Club of Amsterdam Journal, July/August 2024, Issue 266

How we describe the metaverse makes a difference –
today’s words could shape tomorrow’s reality and who benefits from it
by Tom Boellstorff, University of California, Irvine

The metaverse might be a work in progress, but a key prototype - the virtual world - has been around for several decades. Screen capture from Second Life by Tom Boellstorff, CC BY-ND

Tom Boellstorff, University of California, Irvine

Quick, define the word "metaverse".

Coined in 1992 by science fiction author Neal Stephenson, the relatively obscure term exploded in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly after Facebook rebranded as Meta in October 2021. There are now myriad articles on the metaverse, and thousands of companies have invested in its development. Citigroup Inc. has estimated that by 2030 the metaverse could be a US$13 trillion market, with 5 billion users.

From climate change to global connection and disability access to pandemic response, the metaverse has incredible potential. Gatherings in virtual worlds have considerably lower carbon footprints than in-person gatherings. People spread all over the globe can gather together in virtual spaces. The metaverse can allow disabled people new forms of social participation through virtual entrepreneurship. And during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the metaverse not only provided people with ways to connect but also served as a place where, for instance, those sharing a small apartment could be alone.

No less monumental dangers exist as well, from surveillance and exploitation to disinformation and discrimination.

But discussing these benefits and threats remains difficult because of confusion about what "metaverse" actually means. As a professor of anthropology who has been researching the metaverse for almost 20 years, I know this confusion matters. The metaverse is at a virtual crossroads. Norms and standards set in the next few years are likely to structure the metaverse for decades. But without common conceptual ground, people cannot even debate these norms and standards.

Unable to distinguish innovation from hype, people can do little more than talk past one another. This leaves powerful companies like Meta to literally set the terms for their own commercial interests. For example, Nick Clegg, former deputy prime minister of the U.K. and now president of global affairs at Meta, attempted to control the narrative with the May 2022 essay "Making the Metaverse."

Categorical prototypes

Most attempted definitions for metaverse include a bewildering laundry list of technologies and principles, but always included are virtual worlds - places online where real people interact in real time. Thousands of virtual worlds already exist, some gaming oriented, like Fortnite and Roblox, others more open-ended, like Minecraft and Animal Crossing: New Horizons.

Beyond virtual worlds, the list of metaverse technologies typically includes avatars, nonplayer characters and bots; virtual reality; cryptocurrency, blockchain and non-fungible tokens; social networks from Facebook and Twitter to Discord and Slack; and mobile devices like phones and augmented reality interfaces. Often included as well are principles like interoperability - the idea that identities, friendship networks and digital items like avatar clothes should be capable of moving between virtual worlds.

The problem is that humans don`t categorize by laundry lists. Instead, decades of research in cognitive science has shown that most categories are "radial," with a central prototype. One could define "bird" in terms of a laundry list of traits: has wings, flies and so on. But the prototypical bird for North Americans looks something like a sparrow. Hummingbirds and ducks are further from this prototype. Further still are flamingos and penguins. Yet all are birds, radiating out from the socially specific prototype. Someone living near the Antarctic might place penguins closer to the center.

a graphic of a sparrow-like bird in the middle of a ring surrounded by a hummingbird, duck and chicken in a second ring, with an ostrich, kiwi, penguin and flamingo outside the second ring — This representation of radial categories shows that the prototypical bird for most Americans is a sparrow, and that while ostrich legs are bird parts, they aren`t part of every bird. Tom Boellstorff, CC BY-ND

Human creations are usually radial categories as well. If asked to draw a chair, few people would draw a dentist chair or beanbag chair.

The metaverse is a human creation, and the most important step to defining it is to realize it`s a radial category. Virtual worlds are prototypical for the metaverse. Other elements of the laundry list radiate outward and won`t appear in all cases. And what`s involved will be socially specific. It will look different in Alaska than it will in Addis Ababa, or when at work versus at a family gathering.

Whose idea of essential?

This matters because one of the most insidious rhetorical moves currently underway is to assert that some optional aspect of the metaverse is prototypical. For instance, many pundits define the metaverse as based on blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies. But many existing virtual worlds use means other than blockchain for confirming ownership of digital assets. Many use national currencies like the U.S. dollar, or metaverse currencies pegged to a national currency.

Another such rhetorical move appears when Clegg uses an image of a building with a foundation and two floors to argue not only that interoperability will be part of "the foundations of the building" but that it`s "the common theme across these floors."

But Clegg`s warning that "without a significant degree of interoperability baked into each floor, the metaverse will become fragmented" ignores how interoperability isn`t prototypical for the metaverse. In many cases, fragmentation is desirable. I might not want the same identity in two different virtual worlds, or on Facebook and an online game.

The 13-year-old computer game Minecraft lets players build virtual worlds, which makes it a prototypical element of the metaverse.

This raises the question of why Meta - and many pundits - are fixated on interoperability. Left unsaid in Clegg`s essay is the "foundation" of Meta`s profit model: tracking users across the metaverse to target advertising and potentially sell digital goods with maximum effectiveness. Recognizing "metaverse" as a radial category reveals that Clegg`s claim about interoperability isn`t a statement of fact. It`s an attempt to render Meta`s surveillance capitalism prototypical, the foundation of the metaverse. It doesn`t have to be.

Locking in definitions

This example illustrates how defining the metaverse isn`t an empty intellectual exercise. It`s the conceptual work that will fundamentally shape design, policy, profit, community and the digital future.

