Was the metaverse idea a flop? Even if the project proposed by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has largely fallen into oblivion, according to several experts what is happening is not an end, but a transformation. Until a few years ago, in the tech world we increasingly heard about the “metaverse”. We imagined a three-dimensional digital environment where we would work, socialize and purchase virtual goods continuously, as a natural extension of our daily lives. The use of the conditional is a must, given that the metaverse, at least for the majority of us, has ended up forgotten, which is paradoxical given that some technology giants believed so much in the metaverse to the point that someone, Facebook, Inc., in doing a total rebranding changed its name to Meta Platform, Inc.. Over the years, however, the interest in the metaverse has progressively weakened: the adoption by users has not followed the hype initial, the markets linked to NFTs (non-fungible tokens, digital certificates of ownership) suffered sharp collapses, daily use did not take off and companies that were focusing heavily on the metaverse downsized their projects.
The language is changing: more and more often we talk about “spatial computing”, that is, the fusion between digital and real through more sophisticated viewers and environment recognition systems. The idea would therefore not have disappeared, but would be moving from the futuristic promises of a few years ago to gradual implementation in targeted contexts, especially in professional environments such as healthcare and industrial ones. If today we don’t talk about it as much as before, it’s because it is emerging from the phase of uncontrolled enthusiasm, entering a slower but also more mature and concrete growth.
Many researchers who have been working on these technologies for decades argue that the vision has not been abandoned. Louis Rosenberg, one of the pioneers of mixed reality since the 1990s, believes that what is changing is above all the way in which we describe the phenomenon. In his opinion, the future does not foresee a clear separation between physical and digital life: we will simply think of our daily experience as a single environment, where virtual elements will be integrated into real space in a natural way. Rosenberg in fact stated:
We will only think of one life, one reality, and it will be a combined world of the real and the virtual. This is the metaverse.
Even corporate figures, such as Roberto Hernandez, head of strategy and customer experience at PwC US, urge us not to interpret the slowdown as a definitive failure. Hernandez compared this phase to criticism of the Internet in the early 2000s, when many called it a fad, and said:
I see some similarities between people who say the metaverse has failed and those who called the Internet “a fad” in 2000. Not only is the metaverse not dead, but we are witnessing the beginning of a new phase of growth for all immersive technologies.
Part of the blame that has led many to see the metaverse as doomed can certainly be found in the so-called “hype cycle” that has affected this technology: an initial phase of enthusiasm, a peak of very high expectations and a subsequent more realistic downsizing. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the enthusiasm, as the idea of gathering and working in digital environments seemed like a concrete solution to isolation. But once we returned to in-person interactions, many people felt the opposite need – to re-establish real contact, in the physical world. Furthermore, the unconvincing graphics and the still bulky viewers further contributed to dampening interest.
Another key element concerns language. For years we have been talking about VR, AR (augmented reality) and MR (mixed reality). When Facebook launched the term “metaverse,” it took on a much greater meaning than the industry could actually offer. Apple recently introduced the term “spatial computing” to indicate the use of headsets capable of superimposing digital elements on physical space (such as its Vision Pro). This choice made the metaverse less central, shifting the focus to more practical applications.
The slowdown also derives from economic factors: billion-dollar investments without immediate returns, large companies (such as Disney) that have stopped having a serious interest in the topic and the decline of the markets linked to NFTs have strengthened skepticism. Furthermore, the meteoric rise of generative artificial intelligence has attracted much media attention and investment.
Yet, while use for entertainment has waned, application in professional settings has grown. Today there are immersive environments for training healthcare workers, simulations used by the police to manage delicate situations, platforms to prepare lawyers for complex trials or to test industrial components that cannot be replicated in the real world. In healthcare, some companies have shown that VR training can significantly improve operational performance. In industry, digital twins make it possible to evaluate the behavior of an engine in conditions that are impossible to physically reproduce. In short, with the passage of time we have understood how many opportunities the metaverse can still have in the professional field.
There are several experts who underline how the future of the metaverse – or rather, of the immersive technologies that constituted its core – is not to be found in the consumer world, at least not in the immediate future. For example Ramesh Vishwanathan, senior director of TEKsystemsbelieves that advances in interfaces between humans and digital systems will lead to an increasingly natural fusion between the real environment and virtual content, without being intrusive. According to him, the most concrete path towards the diffusion of the metaverse passes through the technology of digital twins: three-dimensional replicas of real machinery, plants or processes, useful for designing, testing or carrying out maintenance in conditions impossible to physically reproduce. In other words, the metaverse could become a pillar of management and innovation in industrial infrastructure, rather than a new social space.
A complementary view comes from Chris Mattmann, Chief Technology & Innovation Officer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of NASA. Mattmann predicts that the most plausible trajectory is one in which mixed reality is combined with generative AI, thanks to multimodal models capable of simultaneously interpreting images, sounds and text. A concrete example is represented by the new Ray-Ban Displays developed by Meta: through a simple photo it is possible to ask the AI to identify what you are looking at, recognize people, interpret road signs in real time, and so on. It is in these silent but useful integrations, according to Mattmann, that the next evolution of our interaction with digital is taking shape.
Mike Buob, vice president for innovation, intervenes on the topic of language Sogeti (division of Capgemini). Buob argues that the term “metaverse” may now have accumulated too negative a connotation, linked to the unfulfilled promises of the period of maximum hype. Technologies will continue to evolve, but likely under new names: spatial computing, immersive experiences, real-time 3D experiences, and so on. In other words, the concept remains, only the label changes.
Even if we have established that the metaverse is not dead as some claim, we cannot ignore the important challenges that must be faced for its development, primarily the protection of sensitive data and content moderation in virtual worlds. Whether these challenges will be overcome or not, only time will tell.
