Immersive

Immersive technology has produced more announcements than businesses, and the reason is usually the same: projects that require the audience to own hardware they do not own.

This desk is interested in the narrower question of where spatial interaction genuinely earns its cost. That set is smaller than the industry claims and larger than the sceptics allow. It includes discovery-heavy retail, procedural training, spatial data and anything where the relationship between objects is the information.

The test we apply

Does it work without a headset? A product that requires hardware most of its audience lacks is addressing a fraction of its stated market. Browser-first design is not a compromise; it is usually the only version with a viable audience.

Does it survive the second visit? Almost every immersive project produces strong first-session engagement and catastrophic return rates. Novelty does not renew. The question is whether the thing is more useful than a conventional interface on the fifth visit.

Does it load? A rich three-dimensional scene is expensive to deliver, and a visitor who waits is a visitor who leaves. Progressive loading and level-of-detail discipline are not polish — they determine whether anyone sees the product at all.

Applied to most immersive announcements, these three questions dispose of the matter fairly quickly.