Tech Hype vs. Reality – When Big Tech Missed the Mark Pt. 1

Every era of technology comes with bold promises about how new innovations will reshape our lives. Over the past decade, we were told to brace for paradigm shifts—from immersive virtual worlds and mixed-reality headsets, to autonomous vehicles whisking us around and ultra-fast wireless networks powering it all. Venture capitalists lamented, “We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.” The hype was palpable. Yet as 2025 arrives, many of these much-touted technologies have struggled to meet their sky-high expectations. TechBooky’s analysis finds that several “next big things” turned out to be cautionary tales of overpromise and under delivery. In this three-part series—running Friday through Sunday—you can expect one deep-dive instalment each day. In this first part, we critically examine virtual reality (VR) and augmented/mixed reality (AR/MR), exploring their initial hype, the outcomes so far, and what industry experts say went wrong.

Virtual Reality (VR): The Unfulfilled “Next Platform”

Few technologies have seen as many hype cycles as Virtual Reality. VR has “for decades…failed to live up to expectations” even as it continues to attract hefty investment. Back in 2016, pundits proclaimed the “Year of VR,” and Facebook (now Meta) paid $2 billion for Oculus, betting that VR headsets would revolutionize gaming, media, and social interaction. Tech enthusiasts envisioned a future where millions would work, play, and socialize in immersive 3D worlds. By the mid-2010s, headlines promised VR would “change…reality” and extend into medicine, education, design, and more. The stage was set for VR to become the next computing platform.

Reality Check: Despite years of development and even a pandemic-driven boost for at-home entertainment, VR’s impact remains modest. As WIRED quipped, the results have been “pretty lackluster…our minds nevertheless remain collectively un-blown.” The consumer VR market never hit critical mass. In fact, global sales of VR headsets declined recently – a striking indicator of unmet expectations. TechBooky found that consumer VR headset shipments fell by 10% in 2024 (dropping from 7.7 million units in 2023 to just 6.9 million) and active users actually shrank by 8%. This stagnation persisted even after new devices like Meta’s Quest 3 and the much-anticipated Apple Vision Pro arrived. “The Apple Vision Pro’s highly anticipated debut failed to spark the resurgence…momentum [is] fading,” noted Omdia analyst George Jijiashvili, who concludes that VR will remain a niche market in its current form. By 2025, roughly only 22 million VR headsets are in active use worldwide – a far cry from the mainstream ubiquity once envisioned.

What Went Wrong? A combination of factors kept VR from fulfilling the hype. Early on, high prices and clunky hardware limited adoption – the first generation Oculus and HTC Vive required expensive PCs, and even today a quality headset costs hundreds of dollars. Content has also lagged; beyond games, there have been few “killer apps” compelling enough for everyday users. TechBooky’s review of industry data shows VR content revenue in 2024 was under $1 billion, minuscule next to the $37+ billion spent on traditional console gaming. This content gap left many headsets gathering dust after the initial novelty wore off. Moreover, practical issues like motion sickness, bulky form factors, and the isolating nature of VR experiences hindered prolonged use for mass audiences. “There still isn’t enough content to justify the high price…revenue failed to meet expectations,” one early analysis observed back when the hype first faltered in 2016. Fast forward to 2025, and that statement still resonates.

Industry experts also point to engagement fatigue. After an uptick during COVID lockdowns, VR usage dipped as in-person life resumed. “Dwindling consumer engagement since the pandemic…limited compelling new content, and developers questioning the ROI of VR projects paint a troubling outlook,” Omdia noted in late 2024. Without clear profit, even device makers have grown hesitant to invest heavily in next-gen headsets. In response, the industry’s focus is shifting toward more accessible avenues like augmented reality on phones or lightweight AR glasses, hoping these “anywhere” experiences might eventually “spur mass-market VR adoption” down the line. For now, VR remains stuck in the trough of disillusionment – a promising technology searching for the breakthrough that will finally take it mainstream.

