VR (Like Apple's Vision Pro) Will Revolutionize Sports "Viewing"

[Salsa Shark]

The future ain't what it used to be, I'll say that

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

You can watch the Apple Vision video on Youtube, you can have 4 or 5 "displays" basically floating in the air with your real world vision right behind it. And you can change the size of those "windows" to however you want, you can even make it like 100 feet by 100 feet theater screen if you feel like watching a movie.

To type it has a floating keyboard or you can just use a regular keyboard, again it doesn't obstruct your vision.

It can even do things like you can look at your Macbook, and it will take the screen that was on your Macbook and make it float it air alongside several other screens, so you can have your computer screen on the left, the hockey game on the right, and the displays can be far bigger than what your physical laptop and TV displays are.

…Are people meant to wear this in the company of other human beings?

 

[Soundwave]

But a CD player or rotary phone doesn’t hurt your eyes.

Those devices were replaced by things that did their job better. Cordless phones with touch tone buttons were better than rotaries.

They were in turn replaced by cellular phones, and ultimately rendered obsolete by smartphones.

CDs replaced cassettes, and were then replaced by mp3 players, which were replaced by iPods, which were replaced by streaming.

You can clearly see how each technological advance improves upon the previous one.

I’m certainly willing to be wrong, but I do not see what this offers that’s superior to the smartphone in an everyday use case.

Smartphones are with us and turned on 24/7, and stay that way until they’re replaced.

You can’t do that with glasses.

Many advantages over the phone.

Being able to have multiple displays any size you want just floating in your normal environment is useful for entertainment and work alike.

Immersive meditation sessions are going to be I think popular with a lot of people to de-stress.

Being able to walk around an environment virtually is not bad, will be good if you're going to an airport or city you're not familiar with to have walked around it virtually before.

Being able to watch sporting events or concerts like you're courtside or on the bench or even on the field or standing right next to a musician.

Not having to pull out your phone to take a photo, every time I do this my little one knows the camera is on and will stop whatever she's doing.

Virtual sex and porn is probably going to take off one day too, lol.

But I mean it's not for everyone and that's OK. My dad never got into using a computer or the internet ever, could never get comfortable with the interface. He would still watch TV on a rear projection SDTV from 1998 and saw no need for an HDTV set. My mom can't use a smartphone, prefers to use an old school model with physical buttons.

 

[wavaxa2]

Whatever the breakthrough in this technology is, it has to be compatible with people that are already wearing glasses on their faces. As a half blind dude, I can attest that wearing goggles or a helmet on top of already existing glasses is a royal pain. I am thinking the real breakthrough won't involve putting anything on your head at all.

 

[Ceremony]

I can't find that post about players skating at 23mph or "velo max" whatever that is but, even aside from VR applications, I genuinely don't know what the appeal of that sort of thing is. I don't care how fast a player's skating or how hard a shot was, and I don't know why these stat overlays are such a thing in broadcasts now.

 

[Soundwave]

Whatever the breakthrough in this technology is, it has to be compatible with people that are already wearing glasses on their faces. As a half blind dude, I can attest that wearing goggles or a helmet on top of already existing glasses is a royal pain. I am thinking the real breakthrough won't involve putting anything on your head at all.

The next step beyond VR would be holograms but I think that's probably like 100 years off. We can't even do real holograms right now.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

The initial Apple device ... will be more for rich people and influencers/social media types ... but eventually it will get cheaper like about any tech does.

The first Macintosh computer (the one that introduced the mouse) retailed for like the equivalent of $7000 today (lol).

True but I don’t see this ever being popular enough for it to happen

Save this post for when I’m dead wrong lmfao

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

This post has a "Tell me bout the good ole days" feel to it.

Dude, I grew up in the real safe space:

Post-Cold War, Pre-9/11, Canada.

The idea of being nuked by the Russians was foreign and silly.

The idea of the west being challenged on any level - militarily, economically, culturally - was laughable.

We were indestructible, and the whole world knew it.

I didn’t need VR to see the inside of a flight deck - I pushed the call button and informed the steward/stewardess I needed to speak to the captain.

And then, they’d take me! I’d shake their hand, they’d show me how the mechanical horizon and radar worked, turn on the windshield wipers, it was great.

Usually, I didn’t even have to ask - they’d come around midway through a four hour flight because the pilots were bored and it gave them something to do.

