Gemini will determine the success of Android XR
The new entrant #
Android XR appears to be a professionally-executed implementation of mixed reality. Samsung and Google put out competitive hardware; I will assume for this post that they will have table stakes.
![Project Moohan [Infinity], courtesy of Samsung](/img/Project-Moohan-3-4-750w.png)
Project Moohan ["Infinity"], courtesy of Samsung; not shown: external power brick
The legacy #
Google launched Daydream nearly a decade ago and dropped it less than three years later. They launched Glass OS and dropped it about four years later. Career rewards at Google follow the Launch, Promote, Abandon cycle (that's the terminology used by employees). Samsung launched and dropped Gear VR.
You can argue that phone VR was a technological dead-end — but Oculus developed the OS for Gear VR, and its descendant now powers all Meta headsets (that greatly outnumber other headsets). Any developer who lived through that will think carefully before betting significant resources on Android XR.
The existing competition #
Meta has a commanding lead in VR games. If Google can convince enough of the largest social VR networks to port their apps, they could achieve near-parity there, but no more. XR productivity and lifestyle apps are not drawing many users yet.
Meta's Horizon OS can run Android apps. Android app developers can spatialize their apps using Meta's API, and get access to tens of millions of headsets now, or Google's and get access to however many (or few) Project Moohan headsets sell next year. I know where I'd put my effort, especially give that that's still less than one percent of Android devices.
Teardown of Vision Pro hardware shows that it's not technologically ahead of other headsets, it's just better, more expensive hardware. So, if Android XR headsets are cheaper, they will struggle to match the flowing experience of Vision Pro. Without the grace of Vision OS and its hardware, using flat apps in a headset is of marginal value, even for users invested in Android apps, or rubbed the wrong way by Apple paternalism. Google is hit-and-miss on user experience while Apple has nailed the UX for Vision OS.
The value proposition #
Most households and organizations still don't have a VR headset, so Google and Samsung don't have to pry users away from an existing ecosystem. But they still have to woo users.
What's left to draw users to Android XR? Machine learning. Gemini will be the main draw for years.
Given time, Android XR could grow its ecosystem beyond that, but Google tends to kill products after three-to-five years, if they don't achieve Internet scale. Apple has made it clear Vision OS is a long-term project, that is not expected to be profitable for years. The Quest is, at the very least, a successful gaming and social VR console, even if Zuckerberg can't convince his shareholders to underwrite his vision of the future. Pico is ready to take the center of VR gaming, if Meta falters.
The most impressive demos of Gemini have the user walking up to something they are unfamiliar with, and Gemini telling them what is is, what's important about it, and/or how to use it. You do that sporadically, not all day long. A phone is fine for that.
What can Gemini do in the headset form factor, that it can’t do in a phone, that is actually useful to ordinary people (as opposed to a an impressive tech demo)? Most people are already carrying around an Android phone with an excellent camera and a solid microphone. You need to pull it out to access Gemini, but that's a modest hurdle. More importantly, it's obvious when someone is using the camera on their phone. It doesn't have the vibe of someone surreptitiously spying on you. The reaction to XR headsets in public will be less virulent than that Google Glass evoked, and eventually, it will be accepted that anyone around you could be recording you. But that won't change in the next five years.
So hands-free functionality is where Gemini has to shine. Heads-up walking directions in unfamiliar places, when you're loaded with luggage, will be valuable. Continuous translation in real life will be valuable when you're in a foreign country. So, frequent travellers will be a core market. They will also appreciate viewing flat-screen entertainment on a virtual large screen. Some of them will pack a mouse and keyboard and use a headset instead of a personal computer. (But you can do the latter two with other headsets.)
It's possible a voice assistant is what XR productivity and lifestyle apps need to take off. I look forward to seeing what emerges.
Whenever you hear of some neat thing someone is doing with Google XR, ask yourself if it's better than something people already have — better enough to buy and carry around a new device.
The Conclusion #
I don't see enough value in Google XR, that enough people will buy it, that will sustain Google's interest, long enough to build a competitive ecosystem. There are many clever and dedicated people in- and outside of Google and Samsung — I hope they can produce products that succeed at these difficult challenges, and prove me wrong. But there are safer bets for those interested in XR.
XR needs more competition, to reduce lock-in, so it serves people, rather than corporations.
- Previous: A Managed Database for Hubs
