Brad Scoggin
Well, welcome back to the Industry Leaders Podcast. I'm your host, Brad Scoggin, co-founder and CEO of ArborXR, along with my co-host, Will Stackable, also co-founder and CMO. And today we have a bit of a different episode. Today, we get to sit down with a fairly well-known thought leader in our space, Jeremy Dalton. Jeremy got kind of made his mark in XR by helping PwC launch their immersive technology practice.And today he's in the process of starting a new initiative called XRHQ, which we'll be excited to hear about. But Jeremy, we're just so thankful to have you on the show today.
Jeremy Dalton
That's a real pleasure to be here. Thanks, Brad and Will, and very much looking forward to the discussion.
Brad Scoggin
Well, maybe let's start with—I mean, it's not a small thing to have helped PwC launch their immersive technology practice. Maybe start with that. I'd love to hear about that process.
Jeremy Dalton
Sure. I mean, it wasn't a straightforward one, as most people know or believe it to be. It's an accountancy company, or is viewed as one, a professional services firm, one that has audit, tax, and some technology teams as well, but mainly in the consulting and accounting space. So trying to start something in virtual reality and augmented reality there was particularly challenging.
But ultimately—and this is connected to the advice that we all give people in the industry—you start with the problem, not the technology. So that's what I did at PwC. I was involved in wider emerging techs. I was looking at AI, VR, AR, 3D printing, and all sorts of stuff. I wanted to specialize in virtual reality and augmented reality because those, for me, were magical technologies, very different from everything else.
And there would be no point in me talking to the business leaders and the executive board at PwC about how great the technology is. So instead, I talked about it in PwC language. I talked about how we solve business problems with virtual reality and augmented reality, and that was a long discussion. It was a long discussion over about five years, which culminated in them finally relenting and allowing me to establish PwC's first Immersive Technologies team globally.
I grew that out. We had developers, creatives, business professionals all over the world, delivered over 150 projects to over 50 countries, tens of thousands of headsets, AR, VR, 360 video, volumetric video, real-time 3D, Unity, Unreal, mobile phone, desktop, headset, projection. So every type of immersive technology content medium you can imagine. I've had an incredible amount of fun deploying that at clients around the world.
Brad Scoggin
Yeah. That's awesome. And you're so right. I think it maybe feels like, you know, redundant to us, but just focusing on the problem, right? And then letting—yeah, that's just so much more effective. What period of time was that at PwC?
Jeremy Dalton
So I joined PwC in 2011, and around 2013, that's when I started this campaign to establish immersive practice. Well, it depends on who you speak to. If you speak to those involved in virtual reality in the '80s and '90s.
Brad Scoggin
Very early for this wave. For this wave. Oh, man. Which just makes it—it means it was that much more difficult and that much more impressive. Well, tell us about XRHQ. What is that?
Jeremy Dalton
Sure. So I left PwC in February 2025, and it really came out of a desire to continue to fly the flag high for XR globally. And we've taken a real beating as an industry. XRHQ was born out of that. So originally, I mean, you can think of XRHQ as an evolution of my evangelization of technology and business, and that evangelization publicly took many different forms.
One of them was the book that I wrote called Reality Check that was published by Kogan Page originally in, I think it was 2000, 2001. I had a second edition come out last year in 2025. But as you can imagine, given how quickly things move in the emerging tech spaces in general, I have dismissed the idea completely of writing a third book.
But how do I get all of these amazing advancements and news of the world? And I don't just mean users in this, companies investing in this, and this one's releasing this product. I mean, the most powerful type of signals imaginable in the technology industry, which for me is applications of the technology. How is an organization using this tech?
Because you can invest all the money you want in the world. You can pour tons of R&D funding down the drain. You can have an incredible marketing budget, and you can make people very excited. But at the end of the day, the only signal that really matters is how is this technology being used? Who is using it? How are they implementing it, and what are the results that they're getting from those implementations?
