12 ms·

The metaverse is already here, it's called the internet

261 points by shafyy 5y ago

haunter 5y ago
It's called MMOs and VRChat. Especially WoW in the 2000s were more metaverse than anything will come from Facebook.
taylorportman 5y ago
How do we describe the "meta" phenomnom anymore, we need a new word for "meta" and I've been struggling but can't figure it out. What replaces the word "meta" if someone takes it, "gist"!?
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  Nothing. Meta is meta. Facebook can go find another name, they dont own language or the internet. Metaface or metabook sound good, they are free to steal them from me.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  I like ambi in its meaning of around and less seriously I can pretend that ambiverse means I’m ambivalent about your ‘verse.
- j245 5y ago
  Interesting question - What replaced the word Apple ?
  - playpause 5y ago
    That’s different. “Apple” is a very common everyday word, plus it’s arbitrary as a tech company name so the two are never confused in any reasonable context. “Meta” is a niche but useful word used in intellectual discussions, and Meta’s usage of it is relevant to its meaning. This means “meta” is far more under threat from Meta than “apple” was from Apple, because whenever someone describes something as “meta” in an ambiguous context (where they might be referring to the company or the concept), there will be a need for a little flow-interrupting clarification, and then people will just learn to use the word less (and thus the concept), because inconvenience is inconvenient. It’s easy to dismiss concerns like this with “well another word will just appear in its place” but linguistic history will disagree with you. Sometimes we just lose things, and it’s sad.
    - j245 5y ago
      okay - so you’re concerned there is a high chance of collisions in this case as apposed to companies like Stripe, Amazon and Oracle where there is less scope for confusion. > Meta’s usage of it is relevant to its meaning. Is it though ? - I thought Meta the name is just a shorthand for Metaverse, so the confusion is bounded to discussions on that topic. Maybe I’m unable to see the issue. Can you give an example where this overloaded word will cause confusion ? We definitely need to have a conversation about the pro’s and con’s of various things associated with Meta and the metaverse. This name collision thing just feels like a non issue to me.
      - playpause 5y ago
        I agree it’s not the most important issue regarding Meta, and I don’t think there’s anything useful that can be done about it now anyway, I just reject the outright dismissal of it as a complete non-issue. Yes, the company name Meta is relevant to the actual meaning of the prefix “meta-“, as in metaverse, a word coined in 90s sci-fi as a contraction of “meta-universe”, meaning a universe that is not the universe but is “beyond” or “about” it, which is a very reasonable use of the prefix when applied to a virtual world, in line with other uses like metadata (extra data that isn’t “the” data but is “about” it).
- the-dude 5y ago
  Simulacrum?
q4Zar 5y ago
I'm a software developer and i pass literraly 80% of my time working to make my family survive to this world, and honestly the only thing that i have in mind it's to flippin go in the forest for a walk, i don't understand the thing of wanting so much to be isolated and wear a fucking VR mask, this world is fucked up !
- thr0w72594 5y ago
  I agree with you completely. It actually makes me angry that corporations will seemingly stop at nothing to rape the Earth for their own profit and control. They want to replace everything natural and beautiful with a cheap simulacrum, and hope that the SSRIs and porn keep the population complacent while they take everything away from them.
- robmccoll 5y ago
  Yeah as a trail runner and technologist, I enjoy VR but I'm not sure anything could replace the sights, smells, and feeling of going on a run through the woods. Similarly I think there is room for both VR-sports (and e-sports) and traditional IRL athletics. One doesn't replace the other, but the skills, strategy, physical performance and endurance are very different to watch and to experience (each great/ fascinating in their own way).
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    Physical and virtual sports are similar in most regards, except when it comes to environmental impact. Taking a walk/swim in nature does little to no damage to your environment, unless you make it a big competition. In comparison, any computerized activity will require tons of resources (and related industrial pollution) and slave labor to produce the hardware you're using, and more energy/resources to power the device. I'm not against video games, but do we need more hardware? Our hardware is extremely powerful already (though games are rarely optimized in any way) and as much as i can see human progress via Internet connectivity, i don't see any "usefulness" for VR technology: it seems to me that apart from requiring more hardware and potentially fueling gaming addictions and social isolation, there is little to no value proposition compared to Second Life and other software we've had for decades.
loloquwowndueo 5y ago
I was going to come in and rant that Internet in this context should be capitalized as it’s the specific Internet and not the general concept of an internet, but then I found https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_of_Internet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_of_Internet. Lol.