The only times I didn’t have direct access to the pilots were short hops, an hour or less, or if I simply declined the invitation, because the cockpit of an airliner had old hat, and can’t you see I’m trying to read Fellowship of the Ring? Ginger ale, please.

But, Osama bin Fishfood had to go and ruin it for everyone, and here we are.

 

[Soundwave]

Here are some funny down to earth impressions of the Apple device from someone who did try it and she is talking about the sports part of it:



Go to 8:40 into the video if the time stamp doesn't work for the sports stuff.

And this isn't the only reaction vid like this, I've seen a good dozen or so from people who tried the device and raved about the sports aspect of it.

The extremely high resolution of the display (twin 4K displays basically, one for each eye) may be contributing to the feeling of "really being there" that a lot of people have described, most other VR headsets are way lower resolution.

 

[Figgy44]

Apple is merging VR/AR/XR anyway, so it's going to become standardized that people get used to having the functionality of both.

What you described as being able to see the real world while also being able to hop in/out of VR experiences is what Apple Vision already does lol, it's not 10 years away, it's 4 months away. That's the whole design concept, it's VR/AR mixed without having to be cut off from your room and having floating displays is no problem. The headset even "blends" real people into your view as they approach you if you are in full VR mode (very sci-fi-ish).

I don't disagree with you regarding the end result and that some of the media will be available within a few months. I'm just saying what I think will be considered mass adoption for this type of media and experience.

The technology might be a few months away, but quality content is still a ways away IMO. Additionally the content is way too expensive to produce so far and without a HUD type of consistency in the interface, it's too disorienting from one piece of media to another. Factor in the price, and it's another barrier for adoption. I've played with some of of this type of VR media. Currently, stuff that is more "real life" media is much more likely to cause the user to feel ill. Other issues relate to the state of VR recording hardware. Fish eye style of distortion and certain size scale/depth perception is off due to the way the media is digitally "sewn" together for viewing. Higher data demand/density for VR content also means worse lag and buffering than what we experience with a flat stream of certain hockey games. These are issues that will take a long time to sort out and will not take a few years to solve.

AR glasses have been around for a long time via Google lens, but without real time tracking of data for those glasses to tap into, you won't have the ability to overlay digital information over the real world. Lots of companies consider the data that AR glasses would display as proprietary information, which is why I think it might take longer (up to a decade) for the open access to be ubiquitous. IMO the challenge of AR Is not hardware, but proprietary data/information.

XR glasses like the Rokid, Viture, Lenovo etc. are out there, but still kinda expensive ($300-500+ for a kit) for a currently niche product and the screen quality is good, not great. There's clunky interfaces, the screen resolution closer to 1080 than 4K, goofy looking design, uncommon etc. The only people that have them are early adopters. In about 2-3 years, I think when they are more comfortable, stylish, well accepted, less than $200 for a full kit, more refined etc. the beginning of mass adoption can begin. Kinda like USB jump starters and power banks. Those were around for years as a niche product until Pokemon go literally created a demand and economies of scale to make them ubiquitous. IMO the challenge for XR is a combination of refined hardware/software experience that traditional media has.

VR glasses like PSVR1/2 and Oculus etc. are out there, but after all these years, if you look at their media offerings vs traditional media for the games and media available, the offerings are significantly less. Add in a relatively high and pricey entry point for the hardware and occasionally the VR media is more expensive than the traditional media, the average person is not using this. It's still early adopters with this stuff again. I also believe that creation of media for these devices vs traditional media is significantly more expensive. This might change rapidly due to the automation abilities of certain AI engines currently in their infancy, but we're still waiting on these AI tools to bridge the gap between VR media and traditional media before we can use it to improve the VR media to match and/or exceed traditional media.

Apple is not the first to attempt to merge VR, AR and XR. Microsoft has the Hololens and even then, some of their VR related projects are shutting down. Entry point for these are like $2.5-3.5K+ and Apple is going to enter into this arena. The biggest issue with these products aren't just hardware, software, refined experience and entry price. The bigger issue here is demand. People aren't convinced to put down more than the cost of a live experience for a piece of hardware. They have not accepted they need a VR/AR/XR piece of equipment in their lives.

