I remember similar things happening in the past. "Cloud" was a very ill-defined term once - many companies threw it around, often in completely nonsensical fas

I remember similar things happening in the past. "Cloud" was a very ill-defined term once - many companies threw it around, often in completely nonsensical fashion. The cloud turned out to not be that magical future some where predicting back then. It's basically a new-ish way of hosting virtual servers in data-centers, that allows more flexible forms of deployment and new accounting methods - like pay per actually used compute power. Also more dynamic scaling. It didn't quite completely change the internet, and people's lifes like many claimed it would. Blockchain is another such concept, that saw a lot of completely over-blown and outright nonsensical claims at first - and many companies claimed to use "blockchain" even when they didn't, just because it helped attract investment money. That's what happens when terms get thrown around, that aren't properly understood. Back to your suggestion of going straight for the implications. So, for example, let's ask the question what implications the metaverse might have on the future of VR and VR adoption. If the metaverse is defined as "it's just the internet and already exists" - like this article claims, then I see no special implications for VR here at all. If the metaverse is defined as massively-multiuser-VR, then the success of a metaverse is going to have huge implications for VR. So, how do I go straight for those implications, without knowing whether the metaverse has something to do with VR or not?