Augmented & Mixed Reality (AR/MR): Big Promises, Bigger Headaches

Often mentioned in the same breath as VR, augmented reality (and its cousin, mixed reality) generated their own cycle of immense hype. AR/MR promised to overlay digital information and holograms onto our physical world, merging virtual and real like never before. Tech evangelists imagined us wearing smart glasses that translate languages in real-time, project navigation cues onto sidewalks, or render 3D models in our workspace. Billions of dollars poured into AR/MR ventures: Google’s Project Glass wowed the world in 2012 with the vision of everyday AR eyewear, and startups like Magic Leap attracted massive funding (over $2 billion) to build futuristic mixed-reality goggles. Microsoft, meanwhile, unveiled the HoloLens in 2015 as the first untethered MR headset, aiming to redefine computing. The hype was that AR would be “the next big thing”, potentially even replacing smartphones as our primary interface with technology.

Reality Check: Despite this early excitement, consumer-ready AR never took off. Google Glass, for instance, went from Time Magazine’s “Best Invention of the Year” to Google’s biggest flop within just a couple of years. Launched to select enthusiasts at $1,500 in 2013, Glass lacked a clear purpose and sparked immediate privacy concerns (wearers earned the nickname “Glassholes”). By 2014, it was clear the device wasn’t catching on with developers or the public. Google halted consumer sales and eventually, “announc[ed]…it is scrapping the enterprise version of Google Glass,” effectively admitting that its big bet on augmented reality hasn’t paid off. A decade later, Google’s smart glasses remain an experiment, not a revolution.

Microsoft’s HoloLens showed initial promise in industrial and military settings, but it too failed to evolve into the mass-market game-changer envisioned. The second-gen HoloLens 2 (2019) improved on the original but still “was far from delivering the experience…demoed on stage,” and its hefty $3,500 price tag kept it squarely out of consumer reach. After pouring billions into its Mixed Reality division, Microsoft appeared to hit a dead-end. By 2022, internal turmoil (including the departure of HoloLens creator Alex Kipman) and lack of progress led to cancellation rumors for HoloLens 3. Even a landmark $22 billion U.S. Army contract for battle-ready HoloLens units became uncertain as soldiers reported the devices weren’t effective in tests. One core issue was that HoloLens’s usefulness never grew over time, limiting its impact and contributing to the device’s stagnation. In short, the tech never advanced enough to justify broader adoption.

The startup Magic Leap became almost a poster child for AR hype gone awry. Hype around Magic Leap’s secretive MR headset was enormous – the company teased magical demos and secured backing from Google and Alibaba – but the actual product never lived up to expectations. When the Magic Leap One finally debuted in 2018, reviewers found it underwhelming: bulky goggles, a limited field of view, and no killer app. As one analysis put it, “Leap 1…looked weird on one’s face [and] lacked purpose as to why it was made in the first place.” Priced around $2,300, it sold only about 6,000 units in six months, a mediocre showing that raised serious doubts about the company’s years of work. A second-generation Magic Leap 2 in 2022 pivoted to targeting businesses (e.g. doctors, designers) rather than consumers, but it still cost over $3,000 and failed to significantly improve the core limitations. Magic Leap had chased the “dream of a wearable computer strapped to your face” but fell well short, ultimately laying off much of its staff and teetering on the edge of failure before a last-minute pivot to enterprise under a new CEO.

Even the world’s most valuable tech company hasn’t cracked the AR/MR code. In 2023, Apple unveiled the Vision Pro, a mixed reality headset blending VR and AR, with CEO Tim Cook touting it as “the next generation of computing.” However, with a $3,500 price tag, the Vision Pro is essentially a niche device for developers and early adopters. Initial demand has been soft – the headset “didn’t sell well and production was…slowed after it failed to meet expectations.” Renowned tech analyst Ming-Chi Kuo reported that Apple scaled back production goals due to the lukewarm reception. In TechBooky’s view, Apple’s entry underscores how far AR/MR is from everyday use: the technology is impressive but over-engineered, and genuinely useful AR glasses that are affordable, stylish, and all-day wearable remain years away.