That being said, Apple's strength is marketing and convincing people of a demand they didn't realize they had before. The did this with smart phones and usurp BB, they realized Microsoft's tablet vision over a decade later with the iPad, they weren't the first to have a smart watch, but they created a new category of demand above activity trackers... and then there were so many that followed behind via Android devices. So I think if anyone can convince the masses to get into AR/VR/XR, Apple is an excellent candidate. But even with Apple's track record, convincing me that a $3K+ piece of hardware will rapidly be adopted within 5 years is a hard sell. Like I said, I think you might get a bunch of early adopters, and niche users, but mass adoption, I don't think it will be for a while. IMO, I think with the chip shortage, more demand will go towards EVs for mass adoption over VR/AR/XR.

 

[KevinRedkey]

VR is a failure until proven otherwise. I don't see bajillion dollar headset with battery life shorter than most modern movies changing that any time soon.

 

[RandV]

Whatever the breakthrough in this technology is, it has to be compatible with people that are already wearing glasses on their faces. As a half blind dude, I can attest that wearing goggles or a helmet on top of already existing glasses is a royal pain. I am thinking the real breakthrough won't involve putting anything on your head at all.

Actually if you're near sighted I believe a VR headset should be just fine, as the screen is right in front of your face. I was near sighted but got lasik during the 2020 covid downtime, and while it's great and I wouldn't change it feel like I ruined perfect VR vision.

I got to try playstation VR staying at a friends place for a week. Had a blast with Tetris Effect but while I didn't try it too much Resident Evil felt like a huge nausea risk. In terms of live sports it should work just fine, but the technology has already been there for a few years so this is nothing new.

 

[Soundwave]

VR is a failure until proven otherwise. I don't see bajillion dollar headset with battery life shorter than most modern movies changing that any time soon.

The adoption of VR is actually probably faster than the home PC.

When Apple introduced the first Mac in 1984 (the first computer with a mouse) they sold like 250,000 of them in 1984, and then like only got to 600,000 by 1985. I guess at that point you could look at that and say "home PCs are a failure, especially this expensive Mac with a mouse that no one will use".

Obviously we know over time every household grew to have a PC with a mouse basically, the Mac just got the ball rolling.

This is more the beginning of the beginning.

This is the first VR headset that combines VR + AR + XR with an easy to use operating system and a display resolution high enough that it resolves a lot of motion sickness while recreating any room that you in with minimal input lag. There isn't a device that does all that.

 

[KevinRedkey]

The adoption of VR is actually probably faster than the home PC.

When Apple introduced the first Mac in 1984 (the first computer with a mouse) they sold like 250,000 of them in 1984, and then like only got to 600,000 by 1985. I guess at that point you could look at that and say "home PCs are a failure, especially this expensive Mac with a mouse that no one will use".

Obviously we know over time every household grew to have a PC with a mouse basically, the Mac just got the ball rolling.

This is more the beginning of the beginning.

This is the first VR headset that combined VR + AR + XR with an easy to use operating system with a display resolution high enough that it resolves a lot of motion sickness.

I see what you're saying but I don't think it's a good comp. The internet is what made PCs popular.

VR adoption has been slow at best. It's more akin to 3D TVs IMO

 

[Figgy44]

The adoption of VR is actually probably faster than the home PC.

When Apple introduced the first Mac in 1984 (the first computer with a mouse) they sold like 250,000 of them in 1984, and then like only got to 600,000 by 1985. I guess at that point you could look at that and say "home PCs are a failure, especially this expensive Mac with a mouse that no one will use".

Obviously we know over time every household grew to have a PC with a mouse basically, the Mac just got the ball rolling.

This is more the beginning of the beginning.

This is the first VR headset that combines VR + AR + XR with an easy to use operating system and a display resolution high enough that it resolves a lot of motion sickness while recreating any room that you in with minimal input lag. There isn't a device that does all that.

1. It's not even out yet. Slow down.

2. VR has been around since before the 1990s. It still hasn't launched because the market isn't ripe yet. Sega VR 1991 that never launched?
Virtual reality headset - Wikipedia.

This is not the first VR combination anything. Hololens would IMO be my candidate for that. However, it is the first to probably have the best marketing team in the world behind it. Apple NEVER invents anything new for us. It's a really fricken amazing innovator though. I think it will succeed, but IMO it'll take at least half a decade to a decade to succeed. Some of our issues with current media aren't resolved yet. VR/AR/MR/XR is going to introduce a slew of new issues to address.

