We imagined a future with flying cars, but today, the notion of wasting energy to overcome gravity, when the normal force from a road could do that for free, se

We imagined a future with flying cars, but today, the notion of wasting energy to overcome gravity, when the normal force from a road could do that for free, seems wasteful in a world struggling to meet its energy needs without emitting more carbon dioxide - and the dream of flying cars seems somewhat antiquated as a result. We didn't get that future (yet at least), but we got supercomputers in our pockets instead. The point is, trying to predict the future is hard, not because of a lack of imagination, but because technologies don't just have to be "neat and possible", they have to be feasible and compelling enough to justify the economics of commoditization before they can be deployed at scale. They don't exist in a vacuum, they have to make sense in the world in which they show up. I wonder if the metaverse will turn out similarly to the flying cars - "neat and possible", but not really compelling enough to justify the expense of making it happen at scale? Facebook is making inroads in the commoditization of VR hardware, but does the metaverse itself solve any problem that normal people care about today? Or does it add something compelling that we will turn out to really like? (like how smartphones made the personal computer truly personal, and allows us access to online services at a moment's notice). Maybe there'll be a "killer app" for the metaverse, maybe not. The point is, it's dangerous for Facebook to assume they know what the end goal is for a new product category, just because they read about it in sci-fi books, and it might lead them to ignore the reality of what market is actually there. OTOH it also means that while FB is busy turning their walled garden 3-dimensional, there might be room for other players to create a related product that more closely aligns with what the world is actually ready for.