bsenftner 5y ago
And a 720 degree fully immersive virtual reality has successfully existed in human society for thousands of years. It is called the written word, and in story form is 100% successful transporting an individual anywhere, realistically, and fully immersive. The Metaverse is simply an immature projection of what some early thinkers imagined, and whatever the Internet becomes it is not going to be that stupid commercial fantasy.
meheleventyone 5y ago
I thought the juxtaposition between the cringey, overproduced keynote and Carmack’s talk was amazing. Just a guy in front of some monitors telling you the whole thing you just watched was nonsense. It was beautiful.
- shafyy 5y ago
  I know, right! I just love how Carmack delivered the line: "... But Mark Zuckerberg decided it's time to build the metaverse..." Edit: Here's Carmack's keynote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnSUk0je6oo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnSUk0je6oo
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    Thanks, Carmack's video looks a lot more human than the other one with blond Mr. Data pretending to talk to photorealistic avatars.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mettamage 5y ago
  Having watched Zuckerberg’s keynote, I get the feeling he wants to feel excited again by building something new. Maintenance is a bit thankless and boring. That’s the vibe that I got.
  - xwdv 5y ago
    There are worse things incredibly rich people could do to have fun. Why not just build a metaverse?
    - 8eye 5y ago
      right? or why can’t he just build some space stuff like the rest of the billionaires lol
PaulKeeble 5y ago
All we really need to collectively build up a metaverse is the HTML of VR, where experiences can be linked together. Web browsers can already launch 3D experiences in VR its just clunky and I switch it off because ads on some sites start VR for some reason. We already have quite a few 2D into VR desktops too and they work. Seamless transition and placement appears to be a bit lacking but it doesn't feel all that far away. The metaverse is the internet we just need a bit of linking it all together, one company building it top down isn't going to beat out the obvious open internet approach.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  I think there’s prior questions of what does interoperability actually add and why doesn’t it already exist? For example with the web the interoperability is really between the browser and websites rather than between websites. Although a few do interoperate. This is more similar to how Roblox or Steam works where one program lets you join lots of different games and maintains some common state than common ideas of interoperability in the metaverse.
  - TheColorYellow 5y ago
    Interesting question, but doesn't a "metaverse" require interoperable applications to some extent? I think the Zuck use case was buying a t-shirt for a virtual avatar and I want to use that t-shirt in other applications. There is a matter of interoperability required at the level of the data that sits behind both applications as it pertains to the user that sits on the other side of those applications. (meaning just sharing data isn't enough, there is user level context as well). And if you reduce interoperability to a single entity owned platform (like Steam), well other platforms will exist and the interoperability problem will be recreated.
    - meheleventyone 5y ago
      I don’t think it’s axiomatic that the metaverse needs interoperability of t-shirts. What I’m asking for is arguments for why that is the case and given that the current Internet is basically a metaverse sans interoperability why we haven’t seen it done yet. It’s not really a technical hurdle IMO.
rvz 5y ago
> In the end, the metaverse will be the internet, but mostly experienced through the medium of VR/AR. Depends on who gives the smart glasses it's 'killer app' and the ecosystem it needs to take off and who ever executes that properly, will win. The games are going to come first. Probably will come from either Meta, Apple, Google or Microsoft. Most likely from Meta with the support of the Web and PWA's first. > In the meantime, all we can do is make sure that Facebook’s cut of VR social networks stays as small as possible. I don't see anything out there right now to counter what Meta is about to do, unless Mastodon or something else is planning to persuade the masses to not make money on the metaverse and stay on the fediverse. Either way, this decade is going to introduce the smart glasses and it will come from Big Tech again as it did with smartwatches. Sorry.
- chaosite 5y ago
  Smartwatches aren't new in the same way smartglasses will be new. Watches weren't new, calculator watches were introduced almost half a century ago, the concept had a ton of time to mature. A HUD/AR capable smartglasses will be an entirely new concept that has so far failed spectacularly every time it has been tried. Not saying it won't happen, just that it'll need a lot more time to mature as a consumer product than smartwatches did -- there's a lot more to it than waiting until the technology is capable.
  - rvz 5y ago
    < Smartwatches aren't new in the same way smartglasses will be new. My whole point is about execution, rather than something being 'new'. It's not about being first or introducing something 'entirely' new, it's about the overall execution of the concept which then leads to mass adoption and who ever does that properly with a 'killer app' and ecosystem behind it, wins. Can you tell me who currently leads in the smartwatches market?