So my aim with XRHQ is to track that not just on a daily basis, but on an hourly basis. So, real-time living library of technology applications globally. So case studies from the pharmaceutical world in India to the manufacturing world in the United States to education in the UK. I want to cover every industry and every country globally to ensure that we send the message that this technology is serious.
It has viable applications in every single industry globally, and it is being used in so many different ways and giving us so many different outcomes. So all of that information is tracked in XRHQ. It is made freely available to the general public. So—and my aim is to not only involve the industry in this so that they can post their great work, but also to bring business leaders.
Brad Scoggin
Yeah. That's awesome. And I will definitely commiserate with you for a minute, even as you walk through that. Just thinking—I mean, the powerful use cases we see on a daily or weekly basis. And then you do see this kind of, I guess, you know, the external perception of it just doesn't match with how powerful it is. And I always say, I think the thing that keeps me going is that regardless of the perception, we know that there is this real, true intrinsic value, you know, and we often think about it, you know, in learning, and it's like people are—the way people learn is forever changed because of XR.
Jeremy Dalton
And I've seen a lot of success in that. So bring people from the defense industry, bring people from the banking industry, from the retail industry, people who are perhaps detractors of the technology for the reasons we mentioned and maybe others. And remind me to talk about barriers to mainstream adoption of XR, because this all connects together, but bring them to XRHQ and show them how valuable this technology can really be with numbers, not just with fun facts and anecdotes and things like that, but some real hard-hitting analytics behind the scenes as to what industry is using it and how are they using it.
And that's the thing that we've got. People seem to understand that. And I also love the emphasis you have on the numbers. I think what we've found is you really got to have both, right? I think people—I think there was a long period of time where it was just anecdotes, and that got us a little bit of the way, and it's like, okay, that's great.
Brad Scoggin
Now, like, where's the data to back it up? And so I think what we've seen is some of our most successful deployments have both. You know, even as they're thinking about getting internal buy-in, you've got to have that anecdote you can connect to, but then you've got to have some data underlying it. But before we get to barriers, I'd be—I'd be super curious to hear, like, what is—I mean, is there a recent example or story or use case that you've heard that you've—that you're excited about?
Jeremy Dalton
Yeah, just very quickly, before I jump to that, to talk about what you're saying, I think you need—yes, you need data and anecdotes, and I don't deny the power of marketing. But unlike what happened with the metaverse era, we need substance beneath the marketing. So if you continue to pump marketing without any substance, that's where you're going to get a massive drop-off in terms of the peak of inflated expectations down into the trough of disillusionment, to use Gartner's hype cycle terminology. And we saw such a massive drop as a result of that disparity between marketing and actual substance beneath it. But yes.
Brad Scoggin
It's also the expectation. I think that's the thing we talked about a lot, which it all goes hand in hand. But if the expectation is that, you know, every human on the planet is going to be spending X hours a day in their house on VR, I just that's that's a pretty that's a mismatch too, right? And I think if you if you flip that a bit and say, you know, this is a tool that's super powerful, you know, when it's used the right way, then I would argue that the growth, if expectations had been set properly set, that the growth has actually been pretty healthy. We've just had we've had unrealistic expectations.
Will Stackable
I might also say that at one point, [he] said something that I think got missed. He said that the metaverse isn't a destination or a place. It's actually a point in time in which most people spend a majority of their waking hours in some kind of digital medium, and some people would argue we're already there if you include all screens.
But I think maybe the mistake that the most famous Meta made about the metaverse was painting a picture of kind of a Ready Player One world where we're all going to be in a virtual environment all the time. And I personally am not excited about that future. But I think you're probably right that if you define the metaverse more in terms of the way that there's a digital medium that's introduced to our various activities, whether that's work or play, I think you're probably right that we'll get to a point.
