call themselves a startup. Instead they think of their goggles as a “project”, using divisive rhetoric about wanting to provide a different way of seeing the world. Which is a fine statement to make, so long as you’re able to back your claims up. Otherwise, you’re just rekindling the fire that has been burning against the backside of the VR community for years now. The VR industry has certainly had it’s fair share of grandiose claims. Attempting to change the future of how we will interact with the world around us by showing crude, or sometimes heavily altered videos.
And Elsewhere is no different. Look no further than this blurb on the FAQ section of their website. When referring to the real world and the effects that Elsewhere’s technology has on it. They claim “It looks more 3D than usual — as if it had too much volume and wants to burst. Objects look crisper, clearer, more detailed, and somehow closer to you. Surfaces that are inherently flat suddenly have depth.” Now, as someone whose eyes are less than crisp, I am familiar with this feeling that everything can become clearer, and more detailed. I see it every morning when I put my contacts in. I just don’t understand why we would need a secondary viewing lens to enjoy the world around us. Especially if you already have perfect vision. I believe that VR should transport us to environments that we never could have dreamt of. I don’t want to put my phone into some frames, open up the Elsewhere app, then give it access to my camera feed in order to see the environment that I did before.
Our eyes are some of the more complex organs in our body. They rely on an intricate system of operations in order to filter through the photons all around us. Utilizing multiple chemical reactions to interpret the electrical signal for our brains to construct images. We are then able to process those images over and over to create the environments we see around us.
If that process sounds simple, I’m either a really good writer, you’re either really good at science, or you were still thinking about Tina stealing your lunch at work even though it was clearly labeled. Either way, you aren’t truly appreciating how well the eyes are able to purport our surroundings if you think that a cheap parlor simulacrum like Elsewhere could truly be the next big VR game changer.
Now this isn’t to say that I don’t think Elsewhere is a cool concept, because I do. I just think that they might be biting off more than they can chew. It feels like Elsewhere is trying to tackle the entire VR industry in one fell swoop. They claim that their goggles allow you to experience the world around you in both VR and AR. Insinuating that you can selectively choose how you experience certain pieces of content.
The problem that I have with that claim doesn’t have to do with whether or not their technology can actually do it. But instead it has to do with the current state of the VR industry. It’s fragmented more than ever right now. because there are so many different forms of technologies that are umbrellaed together in the world of VR. If VR is ever truly going to become a mainstream phenomenon there needs to be some sort of division of technologies. We need to break things down into their own categories so they can be designed with the most appropriate applications in mind. As opposed to just sheltering them all under the name VR, even though none of them are actually creating a virtual reality.
Just look at what both of these features are claiming to provide the user. The world’s that we perceive around us are already in 3D, so how can they possibly make something “more 3D”? When are these brands going to start being honest with their consumers by being honest with themselves. I believe Elsewhere needs to reexamine what they actually want to provide. If these goggles are just a “project” than they should give them away to schools. Let kids learn about how they work. But keep it as basic and rudimentary as possible, so that the kids can change how it works and repurpose it’s functionality. Adding different features based on what they think would work best, and what they think would be useful. Otherwise, you’re just providing a google cardboard-like series of filters to a plastic frame that costs $50.
