I know I'm late to the party on this, but I finally tried Apple Vision Pro this weekend. I was in the Apple Store at the Toronto Eaton Center getting the battery replaced in my phone, so I decided to do a demo. And let me tell you -- I was totally blown away. I messaged everyone I knew (after I got my phone back) and told them that they need to try it.

To be clear, though, very few people right now want to actually buy this computing device. Initially, Apple was thinking that it would sell upwards of 800,000 units this year. But now it expects to sell somewhere closer to 400,000. Maybe. The device is too expensive, too bulky, and the use cases just aren't there for someone to feel they need to buy it.

I also found that, when I was looking at the world around me, I could tell I was looking at a video. It wasn't exactly perfect. (Vision Pro creates a mixed-reality experience by recording the world around you and then playing it back to you.) But that's okay. The hardware will get better. The price will come down. And the developer community will build a bunch of killer apps that nobody has even thought of yet.

None of this changes the fact that the device is still an astonishing technical achievement. The eye tracking works perfectly. All of my hand gestures were flawlessly picked up. And the overall experience was entirely immersive -- from 3D videos (recorded on regular iPhones) to a butterfly landing on my hand and a velociraptor flaring its nostrils right in front of me.

What was most impactful to me is that I could easily imagine a future where all of this works. Is this a more exciting way to watch sports? Yes. I sat courtside and Lebron dunked in my face. Is this a better way to watch movies on a plane? By far. Will this be used to help build buildings and coordinate design & engineering disciplines? Yes, absolutely, among many other things.

It is also easy to imagine how spatial computing is likely to dovetail with other innovations such as AI and blockchains. Mixed-reality or extended reality blurs the line between physical and digital. And in my mind, AI becomes the way in which we will want to interact with this new computing world. (It's not easy to type on a virtual keyboard.)

At the same time, digital artifacts will come to be viewed much differently when they're all blended in. An NFT sitting in a cold wallet is going to feel a lot different than an NFT hanging in a fully immersive 3D gallery that is viewed by millions of people. This strengthens the case for blockchains, and the ownership of digital objects, products, and services.

Maybe this is really far into the future. I don't know. But regardless, if you haven't already, I would encourage you to book a demo at your local Apple Store. However cool and great you think it will be, it will be better. I'm not suggesting you should buy one, but I am suggesting that you need to try it out and see a glimpse into the future.

And if any of you are working on Apple Vision Pro software that is somehow connected to the design and construction industry, I would love to hear from you and learn more about what you're up to. I have complete conviction that this will form the future of our industry. The best place to reach out is here.

I don't exactly know what "metaverse" means, but what is clear is that nobody really does right now. Here is an excerpt from a recent article by Benedict Evans:

If the narrow definition of ‘metaverse’ is that VR and AR will be the next smartphone, the broad definition is that there’s going to be a whole new internet. Our experience will be 3D, but much of that will be layered onto the real world as we see it through glasses. Games will become a much larger part of daily life - instead of the current split between a few hundred people playing deep and rich AAA PC and console games and several billion playing much lighter-weight smartphone games, Roblox and Fortnite point to a growing middle ground of persistent, open, accessible and expressive environments that are much more about social and identity than games per se, and that can become platforms and ecosystems for developers. Many of these experiences will blur into each other, and digital goods (skins, avatars and other models of self-expression in digital form) will be portable and interchangeable between these worlds, rather like the characters in Wreck-it Raph could pass between games.

Some people, namely Mark Zuckerberg, believe that VR is going to be the next smartphone. But Benedict raises an interesting point: the direction of travel for tech seems to be toward less immersion, rather than greater immersion. We used to have giant computers that filled rooms. Then computers got smaller. And now we just carry one around in our pocket and pull it out when we're standing in a line and bored. Portability and casual usage are what won out. And so is it reasonable to assume that billions of people are going to want to immerse themselves in VR goggles all day?

I don't see it. Here's my working thesis:

• I am an urbanist. I love cities. And I believe that our deep desire to interact meaningfully with other humans is not going to go away. For this reason, I believe in the less immersion over greater immersion argument.

• At the same time, blockchain technologies have made it possible for us to own, collect, and trade digital assets -- everything from digital fashion to digital art. I think this trend is only going to continue.

• And as this trend continues, we are going to continually look for ways to display and experience these elements of our digital identity. So how do we make that happen? This is an important part of the conversation around "the next smartphone."

• My view is that it's going to be some version of augmented reality, and that we are going to end up with a continuous blurring of the line between physical and digital.

But hey, I could be wrong. Time will tell.

If you had a free 24/7 chauffeur to drive you anywhere you wanted, do you think that would impact where you lived, worked, and played? 

Put differently, if you were relieved from actually having to contend with traffic yourself and if you never had to worry about parking and/or drinking and driving, would you be more inclined to live further out of the city to get bigger and cheaper housing?

This is the question I tried to ask in a Twitter poll this morning:

If you had a free chauffeur, would you be inclined to live further out of the city to get bigger, cheaper housing?

— Brandon G. Donnelly (@donnelly_b)

July 5, 2016

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Personally, I think that this scenario would impact my behaviour, only slightly. I would certainly take advantage of the free chauffeur, but I would not be more inclined to live 1 or maybe even 2 hours of the city.

Sure, I would be able to get more real estate, but I wouldn’t want to sit in a car every morning – even if I wasn’t the one driving. Maybe I’d be more inclined to have a cottage out of the city, but I can’t imagine a big commute. In my view, minimizing commute times is one of the most effective ways to up your quality of life.

I’m thinking about all of this because of this TechCrunch article, arguing that technologies such as driverless vehicles and VR (for telecommuting) will soon cause rapid decentralization. This reminds me of what was said during the dot com era. Real estate was out of favor and it was all about tech. 

Though I am sure that there are technological impacts that you or I cannot foresee right now, I think it’s important to remember that people live in cities for many different reasons. It’s not only for access to a labor market, it’s also for access to a dating market, as well as other things that involve people coming together. I believe that we are inherently social beings. And technology is not going to make that disappear overnight.

I would be curious to see how you all feel about this topic. Please leave a comment below so we can discuss.