Jeremy Dalton
Well, it's a spectrum, right? If you think about the concept of immersion, and I've really had to dig deep into this because people may not know this, but as a personal hobby, I collect virtual reality historical artifacts from around the world. The oldest artifact I have is from 1856, and you may be asking, well, hold on a minute.
Not you personally, but people may be asking, well, I thought virtual reality started in, you know, the late 2010s, and it depends on how you define it. Because if the idea of virtual reality is to immerse you in a different world, because that's where the strengths come from, you know, and I'm talking about the business strengths here.
So some real hard business language, you know, what are the learning outcomes, for example, of immersing you in a different world? These are becoming more and more proven. But if that's the point, to immerse you in a different world, then we've had those sort of technologies previously. We've had headsets that just didn't have a strap. You had to hold them up to your face, but they used two different images.
The principle of stereoscopic, the same technology that we use in the Apple Vision Pro, the Meta Quest 3, the Pico 4, and all these headsets. They use exactly the same technology that we used in the 1800s to generate immersion. So when somebody tells me that virtual reality is a fad, it's never going to take off—it will absolutely take off.
Humans have been pursuing this objective since the beginning of time, and this is a subject for another presentation that goes back to the 12th century. But the point being, it is all of this is on a spectrum. Yes, the devices in the 1800s were able to achieve immersion. That immersion wasn't as great as the immersion we're able to achieve in headsets today.
Immersion differs whether we're talking about a really large screen. So you take people like GlaxoSmithKline here in West London, they have a science shopper lab. They achieve immersion, not through a headset, by literally putting someone—standing them in front of a huge 2D screen. That is a form of immersion too. So we can't be too strict about that definition.
And VR only counts when you put a headset on, you know, virtual reality counts across the board because the objective is wider than that. The objective is immersion, and headsets are one way of—one very powerful way of achieving that.
Well, I mean, probably the objective, the reason immersion is the objective is because of, like you said, the outcomes that we should be able to gain from that. And so.
Brad Scoggin
Yeah, tell me, like, what's an exciting case study that you've seen recently?
Jeremy Dalton
So, you know what? I, despite being in the industry for what has it been now, nearly 14 years, I love that I still see stories that I've never heard of before and never thought of using this technology in such a way. So there was a story with the World Taekwondo Foundation. Have you heard about their use of virtual reality headsets?
So they have advanced VR in taekwondo tournaments. So they're actually being used on the mat in the arena in which these fights are taking place. So both parties—yeah, have a headset, and they're able to fight virtually in VR using headsets like this. And there's a whole—there's policies around it. There's rules in place. It has advanced so much that there is actually a technician training course for maintainers of the equipment in taekwondo VR as an organization.
So, you know, I hear stories like that, and despite us being in the industry, I guarantee you 99% of people in XR have never heard of virtual reality being used in such a way. And don't get me wrong, that's probably not going to go mainstream in the way that, you know, training and manufacturing is going to go mainstream.
But that doesn't really matter, because this all feeds into the idea that XR is a platform, is a medium. The whole concept of a killer application—that question every time I hear it really annoys me. There is no point in asking what is the killer application of VR? It's the same thing as me asking you, well, what's the killer application of your mobile phone?
What's the killer application of your laptop? A nonsensical question, because the laptop, the mobile phone, and other platforms like that are devices which do a lot of different things for us. They are a medium through which we access many different killer applications, and virtual reality is very much the same way.
Brad Scoggin
Well, and I think today, at least—I mean, if you think about VR specifically, it is a purpose-built device for training, right? So, to your point, it's like, well, what are you training? Like, what industry are you in? What, you know, who's the user? And then I think that answers that question. It is—it's an oversimplified take that VCs especially love to ask that question.
Just find the killer app. You're like, oh my gosh, brilliant. If only we thought of that. But I'd be curious. So you hear about that, you know, the use case you just described, like such an edge. But okay. People are finding value in that. And then, as I mentioned earlier, we see—we see so many powerful use cases.
But there still is this kind of resistance almost, you know, there's these barriers to adoption. So how do you think about that?
