"Lean Back" and "Lean Forward" Differences Might Always Condition VR or Metaverse Adoption

By now, it is hard to argue against the idea that the commercial adoption of “metaverse” and “virtual reality” for consumer media was indeed “too early” in terms of timing and infrastructure.

Perhaps debatable are the reasons “why” metaverse failed to catch favor with consumers. In one sense, the entire evolution of electronic media (and live performance before it) trends in the direction of greater realism. 

In some cases, evolution towards greater immersion and interaction might also be the case (digital media such as social media is based on interactivity). 

Many earlier technologies also failed commercially at first (or were too expensive/limited) but later succeeded when hardware, networks, and user expectations caught up. The issue now is whether VR is now on a similar path, only waiting for further improvements in hardware, content, and ecosystem to reach broad commercial success. If those cease to be barriers, VR might flourish. 

But those are big “ifs.”

The distinction between “lean forward” experiences (interactive content and media) and “lean back” content experiences (passive entertainment and content consumption) arguably remains. 

 

The heavy hype around the metaverse (2021–2023) greatly outpaced the actual state of the technology and user readiness. 

At the same time, there was no killer application that made the metaverse uniquely valuable. 

For retail, shopping in a virtual store was more effort than clicking on Amazon; for social, a video call or chat was simpler than navigating a 3D world. 

Still, we might ponder the idea that the metaverse is part of the evolution of media in the direction of greater realism, immersion, and interactivity. But experience with 3D video content so far suggests other issues. 

That is not to say earlier important technologies or products similarly were “too early” for mass adoption. Indeed, that does happen, and relatively often. 

Technology / Product	Era (Initial Launch)	Why It Failed Then	Later Commercial Successors
AT&T Picturephone	1964	Too expensive, poor quality, low bandwidth, seen as intrusive	Video calling via Skype, FaceTime, Zoom, Facebook Portal (2000s–2010s)
Apple Newton MessagePad	1993	Poor handwriting recognition, bulky, limited battery, no cellular data	iPhone (2007 onward), modern smartphones
Microsoft Tablet PC	Early 2000s	Expensive, heavy, complex OS, marketed as desktop replacement	Apple iPad (2010 onward), modern tablets
Nintendo Virtual Boy	1995	Monochrome display, caused discomfort, weak software, niche appeal	Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, PlayStation VR, modern VR headsets (2016 onward)
Sony Glasstron (HMD)	1997	Low resolution, bulky, limited use cases, expensive	Modern VR/AR headsets (Meta Quest, HoloLens, etc.)
Philips CD-i (CD-based console)	1992	Weak hardware, poor game library, limited developer support	DVD/Blu-ray consoles, modern optical disc games, digital distribution
Microsoft SPOT Watch	2004	Limited data (FM-based), no Wi‑Fi, high price, limited aesthetics	Apple Watch, Samsung Galaxy Watch, modern smartwatches
LoudCloud (cloud computing)	1999	Market not ready for cloud services, infrastructure immature	Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud
SixDegrees.com (social network)	1997	Early internet adoption, low bandwidth, no newsfeed, limited features	Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok
Ask Jeeves (early search)	1996	Simple interface, limited results, not as powerful as later search engines	Google search, modern AI-powered search assistants

These all embody the same pattern: a visionary idea was technically possible, but the ecosystem (hardware, networks, software, business models, and user habits) had not yet matured enough for mass adoption.

But we might argue that is not entirely the issue for 3D and metaverse. The barriers might extend beyond hardware cost and complexity; physical ease of use; compelling content availability; a killer use case or app; lack of widely-standard platforms or other social and behavioral barriers.

VR is unlikely to become truly mainstream because Metaverse and VR face many of the same adoption barriers that plagued 3D TV and cinema 3D content.

Arguably, 3D content, VR, and the metaverse struggle with a few overlapping problems beyond hardware friction and cost; compelling content; lack of a universal platform or value proposition. 

The problem still includes the distinction between “lean forward” and “lean back” media consumption. 

Arguably, 3D content consumption clashes with the casual, social way people consumeTV (eating, multitasking, impromptu guests).

VR headsets block the real world, making it hard to chat with others in the room or quickly switch between the virtual and physical. This makes VR ill‑suited for many everyday social and entertainment scenarios where people currently use flat screens.

VR and the metaverse face additional, deeper challenges. Even 3D TV was still a passive, screen‑based experience (lean back). VR and metaverse demand active participation. They are “lean forward” experiences. 

3D TV was trying to graft a known experience of cinema) into the home. VR and metaverse ask users to adopt entirely new behaviors and actually “work” to create the experience: substituting “lean forward” for “lean back.”

That might suggest a “somewhat niche” adoption pattern: adoption in specific, high‑value domains gaming, training, simulation or remote collaboration where the behavior is expected to be “lean forward.”

But widespread adoption as a “lean back” experience such as television and entertainment video might never happen. People don’t really want to “work” when they consume entertainment video. 

In that sense, some of us were wrong to think the metaverse was simply the next evolution of realism in “lean back” entertainment media. It might be an evolution of “lean forward” social media, learning and gaming experiences.