What Went Wrong? AR and MR face fundamental technical and social challenges. Packing advanced optics, sensors, batteries, and processors into a comfortable eyeglass form factor is incredibly hard. Devices like HoloLens or Magic Leap ended up bulky and heavy, a far cry from the sleek glasses people would tolerate in daily life. The cost of achieving even modest AR visuals has been prohibitive – often thousands of dollars per unit – because the components (waveguide displays, depth sensors) are cutting-edge. Early AR also ran into a less tangible barrier: human acceptance. Google Glass famously ignited backlash over privacy (the built-in camera made people nervous about being recorded unknowingly), which hindered social acceptance. There’s also a usability question: aside from niche professional cases, many consumers simply didn’t see a compelling need for AR glasses. As the Indian Express noted, the AR devices often “had no clear purpose” to justify their existence in consumers’ lives.

Additionally, AR/MR suffered from being overhyped before the technology was truly ready. The graphics and field of view of holographic displays have been limited – far from the seamless, wide-angle holograms portrayed in sci-fi. This gap between expectation and reality led to inevitable disappointment. “Big tech’s big bet on augmented reality hasn’t paid off,” as Google’s retreat from Glass showed. It’s telling that by 2025, the most widespread use of AR is still through smartphone apps (think Pokémon Go’s fleeting craze or Snapchat filters) rather than dedicated glasses. Those mobile AR experiences are fun novelties but hardly the world-changing tech once envisioned. The AR/MR industry is regrouping, with firms like Apple and Meta continuing R&D and hoping iterative advances will eventually crack the code. But for now, AR and mixed reality remain stuck in pilot projects and prototypes – symbolizing another revolutionary promise still waiting on the runway.

The Metaverse: Bubble Burst in a Virtual Frontier

No tech concept this decade saw a surge and crash in hype quite like the Metaverse. In late 2021, the metaverse became the buzziest word in tech after Facebook dramatically rebranded itself as “Meta” and CEO Mark Zuckerberg declared the metaverse “the next chapter of the internet” and his company’s “new north star.” The metaverse was envisioned as an expansive virtual universe where we’d work, play, socialize and shop in immersive digital environments. Enthusiasts imagined interoperable virtual worlds accessed via VR/AR, a booming virtual economy (remember the virtual real estate gold rush?), and life seamlessly blending between physical and digital. Countless companies jumped on the trend: from gaming firms and fashion brands launching virtual spaces, to tech giants like Microsoft touting their own “enterprise metaverse” visions. By early 2022, metaverse optimism was so high that investment bank Citi projected the metaverse economy could reach trillions of dollars in the coming decade.

Reality Check: Fast forward to 2024, and the metaverse bubble had largely burst. User adoption and engagement fell far below the rosy projections. Meta’s own flagship metaverse platform, Horizon Worlds, turned out to be sparsely populated and struggled to keep users interested. Internal documents in late 2022 showed Horizon had fewer than 200,000 users – not even close to Meta’s year-end goal of 500,000, and trivial compared to traditional social media or gaming platforms. As one report dryly noted, “enthusiasm for a new virtual world fizzled out” amid “clunky avatars with no legs.” The novelty of hanging out in VR wore off quickly for most people. Even more telling, Decentraland, one of the most publicized blockchain-based metaverse worlds (valued at $1.3 billion at its peak), was found to have only about 38 daily active users at one point in 2022. In other words, entire glossy 3D cities were sitting mostly empty – virtual ghost towns that starkly contrasted with the hype of a populous digital frontier.