Jeremy Dalton
For barriers to adoption. And you can think of this in terms of the CEC model: CEC—cost, education, content, experience. Cost, self-explanatory. Education—this one, very not very well understood, but very critical to understanding why it hasn't gone mainstream. Now, I'm not talking about the level of education in society. I'm talking about the level of understanding of the technology's value in terms of those not in the industry.
So you ask a business executive who's never tried VR before, what is VR for? What can it be used for? What is its value in your industry? Guarantee you, none of those questions will be answered in a satisfactory manner because they just don't know. Then we have cost, education, content. Content is an interesting one because when you look at the—there are different answers for the B2B and the B2C space.
In the B2C space, the content used to be a big problem. You know, we used to talk about the chicken-and-egg issue of there not being enough content to justify the purchase of a consumer headset, but there wasn't enough purchasing of consumer headsets to justify the development of content, and so on. And we've kind of broken out of that cycle.
You know, these days there's a lot of content out there, a lot of content being generated. Sure, it's not as plentiful as the App Store on iPhones or the Google Play Store on Android phones, but there is a decent amount of content there. From a B2B perspective, content—the content challenge takes on a different facet.
So here we can see there are—there is an off-the-shelf option, and there's a custom development option. You know, build your own applications. I think off-the-shelf, you can make it work, and it—depending on what you're interested in achieving—off-the-shelf can certainly work. But the more niche you go, and generally this has been my experience, off-the-shelf is quite difficult to make work for your exact business applications, save for a few particular areas.
So if you're going to build your own application, then we have—then this connects to the cost problem. How much is that going to cost? Do I need an entire team behind that? Who do I hire in-house? Is it external? Is it hybrid? But regardless of that, the other challenge around content in business is the fact that it is rarely applied in the right way.
So if we think back to what you were talking about, Brad, the sales strategy or the sales flow into businesses with virtual reality, you've got your anecdotes, you've got your data. The next stage we didn't talk about is the experience. So we all know once you put on a headset, you can close the deal far easier.
People finally get it. Things click. You know, it's the experience and experiential technology. That's why it makes sense to get people in headsets to get their buy-in. But there is a risk to that. There is a danger. If you get that experience wrong, things can go very wrong, and you can totally disconnect a potential buyer. So how do you get things right?
Content is key. You need to make sure that you don't only have high-quality content, but that you've got high-quality content in a relevant field, solving a relevant problem for the company. So those three factors are rarely thought about when you enter the experience area of the sales workflow. And it's something that I often think about when engaging with clients.
And yes, it's difficult to develop a POC if you don't have something off the shelf that you want to get them to buy into, but it's incredibly important to try and at least reach two of those three parameters to get that buy-in. So that's content. We talked about cost, education, content. The final one, and in my opinion, the most important blocker for virtual reality going mainstream: experience.
And by this I mean the user experience. Everything from how seamless and comfortable and fashionable is it to use the hardware to get it to do what you want to do? So controllers that people are not used to using, heavy front-loaded headsets, messing up hair, messing up makeup. I don't know how to put it on. I don't know how to tighten it.
It's pushing down on the bridge of my nose. And I have an entire slide relating to physiological challenges, physical challenges, and even mental challenges of using the technology in its current state. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this to put a downer on things, I'm just being realistic. There's a lot of challenges associated with the technology, and the only way we can get this mainstream is by eliminating or mitigating those one by one.
So lots of businesses out there have found ways to mitigate them, and there are lots of—depending on the challenge, there are lots of ways you can handle this. You can handle it by using virtual reality only for elements of the session that you think—or it's really powerful for you. You can limit, you know, the time. You can apply device management solutions to make organization and management of the devices easier.
There's loads of areas that help to mitigate these challenges, but they are challenges to the mainstream population nonetheless. So as long as we are cognizant of them and we are pushing and advancing through R&D efforts, officially in academia, through R&D labs at the large players, through our own tests in industry and corporate studies, then we will slowly but surely get rid of these challenges one by one, and we can start to enter that mainstream adoption stage.
