The Apple Vision Pro may have tanked — but spatial computing is still the future, Deloitte says

The tech world couldn’t wait for the rollout of the Apple Vision Pro — but the response has been underwhelming and blasé, with users complaining about dizziness, headaches and the overall goofy feeling they get wearing it. 

Reviews have also been mixed about the Meta Quest Pro, Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses and rabbit R1, while the Humane AI pin is said to be “bad at almost everything.”

All of this might make it seem like spatial computing or the seamless convergence of physical and digital worlds, is just a sci-fi pipe dream. 

Not true, argues Deloitte. Spatial computing will be the next level of interaction, the firm argues in a new Dichotomies whitepaper out today. 

“The idea of headsets and wearable displays has tended to be all about virtual reality — that is, we’re going to escape the place we’re in so that we might go to an altogether new place that’s better and or more exciting,” Mike Bechtel, Deloitte’s chief futurist, told VentureBeat. 

But now and going forward, the mindset is shifting to, “Let’s not reject reality, let’s enrich it. Let’s paint pixels over our lived reality.”

We’re not quite there yet (but might be in five-plus years?)

Although Apple has popularized the term, “spatial computing” existed long before the Vision Pro came along. It was coined in 2003 in a thesis by MIT graduate researcher Simon Greenwold. 

Deloitte identifies three components of spatial computing: physical (wearables and sensors), bridging (network infrastructure) and digital (interactive digital objects, holographs, avatars). 

But based on the response to Vision Pro 1.0 and other new wearables, it’s clear the hardware is still struggling to get there. Bechtel recalled a recent interaction with a client demoing one of the new technologies; he turned to him and said, “There is no way I’m going to wear a toaster on my face to the office.” 

Existing spatial computing technologies can be compared to the 8-track cartridges of the 1970s and 80s: They were also bulky and not all that user-friendly. But they did provide a gateway to traditional cassettes, then minidiscs, CDs and eventually “every song ever in your pocket all at once,” said Bechtel. 

For devices to be normalized and accepted, they need to feel like they’re simplifying experiences — say, a good-looking pair of glasses or contacts removes the need for everyone to carry a phone, tablet and laptop everywhere they go. 

The hardware right now can “feel like a long putt,” and there’s a discrepancy when it comes to acceptance in different segments of the workforce. White-collar technologists, for one, already have a multitude of available technologies: 4K webcams, high-fidelity microphones, giant monitors, high-connection bandwidth. 

“To imagine leaving those tools for a bulky headset — it doesn’t feel like an upgrade,” said Bechtel. “It feels like a side grade or even maybe a downgrade.”

On the other hand, there’s early traction interest among traditional blue-collar workers in factory, energy and field service settings. They’ve been sold laptops, tablets and PDAs for 25 years, but those can all be dangerous and distracting in their work settings. On the other hand, Bechtel pointed out, “I have to wear safety glasses anyway, and so I guess I’d rather have smart ones than dumb ones.” 

Spatial computing has essential plumbing needs

The Internet isn’t just about tubes and monitors; it wouldn’t exist without transmission lines, antennas, switches and other critical infrastructure. The same goes for spatial computing, Bechtel noted — there must be a “spatial web,” that bridges the gap between physical and digital. 

“The nerd word here is something called ‘sensor fusion,’ which is the idea of, you’ve got all this info, but it’s all rows in a spreadsheet until thoughtful techies roll it into a fabric that makes sense,” said Bechtel. 

Some of the critical technology components that will make spatial computing a reality include lidar, micro-LEDs, computer vision, advanced motion sensors, accelerometers, heat sensors, motion sensors and smart IoT devices (among others). 

GPS and spatial mapping software will also be important to offer instantaneous mapping of public spaces and physical objects, as will spatial cameras that record in three dimensions, audio capabilities that can simulate realistic soundscapes and haptic feedback (physical stimuli) through gloves and other clothing. 

Bechtel pointed out that early technologies such as Google Glass have felt like a computer screen floating in space. But in the future, we’ll have transparent screens that allow us to look “through the glass.”

Eventually, we will have a “flotilla of sensor technology and software that can allow the digital to overlay the physical in a way that’s increasingly believable and seamless.”

Over time, digital experiences will continue to become multisensory, someday replicating the five senses and even introducing a “sixth sense” through neurotechnology. Deloitte also predicts that we will interact with public digital objects and hyper-personalized ads, and will be able to “edit” reality by cutting out certain people or objects. 

Enabling real-time digital twinning

Digital twins have been around for a little over two decades now (data scientist Michael Grieves introduced the first model in 2002). The original concept is creating a visual representation of a physical object (such as a human body or jet engine). 

“Let’s have that in virtual, so we can study and look at it, rather than have to cut open the human or open up the jet engine,” Bechtel explained. 

But, he pointed out, there’s a big difference between a true digital twin and just a digital copy. A copy is a model of a jet engine that allows scientists to see how it works (or at least how it worked three months ago when data was captured). 

A real digital twin, by contrast, is actively in a “state of twinning.” For instance, a virtual jet engine is getting up-to-the-second, real-time data from the physical world, and vice versa. With wearables and spatial computing, the two can be overlaid, allowing for much more utility and enabling a multitude of experimental use cases. 

“The idea is that they’re entangled and intertwined,” said Bechtel.

The good and bad of emerging technologies

The notion of the Dichotomies series, Bechtel explained, is to dive into what could go right and wrong with certain technologies, providing nuanced positives and negatives. In the case of spatial computing, the biggest negatives revolve around privacy and security, he said. “This could be a vector for unintentionally invasive surveillance and monitoring.”

For instance, a manager looking to ensure workplace productivity at a factory has to be able to punch into her subordinates’ smart glasses to make sure they’re doing the right things at the right time. But this could mean she unintentionally overhears them talking about a sensitive personal or family matter. 

In some cases, “efficiency and optimization is at odds with empathy and personal respect,” said Bechtel. While there are malicious actors, “the more pernicious threat is just scaled mindlessness, like oops, accidental surveilling.”

Another concern is reality distortion, such as when smart contacts can render ever more believable deepfakes. This can muddy what’s real and what’s imagined.

On the flip side, though, the “good” of spatial computing is its ability to revolutionize accessibility, efficiency and communication and enhance personalization, said Bechtel. 

“There’s an unhelpful tendency to canonize or demonize emerging tech, this feeling that for it to be worth our attention, it either needs to be a 10X hero or a 10X villain,” he said. “You’re limited only by your imagination, but just so long as you don’t treat it as something to be feared or revered.”