    - chaosite 5y ago
      AFAIK, the statistics still show Apple is in the lead, followed by Samsung and Huawei. In my personal bubble, Garmin smart/fitness watches are the most popular, followed by Xiaomi Mi Bands. I use a Suunto smartwatch I got as a gift.
robmccoll 5y ago
The thing about the internet as we interact with it today that makes it so pervasive is that it generally enhances real world experiences. It doesn't replace them. It fills in the gaps in down time. People whip out their phones to text or take a video or catch up on social media or share something because the interaction is fast and the interfaces are complementary and the right balance of distracting enough to draw your attention, but not distracting enough that you can't convince yourself that you are loosely aware of what's around you. AR might work, but VR outside of your home seems like a stretch.
rambambram 5y ago
I'm willing to take this further: The 'cloud' was already there, it used to be called the 'internet'.
- 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
  I don't think that's a very hot take around here. At least I don't think so. But here's what I have to say; "Serverless" is already here, it's called "servers".
  - baq 5y ago
    yeah. we used to call it 'cgi on shared hosting'. the true innovation in serverless is billing.
aaron695 5y ago
Part of the reason Ready Player Two tanked was people were no longer willing to put up with the fact OASIS was a shitty place no one would be spending any time in. Readers were willing to not think too hard for the first book because the nostalgia was cool. Second book you realise most people couldn't actually feel anything like touch in OASIS, what's the point, why were they all in there so much.
anyfactor 5y ago
Over-connectivity and singular authority over network - that is doing the internet Zuckerberg fashion.
EmilioMartinez 5y ago
"Welcome to our walled garden, please don't eat from the tree of knowledge"
74d-fe6-2c6 5y ago
> You log in with your VR headset, create your avatar (that can look like anything you want) and spend all your time in there because it’s so much better than your pathetic real life. All your time ... or rather until the skin on your face gets irritated due to weiring the headset with a microatmosphere within. Man, this must be a bummer returning to your dystopic shitty apartment. We already consider social media interaction as kin to regular drug consumption (stimulants I suppose) then that experience will be sort of a come down hang over. > The metaverse is already here, and it’s called the internet. I beg to differ - experiencing a virtual reality through a comfortable 3D head set is more immersive and exciting. > Mark Zuckerberg is touting open protocols and interoperability. "Open" probably just means that they will openly document their APIs.
talkingtab 5y ago
Error 42: not the metaverse, a metaverse. the intrusive advertising, click bait metaverse. funded by advertising and includes google, facebook, youtube etc. A pretty poor one, as it does great harm to the inhabitants. Intrusive advertising is based on being able to target specific people with messages (tracking). Different messages for different people. Gee, its almost like this mechanism might engender mistrust and divisiveness. Which in turn might fracture communities. And gee, one might even consider that foreign governments might use this as a weapon. Or potential dictators and other bad actors. Gee. The clickbait metaverse is only one of an infinite number of alternatives. Each metaverse has a set of rules for how the inhabitants operate. Wikipedia and craigslist come to mind as non-members of the clickbait metaverse. Other rules would - for example no tracking - would create other metaverses.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Computer people have been trapped in a Silicon Valley mindset for decades, thinking there are universal rules to human interactions (namely game theory). You're spot on that many different universes/cultures are possible, and desirable. We need a radical alternative to this shithole that Nation States and corporations have designed for us, or our children won't even have clear air or water left because we will have polluted everything, and for what?
novalis78 5y ago
We should talk more about that ‘crappy life’ outside the virtual world. China reduces kids computer gaming sessions and invests in actually improving living conditions. Facebook’s ad sponsored empire turns productive members of society into zombies amidst a crumbling infrastructure. There surely is room for VR and AR in improving aspects of life but Mark’s vision has a taste of dystopia.
- scotty79 5y ago
  The only thing China can reduce is online gaming. A reduction that will cause the kids to have less opportunity to connect with others, make friends, learn to cooperate, learn to trust people, learn to protect their identity and learn what to do when the trust is betrayed. You know, the things that might come in handy in 20 years in toppling oppressive regime. Meanwhile taking Chinese kids out of global shared culture that is increasingly more interconnected, virtual and gaming related so they only trust and feel at home when they are fed familiar government messaging. But I'm sure goal of Chinese government is strictly improvement of peoples conditions.
- lizkm 5y ago