Will Stackable
Jeremy, you've had opportunity to witness hundreds of pilots and various stages of scale at companies all over the world. What have been some things that have surprised you about what successful pilots are doing? And maybe conversely, what might surprise us about what pilots that end up failing, you know, aren't doing?
Jeremy Dalton
Yeah, I would say one of the strongest indicators for success of a pilot is it has to be an internal champion at the end of the day, because you can push as many slides, as many anecdotes, as many data points, as many experiential sessions as you want. But if there is no one in the business that is flying the flag for the value of the technology, and not just, you know, not just evangelization, but considering that a company engages, they believe in it, the pilot is running.
If nobody is managing the pilot in a deep way, it is absolutely guaranteed to fail. So the idea of not thinking about that maintenance person—it sounds really unsexy—but literally the person who's there on the ground, responsible for and excited about being responsible for managing the headsets, the problems, the troubleshooting, any technical queries that come through, thinking about future strategy, trying out new pieces of software, testing out new solutions.
You kind of need someone who manages that whole area from end to end. So it's more than just evangelization. Evangelization gets the hardware and the solution through the door, but what keeps it there is the very boring task of maintaining things and ensuring that problems don't develop to such a point that they get escalated up the business chain.
So the last thing you want is an executive board member who's time-poor getting a report saying feedback from this VR implementation has been terrible. 50% of the people couldn't even, like, open the application. The other 20% said that, you know, it was uncomfortable for whatever reason. And then the other 10% said the software crashed.
The other 10% said that—hopefully we're not on 100% yet—they said that the software itself didn't have the right functionality, or they tried clicking on the button and it didn't work. You know, ridiculous. They're not ridiculous, but small things like that that really need someone on the ground managing that stuff will escalate, and it seems small, but once it escalates to that level, to senior management-level people responsible for the sponsorship of the application, it is absolutely going to tank the entire campaign.
So, yeah, my summary of this is you have to place great importance on boring elements like that. This is not all about the exciting aspects of, look at what this technology can do. You know, there needs to be real tactical adherence to maintenance and tactical foresight about what's coming in the future and being very, very considered about it.
And I think you were asking—well, I kind of answered both sides of the question, right? What have you seen that works and what doesn't work? I'd say those are the key areas. The other areas that I'd say are worth bearing in mind, I mentioned within that bucket of user experience a point that many people think is, again, not serious in a business context, but fashionability.
There are so many issues around this. The psychological aspects. That's—those are three pieces I was looking for: physical, physiological, and psychological. But the idea of being self-conscious in VR is a problem. The idea of wondering what others think about you when you're wearing a VR headset is a problem because it takes you out of immersion, which was the strength of the technology we were talking about before.
And so what helps us to remain in that world? Well, how do we defeat self-consciousness? Self-consciousness, partly—and there's a lot to unpack here—but it partly comes about because I don't feel comfortable wearing this clunky, developer-first piece of kit on my face, which is prime real estate. I think people like to make the arguments of, you know, well, look at smartwatches.
That was totally unexpected. It was a wearable that nobody thought would take off. And look at it now. And yes, in some senses, okay. It's a different medium. It gives you information in a different place in terms of wearable tech. But there's a difference between putting something on your wrist and putting something on your face.
Everybody makes eye contact with you as soon as you meet one another. People aren't looking at your wrist constantly, but they are looking at your face and looking at your eyes. So anything that is between your eyes and their eyes is going to be scrutinized heavily. So when you wear something like Google Glass—and I'm going back to, what was it, 2013 here?
I'm kind of picking on them, but their attitude was, you know, build it and they will come. Doesn't really matter. So they built this device, and it was clearly a developer-first device built by developers for developers. And that was—that was a problem. That was the reason it got so much flak. And I thought—and I personally thought it was a, you know, a decent prototype device, proof of concept.
