The 'Medium' trend seems to most off to me, but I've seen it repeated as truth by a number of people
Medium: text -> images -> video -> 3D graphics -> VR
A lot of people/companies don't seem to appreciate that the appeal of images and video come from the fact that they represent 'real' (or at least staged-real) events/people/places. Animated videos and scenes from movies seem like categorically different kinds of things, less likely to get attention in news feeds other than as fodder for memes.
3D graphics + VR are never going to be real, and I suspect will never (or not for a long time) have the engagement of images + videos despite being ostensibly more 'immersive'.
The article presents the various media as existing with some inherent ordering of value or preference. Text is not less than Image in any sense, just as VR is not greater than Video. These media may have different characteristics in terms of desirability for business metrics (especially in terms of product differentiation) which make it seem like there is some ordering.
Consider Twitter, which while it might not have the MAU of Facebook (a tall order!) is still a testament to the enduring value of text. And again, this isn't any case for Text being superior in any sense, but rather a way of pointing out that appetites for all of these media happily coexist and probably always will.
A similarly poor ordering (from the past) might look something like:
Medium: print (text) -> radio (audio) -> television (video) -> multimedia (CD-ROM hahaha)
We know of course that audio has not become less relevant over time.
OTOH the effort required for people to participate by creating works in these different media varies hugely. Text and Images are very accessible and are still far more accessible than Video (user research in my job suggests that they struggle to create quality video content more so than still images) and 3d graphics and VR are likely to remain inaccessible (relative to digital photography).
Medium: text -> images -> video -> 3D graphics -> VR
A lot of people/companies don't seem to appreciate that the appeal of images and video come from the fact that they represent 'real' (or at least staged-real) events/people/places. Animated videos and scenes from movies seem like categorically different kinds of things, less likely to get attention in news feeds other than as fodder for memes.
3D graphics + VR are never going to be real, and I suspect will never (or not for a long time) have the engagement of images + videos despite being ostensibly more 'immersive'.