  As if China does not resemble a mass-surveillance state dystopia already? I'm not sure "improving living conditions" in a country where The Party dictates every aspect of life is something to aspire to.
hooby 5y ago
I think what is sorely missing from the entire debate, is a clear definition of what a metaverse actually is. This article here seems to believe that the metaverse is nothing but "internet VR". The talk by Carmack for the most part equates the metaverse with MMVR - massively multiuser virtual reality. But according to the explanation that Raph Koster (the mind behing metaplace - the only prior attempt at ever building a metaverse) recently posted at the Playable Worlds homepage, what Facebook is trying to do, is building a mirror world - which is just one world out of many in a multiverse, which in itself is just one small part of the metaverse... All that enthusiastic talk about "it's the future!" isn't helping either - if anything that muddies the waters even more. Right now, we are on the best track of turning "metaverse" into a completely meaningless marketing buzzword. Everyone uses the term, behaving as if it was totally clear and obvious what it meant - but nobody seems to be able to actually produce a clear and to the point explanation or definition. What actually is the metaverse?
- TheColorYellow 5y ago
  Let's just call it the digital ecosystem and leave it at that.
  - hooby 5y ago
    Well, in that case all the current debate is meaningless. Facebook already is a digital ecosystem company - they aren't changing anything at all.
    - TheColorYellow 5y ago
      In so many ways...isn't that exactly the truth? Today Facebook steals your time by locking your attention to their web page or mobile app. Tomorrow they do it by locking your attention to their VR headset or AR glasses. And each time, the whole Facebook ecosystem comes with you. This is exactly what they do and Meta is a natural extension that is betting in a cultural change as much as it is a continuation of everything Facebook is.
- netcan 5y ago
IAmGraydon 5y ago
This whole metaverse thing reminds me of VRML websites in the 90s. IIRC, VRML creations were even called “worlds”. My guess is that this attempt suffers the same fate and takes Facebook as a company down with it.
- 72deluxe 5y ago
  Yes I thought the same thing. We can only hope Facebook does go down the pan with it as it appears to be a cesspit of self-serving self-obsessed commercialism - kind of like a microcosm of the Internet actually..... Sad.
netcan 5y ago
Zuck is a pretty uninspiring orator, with a tendency to use flat metaphors and bland platitudes. He's also not much of a creative visionary. His version of what "metaverse" will be has Jetsons sort of logic. You get up, have some virtual toast and commute in a virtual car to a virtual office, then go home and feed your virtual pet. ... I'm exaggerating, but you get my meaning. JC, is, in contrast, quite inspiring. Anyway, Zuck's easy to make fun of. Easy to underestimate too. Back in the 90s, it was thought to have been proven that an AOL-like attempt to top-down control the WWW was doomed to failure. An open web was too powerful. Well... that was before Zuck. In many countries, FB-only internet is free and that means FB-only internet is the internet for like a billion people. Meanwhile, lots of unsophisticated users who's first and only device is a smartphone are mostly just FB users. He defied conventional wisdom, made FB a walled garden. Zuck really did "do AOL." Meanwhile, the IG & WA acquisitions are strategically flawless in retrospect. With his tactical skills in the early days, Zuck's managed to keep more shares and control over FB than other CEOs. He may not have style and he's not quite hip, but Zuck is effective in his strategies. I'd like to believe Carmack is right and Zucks' lame, top-down VR metaverse is doomed... pun intended. But I also recall that Zuck bought John out, and he's the boss. That may not be coincidence.
- mmffrrss 5y ago
  Although Zuck is easy to mock about this move proves courage for a company as big as Fb. In the end, zuck understands that the risk of not changing is much greater than the risk of staying the same. Technology is unstoppable
  - philjohn 5y ago
    Much like Microsoft's misstep in not taking the internet seriously in the 90's, and not taking smartphones seriously in the 2000's.
    - gjvc 5y ago
      Perhaps they thought they could deal with it in their own time. Instead, the world marched on.
TheColorYellow 5y ago
Something sorely missing from the conversation is the infrastructure piece of all of this. It's much sexier to talk about VR experiences or whatever digital activity resonates with you, but none of this works without the infrastructure to connect, share, and engage across individual experiences. I was (and reluctantly remain) so excited for cryptocurrency and blockchain networks because of this aspect. Broad open networks interoperable at a data level seemed like exactly what is needed to create more dynamic interconnected digital systems. To some extent this is what is happening in the background. But the obsession with individual experiences, in crypto it is thr scam coins or ridiculous yield products, dominates the conversation. I think this has greatly derailed the other conversations. Now I worry that we're left with the only other reasonable answer. Facebook builds this infrastructure as their platform and the market ignores all the problems and flocks to it. Doesn't seem like there are many entities in between these two places that are working on a more robust, and healthy, "metaverse".