But people were being called Glassholes and all this sort of stuff. But, you know, the Snapchat Spectacles that came out at around the same time never received the same amount of flak, despite the fact that they were all about recording. They had the cameras there, and they were all about recording. And part of the reason is, my theory, it was fashionable.
People accepted it more. Google Glass was for developers. It was kind of very intimidating, you know, whereas Snapchat Spectacles just looked like a pair of sunglasses. So when you adopt this technology—and I think this applies in the consumer world and the business world—you can mitigate some of those fizzy—not physiological—psychological elements by thinking about the fashionability of the headset.
And we can go through that list, like, all day. But these are just two interesting examples I thought I'd mention, because people don't think about them often.
Will Stackable
I think it's a great point. I was actually just trying on the Meta Ray-Ban displays recently, and I thought, you know, these—if you just walked by me, I don't know if you'd notice anything off other than, you know, they're a little chunky and you've got the cameras, but they're dark. And what a change from back in the Glasshole days for you.
I know AR right now is the topic everyone’s excited about. Some of the new glasses that are coming out—a lot of those aren't necessarily relevant for an enterprise setting where you need, you know, a certain level of battery life and everything else. But how are you seeing the rise of AR? We've been waiting forever for the right form factor.
The hardware has always been a challenge. We now have this unique combination of some new AR glasses that are getting people excited. And this is maybe the game changer: the AI side of things and the ability to have an assistant on those glasses. Maybe just chart out a little bit how you're seeing—obviously, on the consumer side, it's going to come faster, probably.
But on the enterprise side, what does that look like? We haven't really had a real enterprise AR glasses since HoloLens.
Jeremy Dalton
Yeah. So I think it's really important to distinguish what we mean by AR here. And the taxonomy that I use is—and maybe you use it as well—I use augmented reality as an overall, overarching banner of the spectrum of augmented reality technology. So I guess if you think about it as a hierarchy, we've got at the top, we've got AR, and then within AR we've got different subsections of AR as well.
One of those subsections is mixed reality, and this is the stuff that people tend to want to talk about when we talk about augmented reality and enterprise. Very excited about the HoloLens, very excited about the Magic Leap 2, and headsets like that. The problem is that—and this is the unvarnished truth. Well, I shouldn't call it truth, but this—I've seen the data, and this is my unvarnished view.
Perhaps that is not often talked about in the industry. Mixed reality technology—there needs to be a very specific, well-thought-out purpose for choosing a headset that has mixed reality capabilities over a very, very basic type of augmented reality. At least I'd classify it as augmented reality, which is called assisted reality, which is, in some cases, nothing more than a small screen on one side of your headset, which gives you extra information. It's not even technically an overlay on the real world.
It's an opaque screen that is between you and the problem you're trying to solve, and assisted reality has proven its value for decades now. And it has proven so much value, it's not even a question in so many industries that use it. And they may not call it augmented reality, but it's basically on that spectrum. So if you think about Google Glass, the only difference between Google Glass and these assisted reality headsets is Google Glass had a transparent screen.
So again, on the spectrum, we have opaque screens in assisted reality headsets. We have transparent screens. And then we start to move on towards, okay, we have the ability to overlay information on a pair of glasses, maybe, but it doesn't anchor to the real world. And then completely on the mixed reality side of the spectrum, as you know, we have the ability to see what's going on, to overlay interesting elements and anchor, you know, screws in the right place, buttons in the right place, to circle different cables and wires.
And that is incredibly valuable. I'm not saying it's valuable, but we have to be very cognizant of the fact that we shouldn't be shoving mixed reality as the only form of augmented reality solution in the enterprise. If you can solve it with assisted reality, absolutely go ahead and don't worry about the extra cost and effort of dealing with a mixed reality headset.
