4 ms·
This is an investor's view and the subtext seems to be "We're making a lot of money out of this, and I expect we'll make a lot more." The problem is that it's
by TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
This is an investor's view and the subtext seems to be "We're making a lot of money out of this, and I expect we'll make a lot more."
The problem is that it's only an investor's view. It's quite dismissive of Facebook's very real political problems, and doesn't acknowledge that for many people - especially, but not exclusively younger users - Facebook is a terminal combination of boring, evil, and cringe.
But more than that, Facebook isn't in a unique position to own the metaverse. The rest of MANGA will be converging on similar space. If there's any possibility at all of open hardware - or at least of an open standard - it's likely the real competition will come from an unexpected direction.
Social and AR/VR are fundamentally different spaces and Zuckerberg's idea of what's supposed to happen in those spaces is fundamentally weird and very possibly ridiculous.
Between the absence of consumer-friendly hardware - nothing is going to happen until the tech fits into very wearable low-effort glasses - and Facebook's eccentric history, I would expect Meta to fail and the metaverse to happen elsewhere, leaving FB to carry on as a kind of AOL for an ever-decreasing userbase until it's sold off for far too much money to some other large corporation which should know better.
- sharkjacobs 5y ago> MANGA This was a funny bit when i saw it on twitter yesterday, but if we're actually going to update our top 5 tech companies acronym let's do it comprehensively. Google has been Alphabet for a while, so MANGA should be MANAA. And I haven't understood why Netflix is in there for a while now, I think we should swap it for Microsoft. What do we think about MAMAA?
- mupuff1234 5y agoAlphabet's stock ticker is GOOG so I think 'G' still works.
- tempodox 5y agoSo, MAGMA?
- Tempest1981 5y agoNice! Or GAMMA?
- FractalHQ 5y agoThis is my favorite so far!
- shoto_io 5y agoThat’s just a “Meta”-discussion I’d say…
- jamesjyu 5y agoThe other subtext is that Zuck was always frustrated that he didn't have control of the underlying mobile platforms (ios/android) which strangled a bunch of FB's strategy for over a decade. He's not going to let that happen again.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- davesque 5y ago> leaving FB to carry on as a kind of AOL for an ever-decreasing userbase until it's sold off for far too much money to some other large corporation which should know better. Mapping FB onto AOL here feels like an effective way of summing things up. Although I'm trying to remember because it was a long time ago: did AOL make any grandiose product moves that ended up signalling its decline? I'm inclined to say no, but I could be completely wrong and forgetting something. What I recall was just a complete lack of innovation from AOL and a regression to money printing mode on the antiquated ISP with fancy user portal model. Although perhaps you weren't trying to make a direct comparison between the two.
- pram 5y agoI'd say you are forgetting: AOL merged with Time Warner. Their decline literally started the year after that, it was an unmitigated disaster lol