Clegg`s essay concludes optimistically that "time is on our side" because many metaverse technologies won`t be fully realized for a decade or more. But as the VR pioneer Jaron Lanier has noted, when definitions about digital technology get locked in they become difficult to dislodge. They become digital common sense.

With regard to the definitions that will be the true foundation of the metaverse, time is emphatically not on our side. I believe that now is the time to debate how the metaverse will be defined - because these definitions are very likely to become our digital realities.

Tom Boellstorff, Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

The Apple Vision Pro headset is displayed in a showroom on the Apple campus on June 5, 2023, in Cupertino, Calif. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Omar H. Fares, Toronto Metropolitan University

The metaverse - a shared online space incorporating 3D graphics where users can interact virtually - has been the subject of increased interest and the ambitious goal of big tech companies for the past few years.

Facebook`s rebranding to Meta is the clearest example of this interest. However, despite the billions of dollars that have been invested in the industry, the metaverse has yet to go mainstream.

After the struggles Meta has faced in driving user engagement, many have written off the metaverse as a viable technology for the near future. But the technological landscape is a rapidly evolving one and new advancements can change perceptions and realities quickly.

Apple`s recent announcement of the Vision Pro mixed-reality headset at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference - the company`s largest launch since the Apple Watch was released in 2015 - could be the lifeline the metaverse needs.

About the Vision Pro headset

The Vision Pro headset is spatial computing device that allows users to interact with apps and other digital content using their hands, eyes and voice, all while maintaining a sense of physical presence. It supports 3D object viewing and spatial video recording and photography.

The Vision Pro is a mixed-reality headset, meaning it combines elements of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). While VR creates a completely immersive environment, AR overlays virtual elements onto the real world. Users are able to control how immersed they are while using the Vision Pro.

A video from Apple introducing the Vision Pro headest.

From a technological standpoint, the Vision Pro uses two kinds of microchips: the M2 chip, which is currently used in Macs, and the new R1 chip.

The new R1 chip processes input from 12 cameras, five sensors and six microphones, which reduces the likelihood of any motion sickness given the absence of input delays.

The Vision Pro display system also features a whopping 23 million pixels, meaning it will be able to deliver an almost real-time view of the world with a lag-free environment.

Why do people use new tech?

To gain a better understanding of why Apple`s Vision Pro may throw the metaverse a lifeline, we first need to understand what drives people to accept and use technology. From there, we can make an informed prediction about the future of this new technology.

The first factor that drives the adoption of technology is how easy a piece of technology will be to use, along with the perceived usefulness of the technology. Consumers need to believe technology will add value to their life in order to find it useful.

The second factor that drives the acceptance and use of technology is social circles. People usually look to their family, friends and peers for cues on what is trendy or useful.

The third factor is the level of expected enjoyment of a piece of technology. This is especially important for immersive technologies. Many factors contribute to enjoyment such as system quality, immersion experiences and interactive environment.

The last factor that drives mainstream adoption is affordability. More important, however, is the value derived from new technology - the benefits a user expects to gain, minus costs.

Can Apple save the metaverse?

The launch of the Vision Pro seems to indicate Apple has an understanding of the factors that drive the adoption of new technology.

A white man in a polo shirt poses in front of a displayed VR headset — Apple CEO Tim Cook poses for photos in front of a pair of the company`s new Apple Vision Pro headsets in a showroom on the Apple campus on June 5, 2023, in Cupertino, Calif. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

When it comes to ease of use, the Vision Pro offers an intuitive hand-tracking capability that allows users to interact with simple hand gestures and an impressive eye-tracking technology. Users will have the ability to select virtual items just by looking at them.

The Vision Pro also addresses another crucial metaverse challenge: the digital persona. One of the most compelling features of the metaverse is the ability for users to connect virtually with one another, but many find it challenging to connect with cartoon-like avatars.

The Vision Pro is attempting to circumvent this issue by allowing users to create hyper-realistic digital personas. Users will be able to scan their faces to create digital versions of themselves for the metaverse.

The seamless integration of the Vision Pro into the rest of the Apple ecosystem will also likely to be a selling point for customers.

Lastly, the power of so-called "Apple effect" is another key factor that could contribute to the Vision Pro`s success. Apple has built an extremely loyal customer base over the years by establishing trust and credibility. There`s a good chance customers will be open to trying this new technology because of this.

Privacy and pricing

While Apple seems poised to take on the metaverse, there are still some key factors the company needs to consider.

By its very nature, the metaverse requires a wealth of personal data collection to function effectively. This is because the metaverse is designed to offer personalized experiences for users. The way those experiences are created is by collecting data.

Users will need assurances from Apple that their personal data and interactions with Vision Pro are secure and protected. Apple`s past record of prioritizing data security may be an advantage, but there needs to be continuous effort in this area to avoid loss of trust and consumer confidence.

Price-wise, the Vision Pro costs a whopping US$3,499. This will undoubtedly pose a barrier for users and may prevent widespread adoption of the technology. Apple needs to consider strategies to increase the accessibility of this technology to a broader audience.

As we look to the future of this industry, it`s clear the metaverse is anticipated to be fiercely competitive. While Apple brings cutting-edge technology and a loyal customer base, Meta is still one of the original players in this space and its products are significantly more affordable. In other words, the metaverse is very much alive.

Omar H. Fares, Lecturer in the Ted Rogers School of Retail Management, Toronto Metropolitan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.