We already have close to perfect telepresence. Is a hologram really that much better than video? Real business will always be done face to face. When you're closing a $100m deal, you want to look the other person in the eye and shake their hand. Transportation cost is negligible at that level.
For telepresence to work, you need to feel like your coworkers are in the same room, such that you think nothing about turning around to them and asking them a question. Video doesn't do this; something about the screen makes you feel like you need to present a performance, and that destroys the spontaneity that builds trust in person-to-person interactions.
Will a hologram do it? I don't know; real-time holography isn't good enough to evaluate it. Would VR/AR, ocular implants, direct brain stimulation, just a giant wraparound screen, whatever? Also don't know.
I do know that given the choice between having a car drive me to work for a half hour vs. being able to conduct business with anyone in the world without leaving my house, I'd much rather have the latter.
VR is going to be a thing. And it will have a big impact on property prices: No need to go to the office. The manager will be able to walk around a virtual office as they like (perhaps in 'mute' mode where you don't see or hear them!). Collaboration will happen across distributed teams as it has never happened before.
Forget living close to work. Live somewhere you like will be the theme of choosing a property over the coming 2 decades. Long 'nice' locations on a hill, next to the sea, etc. Short 'necessary' locations near a commercial center.
VR is already really, really close. I've had a quite a few conversations in VR that featured spatial audio and a sufficient representation of head, hand and sometimes even finger movements. It's not quite there yet because resolution and comfort are not great and because there is no facial expression capture or eye tracking yet, but I see those things solved and mass-market ready in the next 5-10 years.
With mass-market AR rolling around the same time frame (imho), telepresence that is actually wide-spread and disruptive will be here sooner than later.
Eye tracking technology already exists and it's pretty likely to make it into the next generation of HMDs (think small IR camera inside the headset recording your eyeballs). Facial expression tracking is doable as well: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/537566/oculus-rift-hack-t...
If technology comes far enough that telepresence is preferred to on-site, I think it would be pretty trivial to replace the headset with whatever is behind them in VR
You answered your own question. Telepresence today isn't good enough to let you look the another person in the eye and shake hands. But it will be at some point.
At some point this becomes a philosophical argument, so we can't have a very nuanced debate on it, but my personal opinion is that telepresence will never match real presence. If you're "shaking hands" with someone, the haptic feedback can never be more than a simulation. In no scenario short of teleportation will the molecules of your hand touch those of the other person's hand. If teleportation arrives, business meetings will be the last thing any car company needs to worry about.
> At some point this becomes a philosophical argument, so we can't have a very nuanced debate on it...
This sentiment saddens me. The thought that philosophy - which begins with the examination of our beliefs and personal opinions through the lens of reason - could be considered impossible to talk about with nuance seems deeply wrong to me.
If that's your experience, you've been exposed to some very wrong, or very modern, philosophers. Philosophy is just talking about being, and a conversation about simulated versus 'actual' reality is the best place for it.
you would hope they are 'smart enough' however every time I have the opportunity meet someone or observe people at that level I am constantly shocked at their mediocrity.
Sure there's some really good telepresence - that enables eye to eye contact and full body language - and it creates better trust than regular telepresence(according to research).
The missing piece is having it everywhere. Also maybe the issue of group telepresence at the home.
But even with that, it's still issues of culture and politics and power etc - why would venture capitalists want every startup to be remote ? why would big companies ? Is there difference in the cultures between such companies ?
> But even with that, it's still issues of culture and politics and power etc - why would venture capitalists want every startup to be remote ? why would big companies ? Is there difference in the cultures between such companies ?
Saving costs for one thing. Office space is expensive, even more so in areas like the Bay Area. Add to that the cost for stressed or even burned-out employees and the macroeconomic costs caused by traffic and you have quite an incentive for using telepresence instead of having people commute to their place of work every day.
The question is when this incentive will outweigh the incentive for keeping people in an office. Today, there's really no good reason for the latter other than office politics and power play.
Meeting face to face from time to time certainly is important but why not mix those two options? Why not make remote work the default case and only have people meet in person when it's really necessary (this would have the additional benefit of doing away with useless meetings)?
