SPRITE+ at Immersive Tech Week 2026
- Jul 13
- 3 min read
Updated: Jul 16
Emma Barrett, University of Manchester and SPRITE+ lead for the XRCET-TIPSS Deep Dive
Last month I attended Immersive Tech Week in Rotterdam. It was the first time I had attended this conference, and compared to the United XR Europe (AWE) conference last December, this one was smaller, less glitzy, less hype-y, and less full of pushy industry representatives advocating for weak state regulation of XR tech...
Delegates and speakers seemed positive but cautious. Several keynotes basically said the same thing: it's tough out there for the XR industry right now. However, although the age of 'Metaverse' hype is over and the age of AI hype is at its peak, XR is not dead, just maturing. Of course, discussions about AI pervaded everything, but other areas of convergence were also highlighted: digital twins, robotics, haptic interfaces, drones...
Real-world deployment is maturing
Several panel discussions focused on what it actually takes to deploy, maintain and govern XR systems in real-world settings, inevitably raising TIPSS questions. Industry and public sector speakers highlighted the need for real evidence of value and several talked about human, organisational and technical issues involved in deploying XR. Issues like who is going to operate it, maintain the content, train the users, ensure data and security concerns are managed and so on.
A privacy first approach to smart glasses from HTC Vive?
After so many concerning stories about Meta's conduct around privacy and security of smart glasses, it was heartening to hear Thomas Dexmer, from HTC Vive, describe security and trust as central to HTC's approach to AI / AR glasses. He talked about users having choice over data sharing, but also said that HTC Vive's smart glasses would have encrypted local storage and hardware-based recording indicators (i.e., ones that can't be disabled so that bystanders know whether glasses are recording) built in. This is more of a user-first approach to smart glasses than we have perhaps seen with Meta and other developers, and also a serious attempt to respect bystander privacy too (compare that with Meta's "people will get used to it" approach...)
Fragmentation of XR standards and governance
Mattieu Worm from the Virtual Worlds Association discussed the fragmentation of approaches to XR standards and governance. He claimed that VWA had identified more than 1,300 standards relevant to XR, and warned against the temptation to “invent new ones". He argued that the real problem was not content of standards but identifying, coordinating, interpreting, and applying the most relevant ones, particularly when the ecosystem is evolving so quickly. He, and other speakers, highlighted the benefits of open standards (such as OpenXR and WebXR) in promoting interoperability, coherent governance, and good practice.
XR tools: "The widest door not the highest ceiling"
A final issue was a short but provocative contribution from Oliver Edis, who maintains and develops ReactVision, a full stack open source tool for XR app development. He argued that open-source approaches are essential for improving access to XR developer tools and training. Mainstream XR developer tools have emerged from - and tend to assume familiarity with - 2D game engines, which is fine for experienced game designers but creates a high barrier to entry for others. This risks spatial computing being disproportionately shaped by gaming cultures. His philosophy is that XR should have “the widest door, not the highest ceiling”: tools should meet all developers where they are. This is important for TIPSS because accessibility of tools helps to shapes who participates (or doesn't) in building XR applications, whose needs are prioritised, and which values are embedded in systems - highlighting, once again, the importance of taking a systemic approach to the development and governance of XR technologies.