3. You keep conflating what VR/AR/XR/MR will end up being (IMO in a decade and not in a few years) vs what it will be in 6 months. You can't do that. A iPhone was closer to 5-8 years old when it started finally wiping the floor with Blackberry which was the king at the time. Albeit, IMO BB like Blockbuster vs Netflix actually sped up their demise by refusing to even offer incremental requests of the consumer, which sped up demand on the new technology and adoption of the iphone (ie: BB's ill fated comment about cameras in phones).

4. Minimal input lag? How many of us are getting away with a stupid NHL.com live stream of the hockey game with minimal lag and buffering? We can't even get that "lower end tech" right and you expect a higher density and data demanding VR media to suddenly have that disappear?

5. You mentioned $10-15 for a game. Stop forgetting these damn things have a $2.5K+ entry cost before you start "saving money" on these calibre of experiences. That's like saying, "Oh, exotic food is so cheap here." and conveniently ignoring the plane ticket and hotel amount to reach your destination with the inexpensive exotic food.

VR+ will be awesome. But there's some serious hurdles to get past first. That's the thing that most of us are trying to say.

 

[Martin Skoula]

I see what you're saying but I don't think it's a good comp. The internet is what made PCs popular.

VR adoption has been slow at best. It's more akin to 3D TVs IMO

3D TVs offer no real-time feedback data, the only profit from them is people buying the TV and movie. There’s no dynamic real time advertising or data collection opportunity, you can’t link other apps/hardware to talk to your 3D TV, there’s no interactive component. Content creators had no incentive to spend more time and money on building their content for 3DTV first they way they do for mobile first. Advertisers will pay more per eyeball in VR because they have a guarantee that you actually saw the ad or had to interact with some part of it compared to 2D screens with no tracking. The profit motive for companies with unlimited marketing budgets that can eat a few generations of losses on bulky hardware until it gets small and cheap enough is infinitely higher than 3DTV.

 

[Oddbob]

No matter how they do it, I hate the sensation of VR. It is always the same nauseous feeling after playing anything or watching anything for even a super short time.

 

[Nothingbutglass]

Sounds like you guys should be investing in it now while its in its infancy.

 

[syz]

No matter how they do it, I hate the sensation of VR. It is always the same nauseous feeling after playing anything or watching anything for even a super short time.

Will remain true for a lot of people. Improved fidelity can make things both better and worse; low resolution and input delay are obviously deal breakers, but on the flip side the more "realistic" a picture it gives your eyeballs the more likely your brain is to expect physical feedback from the thing you're seeing, so if you're watching a hockey game and you reach out to touch the boards and there's no tactile response (because the boards aren't real) then a lot of the time your brain isn't going to like that very much.

I can recall a racing game VR demo from E3 some years back that did a number on people because if you like, crashed into the wall or bumped into another car or whatever, there was no physical feedback associated with those things and that alone was enough to make some people sick.

 

[Soundwave]

1. It's not even out yet. Slow down.

2. VR has been around since before the 1990s. It still hasn't launched because the market isn't ripe yet. Sega VR 1991 that never launched?
Virtual reality headset - Wikipedia.

This is not the first VR combination anything. Hololens would IMO be my candidate for that. However, it is the first to probably have the best marketing team in the world behind it. Apple NEVER invents anything new for us. It's a really fricken amazing innovator though. I think it will succeed, but IMO it'll take at least half a decade to a decade to succeed. Some of our issues with current media aren't resolved yet. VR/AR/MR/XR is going to introduce a slew of new issues to address.

3. You keep conflating what VR/AR/XR/MR will end up being (IMO in a decade and not in a few years) vs what it will be in 6 months. You can't do that. A iPhone was closer to 5-8 years old when it started finally wiping the floor with Blackberry which was the king at the time. Albeit, IMO BB like Blockbuster vs Netflix actually sped up their demise by refusing to even offer incremental requests of the consumer, which sped up demand on the new technology and adoption of the iphone (ie: BB's ill fated comment about cameras in phones).

4. Minimal input lag? How many of us are getting away with a stupid NHL.com live stream of the hockey game with minimal lag and buffering? We can't even get that "lower end tech" right and you expect a higher density and data demanding VR media to suddenly have that disappear?