lifeisstillgood 5y ago
I'm on the side of "this is a new interesting platform and worth exploring" I am determined to try and set up a coding environment in one. I get the feeling it will transform the "laptop experience". But hours drooling in the corner. No. My son spends waaay too much time online gaming, it does so alsost exclusively with a roster of friends - chatting laughing organising new lands or strategies. It's not my grandfathers way to socialise. But it is socialising. And we parents occasionally use the internet to co-ordinate chucking them into the outdoors to basically talk about the game they would be playing if their parents weren't so awful :-) I am beginning to think of parenting in the web age as managing in the remote working era. You cannot rely on just being in same room / house as kids as some metric - we need to decide what are the activities we want to see, what are the outcomes (hours spent laughing, maths problems solved, time spent bullshitting with friends)
axismundi 5y ago
How come that the same company that ruined countless people's mental health announces that they want to completely immerse mankind in an alternative reality and take over human senses in a much more potent way, yet the most discussed aspect of it seems to be whether it's possible, and what problems need to be solved in order to make it happen. Let's about devastating mental health problems that this will cause. To me it's obvious that they will majorly fuck up human perception of reality like they did with social interactions. Oh, and what do you think which age groups will be mostly drawn to it?
amelius 5y ago
Better to keep the metaverse in its own alternate reality with this piece of code. if(user_agent.includes("facebookexternalhit")) { alert("Stay in your own metaverse!"); redirect_to("www.facebook.com"); }
rexreed 5y ago
No one has answered the question yet as to why this will succeed where Second Life failed. Is it the power of market coercion and the ad revenue stream?
LinuxBender 5y ago
Instead of Metaverse can we call it "Adverse" as in "Ad"-verse. You know there will be ads super-imposed on objects everywhere. Some obvious, some subliminal. It will be small at first until investors realize the potential benefits and then you will need some advanced AI/ML ad-blocker to virtually remove all the ads and that will be yet another artificial multi-billion dollar industry. AR/VR ad removal. This was depicted in a scene from Altered Carbon where officer Ortega had to put a physical ad-blocking patch on Kovacs neck to block the insane ads. I predict AR will eventually be outlawed in vehicle use when enough distracting ads cause car accidents. Will people draw the line at ads being super-imposed on their families faces? Will ads below the neck be permitted or will consenting adults opt-in to full body ads?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
peterashwell 5y ago
FB execs aren't stupid. This is not about the metaverse, it is about deflecting from bad press and ill will into mockery about this aloof nonsense. A few weeks or months ago you probably noticed your sentiment towards facebook turn pretty negative. Just thinking about the company as dorky instead helps their bottom line. We all know this project isn't going anywhere, including maybe everyone but zuck. The more noise about this lame ass project instead of how fb is ruining society, the better for them.
- istorical 5y ago
  Do you realize that Facebook Connect is a yearly event that was scheduled long before any of the latest FB outrage news stories?
  - peterashwell 5y ago
    Negative sentiment has been accumulating against the company for a long while, rebrand is a good strategy
    - smaryjerry 5y ago
      It’s smart, the same way Google made alphabet. The rebrand of the name is not the point at all, it’s the fact they want to avoid the appearance of monopoly like power and all the regulation that comes with it. Having separate companies that aren’t under you primary brand name essentially gives the illusion of less dominance by that brand and makes it easy to split off should the government require them to be split at some point. Just saying Facebook now controls devices with cameras in your home is worrying - versus saying, Facebooks parent company owns another company that controls cameras in your home makes people feel the illusion that power is not too centralized by Facebook.
account-5 5y ago
Sometimes I dispare! Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, <insert-other-multinational-big-US-company>, all seem to be a threat to the open internet they themselves used to become what they are. Obviously MS and Apple were big prior but they did use the internet to become bigger and are a threat with their respective walled gardens. I am not here to pretend I know anything about whatever the metaverse is, but I do know one thing if it's controlled by any of these companies it's gonna be bad for the people using it.
hikerclimber1 5y ago
I agree.
Im_your_dada 5y ago
Facebook should try first and fix their horrible advertising platform that their users cant figure out basics before they try to jump in any into sort of VR world. Elon wants to go to Mars while earth needs fixing more than ever. Electricity poles that power pretty much all devices across US are rotten. Roads have potholes deeper than cavities. Average IQ is declining back to chimpanzee levels. I think we are already in cluelessverse of nothing productive but just hope and dreams or lot of zeros and ones. 010101101110001 = just bytes.

