Virtual Reality or VR is one of the hottest technology fields
in discussion currently. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality (VR/AR) is still
a growing field with many issues ranging from expensive hardware, little standards
or regulations, and unexplored, undiscovered potential for beneficial
applications. So far, video game simulations have been the main selling point of
VR headsets for consumers.
The immersive digital experience of augmented reality can go
beyond video gaming however, into film and media, urban planning, healthcare,
and defense applications. The New York Times released a mobile app that allows
users to take part in news and storytelling by placing them in contested areas,
or in unique landmarks and locations around the world [3].
Facebook is perhaps leading the virtual environment market
with its $3 billion acquisition of Occulus VR in 2014 and their pioneer
product, the Occulus Rift headset. Facebook does have an interesting strategy
of cornering the VR market by aiming to own the software behind VR and not just
the headsets. Facebook intends to be the curator and repository destination for
gaming, movies, and various applications in the VR space [4]. In doing so, Facebook is choosing “to be bold”
as John Chambers CEO of Cisco notes, by taking a gamble in a relatively new
field and viewing VR as an opportunity rather than a threat [5]. This in turn encouraging
competitors like Samsung and Google to jump in VR technology and invest.
At this point, the best way to market VR technology is
customer interaction. But, in an interesting article by the BBC, consumers seem
ambivalent about trying out the head-mounted devices. The demo stations in
retail electronic stores do not encourage users due to the physical and
hygienic aspect of wearing the headset. Also, a user would be shelling out at
least $600 just for the headset, which then requires high-end computing power
to accompany it [6].
I think the wise approach to augmented reality should be
“agnostic marketing” as Christensen calls it in his paper [1]. Virtual reality
is certainly garnering attention from consumers and technology companies alike,
yet its potential is still unknown. For disruptive technologies, Christensen
recommends that companies “plan by learning” [1] from its consumer base and
product engagement. In the case of VR, the reaction from consumers is mixed,
given the biological side effects ranging from eyestrain, headaches, and sickness
especially with extended use [2]. Facebook benefits more by gathering feedback
of VR users and how they interact with the headsets. Perhaps Facebook should
have waited a little longer before investing big in that technology, as VR
matures. We are yet to see tangible gains from those bulky wearable headsets.
References
[1] Christensen, Clayton M. “Discovering New and Emerging
Markets.” Harvard Business School Press.
September, 1997.
[2] Lewis, Tanya. “Samsung Gear VR: Virtual Reality Tech May
Have Nasty Side Effects.” Live Science. February 3, 2015. Accessed June 18,
2017. https://www.livescience.com/49669-virtual-reality-health-effects.html
[3] “NYT VR Virtual Reality.” The New York Times. Accessed
June 18, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/nytvr/
[4] Wagner, Kurt. “Two Years Later: Facebook's Oculus
Acquisition Has Changed Virtual Reality Forever.” recode. March 24, 2016. Accessed
June 18, 2017. https://www.recode.net/2016/3/24/11587234/two-years-later-facebooks-oculus-acquisition-has-changed-virtual
[5] Chambers, John. “Cisco’s CEO on Staying Ahead of
Technology Shifts.” Harvard Business Review. May, 2015.
[6] Lee, David. “Has Facebook slipped up with VR?” BBC. February
11, 2017. Accessed June 18, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38941256
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.