5. You mentioned $10-15 for a game. Stop forgetting these damn things have a $2.5K+ entry cost before you start "saving money" on these calibre of experiences. That's like saying, "Oh, exotic food is so cheap here." and conveniently ignoring the plane ticket and hotel amount to reach your destination with the inexpensive exotic food.

The input lag is important, there aren't headsets available before that have virtually no input lag. Why is that important? Because when you wave your hand in front of your face, in VR headsets previously there would be a delay with the camera and display showing you that.

This is near instantenous, so like you can wear it and have your kid throw you a ball and you can catch the ball. That also massively mitigates the motion sickness. That may not matter for "watching sports" but it's a game changer for the usability of headsets like this.

These won't be 2.5K forever. HDTVs used to cost $3000-$4000 a pop too. Eventually they will come down in price.

Not everyone can pay $500-$2000/seat for a courtside/bench view ticket, not everyone even lives in a city with a pro sports team so you have to add travel cost.

For $10-$15 being able to have a courtside seat experience can definitely be a new product category for pro sports that sits somewhere between a live ticket that costs hundreds of dollars and just watching on a flat TV.

I think it will eventually become an option for a lot of people. Want to be at a game but you don't or can't spend hundreds of dollars on flights, hotel, tickets? Now you'll have an option that goes beyond just watching it on TV.

 

[Danarqhy]

Has the the complete ass battery been mentioned yet? You won't be able to get through an NHL game on a charge!

I know people are always predicting the impending VR take over, it just never seems to happen. Too many hurdles and humans just don't like wearing dumb things on their faces to be completely disconnected from the rest of the world.

I myself don't enjoy being fully immersed in sports, it's one of my favorite things to watch while multi tasking on other things. Full courtside/rinkside immersion might be cool to do once to experience it, but I think it'd feel gimmicky afterwards.

 

[KevinRedkey]

3D TVs offer no real-time feedback data, the only profit from them is people buying the TV and movie. There’s no dynamic real time advertising or data collection opportunity, you can’t link other apps/hardware to talk to your 3D TV, there’s no interactive component. Content creators had no incentive to spend more time and money on building their content for 3DTV first they way they do for mobile first. Advertisers will pay more per eyeball in VR because they have a guarantee that you actually saw the ad or had to interact with some part of it compared to 2D screens with no tracking. The profit motive for companies with unlimited marketing budgets that can eat a few generations of losses on bulky hardware until it gets small and cheap enough is infinitely higher than 3DTV.

And why spend this extra money on the thousands of people with headsets vs the billions who have TVs and computers? Lol

They won't for the same reasons there's barely any VR games worth playing.

 

[Martin Skoula]

And why spend this extra money on the thousands of people with headsets vs the billions who have TVs and computers? Lol

They won't for the same reasons there's barely any VR games worth playing.

It’s not spending it on the existing user base, it’s spending that money to get more people into that user base because they’re more profitable per person on the new platform. Apple can burn billions a year for a decade on this project and they’ll come out ahead by year 2 of mass adoption.

 

[Figgy44]

The input lag is important, there aren't headsets available before that have virtually no input lag. Why is that important? Because when you wave your hand in front of your face, in VR headsets previously there would be a delay with the camera and display showing you that.

This is near instantenous, so like you can wear it and have your kid throw you a ball and you can catch the ball. That also massively mitigates the motion sickness. That may not matter for "watching sports" but it's a game changer for the usability of headsets like this.

These won't be 2.5K forever. HDTVs used to cost $3000-$4000 a pop too. Eventually they will come down in price.

Not everyone can pay $500-$2000/seat for a courtside/bench view ticket, not everyone even lives in a city with a pro sports team so you have to add travel cost.

For $10-$15 being able to have a courtside seat experience can definitely be a new product category for pro sports that sits somewhere between a live ticket that costs hundreds of dollars and just watching on a flat TV.

I think it will eventually become an option for a lot of people. Want to be at a game but you don't or can't spend hundreds of dollars on flights, hotel, tickets? Now you'll have an option that goes beyond just watching it on TV.

Plenty of things have low input lag. Waving your hands in front of the glasses is less important than being able to have a data stream that doesn't suffer from input lag. As mentioned, even live streams on our phone and computers aren't immune to that lag. A complete harmony of all inputs and outputs are required. As mentioned, I believe this will be closer to 5-10 years than a few years. Even Tesla was basically out on its own for a decade before it got to the point of near mass adoption and other manufacturers started chasing. This is the nature of tech and IMO Apple glasses will follow a similar time trajectory. Things are moving rally fast tech wise as of today, but not all things are super fast and instantaneous.