261 points by shafyy 5y ago

It's called MMOs and VRChat. Especially WoW in the 2000s were more metaverse than anything will come from Facebook.

How do we describe the "meta" phenomnom anymore, we need a new word for "meta" and I've been struggling but can't figure it out. What replaces the word "meta" if someone takes it, "gist"!?

cblconfederate 5y ago
Nothing. Meta is meta. Facebook can go find another name, they dont own language or the internet. Metaface or metabook sound good, they are free to steal them from me.
meheleventyone 5y ago
I like ambi in its meaning of around and less seriously I can pretend that ambiverse means I’m ambivalent about your ‘verse.
j245 5y ago
Interesting question - What replaced the word Apple ?
- playpause 5y ago
  That’s different. “Apple” is a very common everyday word, plus it’s arbitrary as a tech company name so the two are never confused in any reasonable context. “Meta” is a niche but useful word used in intellectual discussions, and Meta’s usage of it is relevant to its meaning. This means “meta” is far more under threat from Meta than “apple” was from Apple, because whenever someone describes something as “meta” in an ambiguous context (where they might be referring to the company or the concept), there will be a need for a little flow-interrupting clarification, and then people will just learn to use the word less (and thus the concept), because inconvenience is inconvenient. It’s easy to dismiss concerns like this with “well another word will just appear in its place” but linguistic history will disagree with you. Sometimes we just lose things, and it’s sad.
  - j245 5y ago
    okay - so you’re concerned there is a high chance of collisions in this case as apposed to companies like Stripe, Amazon and Oracle where there is less scope for confusion. > Meta’s usage of it is relevant to its meaning. Is it though ? - I thought Meta the name is just a shorthand for Metaverse, so the confusion is bounded to discussions on that topic. Maybe I’m unable to see the issue. Can you give an example where this overloaded word will cause confusion ? We definitely need to have a conversation about the pro’s and con’s of various things associated with Meta and the metaverse. This name collision thing just feels like a non issue to me.
    - playpause 5y ago
      I agree it’s not the most important issue regarding Meta, and I don’t think there’s anything useful that can be done about it now anyway, I just reject the outright dismissal of it as a complete non-issue. Yes, the company name Meta is relevant to the actual meaning of the prefix “meta-“, as in metaverse, a word coined in 90s sci-fi as a contraction of “meta-universe”, meaning a universe that is not the universe but is “beyond” or “about” it, which is a very reasonable use of the prefix when applied to a virtual world, in line with other uses like metadata (extra data that isn’t “the” data but is “about” it).
the-dude 5y ago
Simulacrum?

q4Zar 5y ago

I'm a software developer and i pass literraly 80% of my time working to make my family survive to this world, and honestly the only thing that i have in mind it's to flippin go in the forest for a walk, i don't understand the thing of wanting so much to be isolated and wear a fucking VR mask, this world is fucked up !

thr0w72594 5y ago
I agree with you completely. It actually makes me angry that corporations will seemingly stop at nothing to rape the Earth for their own profit and control. They want to replace everything natural and beautiful with a cheap simulacrum, and hope that the SSRIs and porn keep the population complacent while they take everything away from them.
robmccoll 5y ago
Yeah as a trail runner and technologist, I enjoy VR but I'm not sure anything could replace the sights, smells, and feeling of going on a run through the woods. Similarly I think there is room for both VR-sports (and e-sports) and traditional IRL athletics. One doesn't replace the other, but the skills, strategy, physical performance and endurance are very different to watch and to experience (each great/ fascinating in their own way).
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Physical and virtual sports are similar in most regards, except when it comes to environmental impact. Taking a walk/swim in nature does little to no damage to your environment, unless you make it a big competition. In comparison, any computerized activity will require tons of resources (and related industrial pollution) and slave labor to produce the hardware you're using, and more energy/resources to power the device. I'm not against video games, but do we need more hardware? Our hardware is extremely powerful already (though games are rarely optimized in any way) and as much as i can see human progress via Internet connectivity, i don't see any "usefulness" for VR technology: it seems to me that apart from requiring more hardware and potentially fueling gaming addictions and social isolation, there is little to no value proposition compared to Second Life and other software we've had for decades.

loloquwowndueo 5y ago

I was going to come in and rant that Internet in this context should be capitalized as it’s the specific Internet and not the general concept of an internet, but then I found https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_of_Internet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_of_Internet. Lol.

bsenftner 5y ago

And a 720 degree fully immersive virtual reality has successfully existed in human society for thousands of years. It is called the written word, and in story form is 100% successful transporting an individual anywhere, realistically, and fully immersive. The Metaverse is simply an immature projection of what some early thinkers imagined, and whatever the Internet becomes it is not going to be that stupid commercial fantasy.

meheleventyone 5y ago

I thought the juxtaposition between the cringey, overproduced keynote and Carmack’s talk was amazing. Just a guy in front of some monitors telling you the whole thing you just watched was nonsense. It was beautiful.

shafyy 5y ago
I know, right! I just love how Carmack delivered the line: "... But Mark Zuckerberg decided it's time to build the metaverse..." Edit: Here's Carmack's keynote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnSUk0je6oo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnSUk0je6oo
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  Thanks, Carmack's video looks a lot more human than the other one with blond Mr. Data pretending to talk to photorealistic avatars.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mettamage 5y ago
Having watched Zuckerberg’s keynote, I get the feeling he wants to feel excited again by building something new. Maintenance is a bit thankless and boring. That’s the vibe that I got.
- xwdv 5y ago
  There are worse things incredibly rich people could do to have fun. Why not just build a metaverse?
  - 8eye 5y ago
    right? or why can’t he just build some space stuff like the rest of the billionaires lol

PaulKeeble 5y ago

All we really need to collectively build up a metaverse is the HTML of VR, where experiences can be linked together. Web browsers can already launch 3D experiences in VR its just clunky and I switch it off because ads on some sites start VR for some reason. We already have quite a few 2D into VR desktops too and they work. Seamless transition and placement appears to be a bit lacking but it doesn't feel all that far away. The metaverse is the internet we just need a bit of linking it all together, one company building it top down isn't going to beat out the obvious open internet approach.