Now, if we think about the applications that really make use of mixed reality. So let's say we're talking about a deeper form of remote assistance, for example, where—or on-the-job training, perhaps. Here's a really a good one that uses artificial intelligence to your point earlier. And maybe when we apply AI to it, we move it further along the spectrum.
But if we consider a mixed reality solution that allows an individual engineer to look at a problem and have AI understand what they're looking at, and then actually highlight in three dimensions on the actual element that they're looking at—the individual screw, cable, button, panel, whatever it is—then yes, there is incredible value in that because we can see return on investment, we can see time being saved, or we can see individuals being trained faster, with less resource requirements, with fewer errors, with the ability to call upon or summon that training whenever they want.
They're not reliant on another human, a senior engineer, being on site next to them. So yes, there's value across the chain, but don't go up the chain just for the sake of going up the chain because you want new technology. Always, always fall to the lowest common denominator in terms of the problem you're trying to solve is the summary of this situation.
00:37:08:22 - 00:39:15:09
Will Stackable
That's really well said. I know a lot of people listening are at various stages of building XR programs. Many of them maybe have started with VR and some kind of training modality, but we're hearing a lot of interest around some variation of assisted reality or augmented reality. What, for you, are there a few use cases that are accessible now that you could run in a pilot that would prep a company, or maybe department, for what's coming over the next five years and let them get their foot in the door with something and be successful?
That's good. I think that's a helpful framework: use case, industry, problem.
Jeremy Dalton
So if I think about use cases. It's the use cases that I find I am seeing. A lot of applications coming through XR are related to education and healthcare as industries, and I suppose that doesn't answer the question completely, but it kind of gives you a bucket of use cases to work from. So I would say yes, as ever, you know as well as I do that training still remains an incredibly valuable use case of the technology.
It's not—it's not just about the use case, though. And it's not just about the industry, but it's about thinking of the trifecta of use case, industry, and problem I'm trying to solve, and how I solve it more accurately, to consider the best way to implement a pilot program around the tech. And I'm answering in generalities because it's very difficult to identify a specific use case without getting too niche.
But hopefully that framework provides some guidance on how to think about it. Because when you're deploying the technology, you want to be deploying it in a way that can manage the fallout. So being quite careful with the scale of pilot programs and being very specific about success measures upfront, how to measure them, and how to report on them and at what time to report on them throughout the project.
Brad Scoggin
So as we move to kind of a close here, Jeremy, one of the questions I always like to ask, and you're probably the best person to ask this to, is forward-looking. But maybe—I mean, you've talked about the 1800s up to now.
You know, without getting too far out there, like, over the next few years, like, what is, in your mind, the ideal—like, in an enterprise setting, what is the ideal XR use? Not even use case. Like, what does it look like in an enterprise?
Jeremy Dalton
XR in the future of enterprise looks like a seamless device. So I'm thinking about the user experience aspect now. It's a device that people find easy to use. It's a device that there is no question around what the value is. So going back to the barriers—cost, education, content, experience—and putting the foot, putting or prioritizing education and experience at the top.
The future of XR in enterprise is where the value is truly understood and is being used on a device that is comfortable and easy to manage and operate. And we're getting there. You know, we're making advancements in this technology. The era of smart glasses is upon us. The fact that we're integrating AI into all of this is a really positive outcome.
So I remain very bullish, as I've always done for the last 14 years, and I think it has a bright future ahead in both the enterprise and the consumer market.
Brad Scoggin
That's great. Well, Jeremy, thank you so much for your time today. We appreciate it, and I look forward to getting to chat again soon.
Jeremy Dalton
It's a real pleasure.
Will Stackable
We'll make sure to drop the links in the show notes. But check out—is it XRHQ.com? Did you manage to secure that URL? Wow, congrats. Okay.
Jeremy Dalton
That’s it. Yep. Yeah. Check it out. Absolutely free. Submit any projects you see. You don't need to be involved with them. And let's help build the future of this industry together.
Jeremy Dalton
Thank you all.