Yes, HDtvs used to be a few grand. I remember my Plasma TV. But 720p is considered HD. We're still talking about almost a decade later until we entered into this golden era of 75" 4K OLED TVs are pant wetting awesome and "inexpensive" (<$2.5K).

Apple is strapping a 4K screen to these things. That is not enough resolution IMO to be where it needs to be. IMO whatever is after 8K might be what we need for this tech. We need further improvement to transparent screen TV tech to have proper VR/AR/XR depth perception and overlay without it looking poor and jarring. TBH, I think the final refined ubiquitous product that everyone imitates will be a triple stacked 8K transparent screen in a pair of glasses that are less than a quarter inch think with hand worn input haptics to parallel and augment an eye tracker interaction to a HUD. The Apple glasses are an exciting and probably important milestone, but don't mistake this milestone as a starting line or a finish line. There's still a long, long way to go.

IMO, there's further risk where this could be like the Apple Newton where it's dead and skipped over, but the best bits of it put into other tech like the iphone. IMO glasses might be skipped for the VR+ tech. There's a possibility of micro UST projection onto a visor or lens may replace or be combined with the current screen inside of a lens iteration we have.

You keep using the word "eventually". I think we agree in the vast majority of our points. I just think that "eventually" means decade plus. I think you think it means 3-5 years. We will have to see.

I'm not crapping on VR/AR/XR tech and toys. I'm an early adopter to all of it. But I am also honest about its shortcomings. It's the same as the fact I was 3-5 years earlier than most on power banks, USB jump starters etc. I was honest then that the tech was amazing but not without its shortcomings. The same applies now with this VR+ tech.

 

[Lady Stanley]

But a CD player or rotary phone doesn’t hurt your eyes.

Those devices were replaced by things that did their job better. Cordless phones with touch tone buttons were better than rotaries.

They were in turn replaced by cellular phones, and ultimately rendered obsolete by smartphones.

CDs replaced cassettes, and were then replaced by mp3 players, which were replaced by iPods, which were replaced by streaming.

You can clearly see how each technological advance improves upon the previous one.

I’m certainly willing to be wrong, but I do not see what this offers that’s superior to the smartphone in an everyday use case.

Smartphones are with us and turned on 24/7, and stay that way until they’re replaced.

You can’t do that with glasses.

When you get your first vr, you'll realize the only thing useful about a cellphone is text and social media, which is to say it's entirely useless.

Smart phones are garbage.

It does everything a desktop/laptop does only poorly.

In VR you can actually do useful things, like you advance computer aided design etc.

VR tours of building proposals, plant tours, you can do fast paced visual representations of inventories etc.

People who aren't capable of using VR will likely suffer in the job market.

For anything job related VR is a massive advancement.

It's like comparing morris code to a power point presentation.

It's hard to really find a good example of something in a real job where it wouldn't be an advantage.

We as a species invented paper work, because we didn't have VR.

But a CD player or rotary phone doesn’t hurt your eyes.

Those devices were replaced by things that did their job better. Cordless phones with touch tone buttons were better than rotaries.

They were in turn replaced by cellular phones, and ultimately rendered obsolete by smartphones.

CDs replaced cassettes, and were then replaced by mp3 players, which were replaced by iPods, which were replaced by streaming.

You can clearly see how each technological advance improves upon the previous one.

I’m certainly willing to be wrong, but I do not see what this offers that’s superior to the smartphone in an everyday use case.

Smartphones are with us and turned on 24/7, and stay that way until they’re replaced.

You can’t do that with glasses.

When you get your first vr, you'll realize the only thing useful about a cellphone is text and social media, which is to say it's entirely useless.

Smart phones are garbage.

It does everything a desktop/laptop does only poorly.

In VR you can actually do useful things, like you advance computer aided design etc.

VR tours of building proposals, plant tours, you can do fast paced visual representations of inventories etc.

People who aren't capable of using VR will likely suffer in the job market.

For anything job related VR is a massive advancement.

It's like comparing morris code to a power point presentation.

It's hard to really find a good example of something in a real job where it wouldn't be an advantage.

We as a species invented paper work, because we can't all be everywhere at once, and there's limiting spaces in a given work environment.