meheleventyone 5y ago
I think there’s prior questions of what does interoperability actually add and why doesn’t it already exist? For example with the web the interoperability is really between the browser and websites rather than between websites. Although a few do interoperate. This is more similar to how Roblox or Steam works where one program lets you join lots of different games and maintains some common state than common ideas of interoperability in the metaverse.
- TheColorYellow 5y ago
  Interesting question, but doesn't a "metaverse" require interoperable applications to some extent? I think the Zuck use case was buying a t-shirt for a virtual avatar and I want to use that t-shirt in other applications. There is a matter of interoperability required at the level of the data that sits behind both applications as it pertains to the user that sits on the other side of those applications. (meaning just sharing data isn't enough, there is user level context as well). And if you reduce interoperability to a single entity owned platform (like Steam), well other platforms will exist and the interoperability problem will be recreated.
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    I don’t think it’s axiomatic that the metaverse needs interoperability of t-shirts. What I’m asking for is arguments for why that is the case and given that the current Internet is basically a metaverse sans interoperability why we haven’t seen it done yet. It’s not really a technical hurdle IMO.

rvz 5y ago

> In the end, the metaverse will be the internet, but mostly experienced through the medium of VR/AR. Depends on who gives the smart glasses it's 'killer app' and the ecosystem it needs to take off and who ever executes that properly, will win. The games are going to come first. Probably will come from either Meta, Apple, Google or Microsoft. Most likely from Meta with the support of the Web and PWA's first. > In the meantime, all we can do is make sure that Facebook’s cut of VR social networks stays as small as possible. I don't see anything out there right now to counter what Meta is about to do, unless Mastodon or something else is planning to persuade the masses to not make money on the metaverse and stay on the fediverse. Either way, this decade is going to introduce the smart glasses and it will come from Big Tech again as it did with smartwatches. Sorry.

chaosite 5y ago
Smartwatches aren't new in the same way smartglasses will be new. Watches weren't new, calculator watches were introduced almost half a century ago, the concept had a ton of time to mature. A HUD/AR capable smartglasses will be an entirely new concept that has so far failed spectacularly every time it has been tried. Not saying it won't happen, just that it'll need a lot more time to mature as a consumer product than smartwatches did -- there's a lot more to it than waiting until the technology is capable.
- rvz 5y ago
  < Smartwatches aren't new in the same way smartglasses will be new. My whole point is about execution, rather than something being 'new'. It's not about being first or introducing something 'entirely' new, it's about the overall execution of the concept which then leads to mass adoption and who ever does that properly with a 'killer app' and ecosystem behind it, wins. Can you tell me who currently leads in the smartwatches market?
  - chaosite 5y ago
    AFAIK, the statistics still show Apple is in the lead, followed by Samsung and Huawei. In my personal bubble, Garmin smart/fitness watches are the most popular, followed by Xiaomi Mi Bands. I use a Suunto smartwatch I got as a gift.

robmccoll 5y ago

The thing about the internet as we interact with it today that makes it so pervasive is that it generally enhances real world experiences. It doesn't replace them. It fills in the gaps in down time. People whip out their phones to text or take a video or catch up on social media or share something because the interaction is fast and the interfaces are complementary and the right balance of distracting enough to draw your attention, but not distracting enough that you can't convince yourself that you are loosely aware of what's around you. AR might work, but VR outside of your home seems like a stretch.

rambambram 5y ago

I'm willing to take this further: The 'cloud' was already there, it used to be called the 'internet'.

0xdeadb00f 5y ago
I don't think that's a very hot take around here. At least I don't think so. But here's what I have to say; "Serverless" is already here, it's called "servers".
- baq 5y ago
  yeah. we used to call it 'cgi on shared hosting'. the true innovation in serverless is billing.

aaron695 5y ago

Part of the reason Ready Player Two tanked was people were no longer willing to put up with the fact OASIS was a shitty place no one would be spending any time in. Readers were willing to not think too hard for the first book because the nostalgia was cool. Second book you realise most people couldn't actually feel anything like touch in OASIS, what's the point, why were they all in there so much.

anyfactor 5y ago

Over-connectivity and singular authority over network - that is doing the internet Zuckerberg fashion.

