Perhaps the most common positioning of “metaverse” by its proponents is that it represents the next evolution of applications and experiences accessible using the internet. Perhaps the simplest explanation of what that means is that metaverse is the three-dimensional experience of internet apps and experiences.
That might include all the tools used to emulate physical presence and physical activities, but the eventual outcome, assuming one believes it will happen, is “presence,” the experience of being in the same place, at the same time, with other people, objects and places, with the ability to interact with those people, places and objects.
To be sure, some see metaverse as just hype.
Mark Zuckerberg in 2021 described the metaverse as the “next chapter for the internet,” which is generally the way other proponents describe it. The rival “vision” might be Web3, which looks at governance and data ownership rather than “experience” as the salient defining feature.
Cisco long has spoken of its room conferencing systems as offering telepresence, in that instance the feeling that remote people are “in the same room.” Even less immersive forms of videoconferencing, such as using Zoom or Apple’s Facetime, offer more engaging forms of human interaction than text or voice alone.
The evolution of computing offers another analogy. As devices changed from mainframes to mini-computers to personal computers to mobile devices; as media types changed from characters and text to image, video, audio and mixed media; as architectures moved from “dumb terminals” to free-standing personal computers to networked PCs to remote computing using cloud mechanisms, so the internet can be seen as developing.
The movement parallels the other changes: from lesser to fuller; one dimensional to multidimensional; read only to read-write to interactions in real time. Almost any part of the computing or internet experience can be mapped in such ways. Social media, mapping, internet of things, financial transactions, video and audio entertainment and many other use cases can be analyzed as a story of growth in capabilities over time.
All that noted, it seems to some of us that immersive experiences will emerge as commercial and everyday experiences in an “augmented” rather than full “virtual” mode. Which is to say, people in “real life” will experience some form of experience overlay or surround, more of the time, than full immersion in a primarily virtual experience.
That is to say, our likely experience of 3D virtual features will be less a “full digital twin” of the physical world, and more an augmentation of our physical world. In other words, 3D content and features are an augmentation of real life, a bridge between physical and virtual “worlds.”
Ask yourself how much time you currently spend on activities that could really benefit from persistent virtual worlds. Include gaming, media consumption, communications (personal and work), shopping or learning as potential areas where 3D experiences make sense.
How much time does one collectively spend on all those activities each day, week or month?
Then evaluate how many of those experiences do not necessarily benefit from some 3D augmentation or immersion. In other words, though one could do so, does it really add value?
My grocery shopping, which is most of my shopping, does not necessarily benefit from immersion in a 3D experience to conduct those transactions. Travel planning probably does benefit quite a bit, but the actual transactions not so much.
In other words, 3D might be really helpful for learning activities. It is less clear whether conducting transactions necessarily produces benefits for the user, or how much. Sellers--of course-- will appreciate the ability to support a transaction at the point of sale (which is inside the experience).
Or, as some skeptics might say, how many people will routinely want to strap a device to their heads most of the time?
One perhaps instructive example of augmentation rather than digital twin is the Abba Voyage concert produced in London (now running) employing lots of VR and AR to blend an orchestra and music by the band members who appear as Avatars in an immersive live experience. It points the way to how VR and AR might be used in the future, as shared public experiences without the need for goggles or other devices as intermediaries.
That is an example of augmentation, in other words, not a digital twin.
That is the way big technology transitions occur. As with hybrid automobiles (gas and electric propulsion both), the new is grafted onto the old for an intermediate period. Eventually, the legacy technology is replaced, but hybrid (use both) tends to be the deployment pattern.
In the case of full three-dimensional and personal experiences, the caveat is that most people will not spend most of their time in such worlds, as a percentage of their day. But look for deployment scenarios that add value when immersion actually does add value, for some activities that happen parts of a day, week or month.