By 2023, the narrative had flipped: the metaverse went from the hottest topic to something of an industry punchline. Investors and the public shifted attention to another rising technology – generative AI – leaving the metaverse feeling like yesterday’s news. Big players started pulling back. Disney shuttered its metaverse division, Microsoft killed its social VR platform AltspaceVR and refocused on AI initiatives, and even Meta quietly began de-emphasizing the metaverse in its communications. Mark Zuckerberg himself pivoted, announcing in 2023 that AI would be Meta’s top priority (calling it the company’s “single largest investment” going forward). He went as far as launching dozens of AI chatbot personas – effectively replacing the metaverse narrative with an AI one. This stark pivot led one publication to ask: “Has ChatGPT killed Zuck’s Metaverse?”. By 2024, the question on everyone’s mind was no longer “How will we live in the metaverse?” but rather “Is the metaverse dead?”

What Went Wrong? The metaverse hype collapsed under the weight of technical limitations, user experience issues, and misaligned expectations. The concept itself was always fuzzy – a catch-all buzzword that companies used to describe very different things. In practice, what was labeled “metaverse” often amounted to underwhelming early-stage products. As one analysis summarized, “overpromised immersive virtual worlds failed to meet expectations. Users found the worlds uninspiring and lacking in variety.” Graphics were cartoonish (remember those legless avatars) and experiences felt “rushed and unfinished”. Simply put, the metaverse in its 2022-2023 incarnation wasn’t fun or useful enough to attract people long-term. Early adopters tried it and left due to boredom or frustration.

Another major barrier was the hardware dependency. The richest metaverse visions generally assume users wear VR/AR headsets – but as discussed earlier, those devices are expensive and not widely owned. Paying $400+ for a VR headset to stroll through mediocre virtual worlds is a hard sell for the average consumer. “VR headsets…are incredibly expensive,” one report noted, highlighting that Meta’s own mid-range headset cost $479, plus it often needs a powerful PC to run. That’s a high cost of entry for experiences that, at this stage, don’t justify it for most people. Limited content, clunky hardware, and small user bases created a vicious cycle: without lots of friends or interesting destinations in the metaverse, there’s little reason to endure the inconvenience of strapping on a headset regularly. This kept adoption low.

The vision itself was arguably miscalculated. The grand idea of a unified metaverse where different companies’ virtual worlds interconnect (a la Ready Player One) ran into cold business reality – competitors had no incentive to link up their platforms. “The dream of a unified metaverse is close to impossible,” an EM360Tech analysis concluded, because companies prefer walled gardens to keep users (and their data) tied to their own ecosystems. So instead of one big metaverse, we got a bunch of siloed mini-metaverses, none of which achieved critical mass.

Crucially, timing played a role: around late 2022, just as metaverse projects floundered, generative AI (think ChatGPT) burst onto the scene capturing the public’s imagination and corporate budgets. AI proved immediately useful and engaging, whereas the metaverse did not. With economic conditions tightening, companies reallocated resources – money and talent flowed out of metaverse divisions and into AI. “C-suite interest in blockchain (and by extension, related Web3/metaverse tech) has taken a nosedive, replaced by demands to invest in AI,” says Gartner analyst Adrian Leow in an assessment of emerging tech trends. The metaverse became a casualty of this shift.

None of this is to say the metaverse concept is completely dead – Meta insists it is in for the long haul, and some believe the idea will evolve and return. But here in 2025, the metaverse stands as a prominent example of excessive hype. Tens of billions were spent (Meta’s Reality Labs alone burned $13.7B in 2022 and $16.1B in 2023 pursuing VR/metaverse ambitions) for very little consumer payoff. The public’s verdict so far: not now, maybe not ever. As TechBooky found, the metaverse currently remains “in its awkward phase” – the initial excitement has faded, and meaningful impact is “not enough to attract and engage users” yet. Whether a combination of better hardware, more compelling content, and integration with AI can revive the metaverse in the future is an open question. But for now, it’s a case study in hype gone cold.

Stay tuned for Part 2 tomorrow, and Part 3 on Sunday