The rapid evolution of technology brings with it an endless stream of predictions about what the future will hold. Over the years, 3D technology has been at the forefront of many bold claims, especially regarding its potential to revolutionize various industries. While some predictions came to fruition, others remain mere aspirations or niche solutions. In this article, we’ll explore seven significant 3D technology predictions that never materialized into mass use.
1. 3D Scanning for Retail Industry
One of the most anticipated predictions was the widespread adoption of 3D scanning technology to replace traditional product photos on retail websites. Specialists believed that consumers would soon be able to view items in three dimensions, enabling a more immersive shopping experience. However, despite the advancements in technology, the logistics of implementing high-quality 3D scans at a scale that would be feasible for retailers proved to be too challenging. Today, while 3D models are available for some products, they remain far from the norm in online shopping.
Why it didn’t work?
-
3D-scanning and model editing require specific skills that not many from the retail industry have. Besides, product galleries have to be updated swiftly with several clicks of a mouse, and here 2D images beat 3D-models without a doubt
-
3D-models need powerful websites. As a retail website owner, you would be choosing among different types of web hosting and their pricing options. A local online store would be fine with shared hosting while a big one would need personal servers. The more storage you need, the more you pay.
-
Massive use of high-res 3D images would require fast Internet. In commerce, if a user can’t open your website quickly you lose a customer.
2. Virtual Fitting Rooms with 3D Scans of People
The fashion industry was excited about the potential for 3D scans of individuals for virtual fitting rooms, allowing customers to try on clothes without ever leaving their homes. The idea was that consumers could receive personalized clothing recommendations and see how different sizes and styles would look on their unique figures. Despite some innovative attempts, the adoption of these digital fitting rooms has been met with reluctance.
Why it didn’t work?
-
the initial idea of virtual fitting rooms requires 3D models of high quality because even the slightest body nuances have to be captured. Professional 3D-scanning technology is costly, which increases the product price. While off-the-shelf solutions are affordable, they don’t provide the necessary customer experience. A digital twin looks more like a Sims character, than the actual person with realistic body parameters.
-
technical skills has become a second obstacle in mass adoption of virtual fitting rooms. Augmented reality, 3D-modelling and scanning requires specific knowledge.
-
even if you have a perfect scan of your body and try on clothes virtually, you’ll get little information on how this particular piece is actually going to look on you. A virtual fitting room cannot demonstrate how the cut of a particular brand of clothing will fit on the body. Modelling exact physical qualities of textile digitally is still a challenge. After all, virtual fitting rooms promised us unprecedented realism. No one wants to look like a vintage paper doll.
- virtual fitting rooms, having stored digital copies of people, their body measurements and parameters, rose privacy and security concerns.
-
аnother non-obvious reason why virtual fitting rooms have not been widely used: in the fashion industry, photography plays almost a key role in sales. It constructs a story, an illusion. Fashion photography is about the feelings it creates. On the other hand, a 3D model of an item or a virtual fitting room doesn’t tell us beautiful story – it merely conveys utilitarian information.
Iconic” Mainbocher Corset” by Horst P.Horst. Would the same attire be equally alluring in 3D?
3. 3D Printing Clothes
The concept of printing clothes using 3D printers was hyped as the future of fashion, promising customization and sustainability. While there have been fascinating developments in this area—such as the creation of 3D-printed shoes and accessories—the technology has not yet made a significant impact on everyday clothing production. Now 3D-printed clothes belong to high-fashion and has been mastered by only a few designers. One of the most notable: Iris van Herpen and Zac Posen.
Why it didn’t work?
-
be it bespoke clothing or mass production, 3D-printed wear is expensive. For now, conventional textile manufacturing, with thousands of workers in low-wage countries, surpasses 3D-printers economically.
-
limited material choice is another problem for mass implementation of 3D-printed clothes. 3D printers use plastics which cannot be compared to soft and comfortable texture of real fabric.
4. Turning Phones into Real 3D Scanners
Tech enthusiasts envisioned a future where smartphones would double as 3D scanners, enabling users to capture detailed three-dimensional scans of any object with just their phones. While some apps and accessories have emerged to achieve this to a limited degree, the technology necessary for consistent, high-quality scans is largely absent from most smartphones. The complexity of capturing intricate data at the required resolution has kept this prediction from becoming a reality.
Why it didn’t work?
-
camera resolution in phones restrains users from making hi-res models
-
processing big detailed scans requires ample computing capabilities. Mobile CPUs are still not powerful enough to process 3D data in real time
-
market price of cell phones also doesn’t allow the manufacturer to turn them into true rivals of professional 3D-scanners. Even if powerful hardware could be stored inside a small device, would its price be compatible with competitors without 3D capabilities?
5. 3D Scanning for Fitness Progress
Another promising prediction was the use of 3D scanning technology in the fitness industry to record body progress and analyze changes over time. Imagined as a method to track physical transformations accurately, this technology would offer users insights into their fitness journeys. Although there are some niche solutions in this space mainly targeted at upscale gyms, general small business acceptance has been lacking.
Why it didn’t work?
- the cost of 3D equipment doesn’t comply with the business model of most gyms. Have you heard of Planet Fitness? Journalists found out that as America’s most popular gym, Planet Fitness doesn’t have enough gym space for all of its members. Yet their finances are fine and revenue model works well – all due to the low membership price and tricky cancellation policies. Many budget gyms rely on similar business models: there is a steady percent of customers that purchase a membership but rarely come to work out. But then…why invest into expensive gear and increase the costs, when for most of the gym members the result (a fit body) is not a real goal?
6. 3D Printers in Every Home
The dream of having a 3D printer in every home to produce cheap everyday utensils, tools, or even toys was a tantalizing prospect. Yet, while 3D printing technology has indeed become more affordable, the reality is that most consumers find little practical use for home 3D printers. The complexity of design and printing, coupled with the time required to produce even simple objects, has led to limited consumer adoption. While some hobbyists enjoy 3D printing, it has not become an essential household utility.
Why it didn’t work?
-
3D-printing requires special knowledge in 3D hardware and software, which becomes a barrier for mass adoption
-
buying a spare part online is faster than making one
-
we don’t have that much stuff at home to print. How many shower or key holders, shelves or decorations do you need monthly?
-
some people are skeptical about 3D-printers safety. For example, FFF printing may contribute to health issues.
7. Massive Use of Augmented Reality (AR) in Everyday Life
Finally, the prediction that augmented reality (AR) would become a staple of everyday life has not yet materialized as envisioned. While AR has made strides in gaming and certain apps, its integration into daily routines—such as navigation, shopping, or education—has been more gradual than anticipated.
Why it didn’t work?
-
the cost of AR hardware and at times its clunky design has been one of the major reasons people didn’t switch to AR-technologies. While the prices vary from US$1,500 to US$3,000, customers see little use for the device. What special tools or solutions AR-glasses can offer to justify its price? The companies, too, are estimating ROI of AR technologies. During the pandemic many of us expected remote work to become a new trend, with AR offering new means of communication. That prediction didn’t come to life.
-
big tech companies are thriving to become major players in this promising market, so each develops their own AR-device with separate interface and software. This creates compatibility issues.
What industries have benefited from 3D-tecnhologies?
The dental industry has greatly benefited from 3D printing and 3D scanning by enhancing the precision and efficiency of creating dental devices and prosthetics. 3D scanning allows for highly accurate digital impressions of patients' mouths, enabling tailored solutions such as crowns, bridges, and aligners to be produced quickly, reducing material waste. This technological advancement not only streamlines the workflow in dental practices but also improves patient outcomes by providing better-fitting and more comfortable dental restorations.