EmilioMartinez 5y ago

"Welcome to our walled garden, please don't eat from the tree of knowledge"

74d-fe6-2c6 5y ago

> You log in with your VR headset, create your avatar (that can look like anything you want) and spend all your time in there because it’s so much better than your pathetic real life. All your time ... or rather until the skin on your face gets irritated due to weiring the headset with a microatmosphere within. Man, this must be a bummer returning to your dystopic shitty apartment. We already consider social media interaction as kin to regular drug consumption (stimulants I suppose) then that experience will be sort of a come down hang over. > The metaverse is already here, and it’s called the internet. I beg to differ - experiencing a virtual reality through a comfortable 3D head set is more immersive and exciting. > Mark Zuckerberg is touting open protocols and interoperability. "Open" probably just means that they will openly document their APIs.

talkingtab 5y ago

Error 42: not the metaverse, a metaverse. the intrusive advertising, click bait metaverse. funded by advertising and includes google, facebook, youtube etc. A pretty poor one, as it does great harm to the inhabitants. Intrusive advertising is based on being able to target specific people with messages (tracking). Different messages for different people. Gee, its almost like this mechanism might engender mistrust and divisiveness. Which in turn might fracture communities. And gee, one might even consider that foreign governments might use this as a weapon. Or potential dictators and other bad actors. Gee. The clickbait metaverse is only one of an infinite number of alternatives. Each metaverse has a set of rules for how the inhabitants operate. Wikipedia and craigslist come to mind as non-members of the clickbait metaverse. Other rules would - for example no tracking - would create other metaverses.

southerntofu 5y ago
Computer people have been trapped in a Silicon Valley mindset for decades, thinking there are universal rules to human interactions (namely game theory). You're spot on that many different universes/cultures are possible, and desirable. We need a radical alternative to this shithole that Nation States and corporations have designed for us, or our children won't even have clear air or water left because we will have polluted everything, and for what?

novalis78 5y ago

We should talk more about that ‘crappy life’ outside the virtual world. China reduces kids computer gaming sessions and invests in actually improving living conditions. Facebook’s ad sponsored empire turns productive members of society into zombies amidst a crumbling infrastructure. There surely is room for VR and AR in improving aspects of life but Mark’s vision has a taste of dystopia.

scotty79 5y ago
The only thing China can reduce is online gaming. A reduction that will cause the kids to have less opportunity to connect with others, make friends, learn to cooperate, learn to trust people, learn to protect their identity and learn what to do when the trust is betrayed. You know, the things that might come in handy in 20 years in toppling oppressive regime. Meanwhile taking Chinese kids out of global shared culture that is increasingly more interconnected, virtual and gaming related so they only trust and feel at home when they are fed familiar government messaging. But I'm sure goal of Chinese government is strictly improvement of peoples conditions.
lizkm 5y ago
As if China does not resemble a mass-surveillance state dystopia already? I'm not sure "improving living conditions" in a country where The Party dictates every aspect of life is something to aspire to.

hooby 5y ago

I think what is sorely missing from the entire debate, is a clear definition of what a metaverse actually is. This article here seems to believe that the metaverse is nothing but "internet VR". The talk by Carmack for the most part equates the metaverse with MMVR - massively multiuser virtual reality. But according to the explanation that Raph Koster (the mind behing metaplace - the only prior attempt at ever building a metaverse) recently posted at the Playable Worlds homepage, what Facebook is trying to do, is building a mirror world - which is just one world out of many in a multiverse, which in itself is just one small part of the metaverse... All that enthusiastic talk about "it's the future!" isn't helping either - if anything that muddies the waters even more. Right now, we are on the best track of turning "metaverse" into a completely meaningless marketing buzzword. Everyone uses the term, behaving as if it was totally clear and obvious what it meant - but nobody seems to be able to actually produce a clear and to the point explanation or definition. What actually is the metaverse?

TheColorYellow 5y ago
Let's just call it the digital ecosystem and leave it at that.
- hooby 5y ago
  Well, in that case all the current debate is meaningless. Facebook already is a digital ecosystem company - they aren't changing anything at all.
  - TheColorYellow 5y ago
    In so many ways...isn't that exactly the truth? Today Facebook steals your time by locking your attention to their web page or mobile app. Tomorrow they do it by locking your attention to their VR headset or AR glasses. And each time, the whole Facebook ecosystem comes with you. This is exactly what they do and Meta is a natural extension that is betting in a cultural change as much as it is a continuation of everything Facebook is.
netcan 5y ago

IAmGraydon 5y ago

This whole metaverse thing reminds me of VRML websites in the 90s. IIRC, VRML creations were even called “worlds”. My guess is that this attempt suffers the same fate and takes Facebook as a company down with it.

72deluxe 5y ago
Yes I thought the same thing. We can only hope Facebook does go down the pan with it as it appears to be a cesspit of self-serving self-obsessed commercialism - kind of like a microcosm of the Internet actually..... Sad.

netcan 5y ago

Zuck is a pretty uninspiring orator, with a tendency to use flat metaphors and bland platitudes. He's also not much of a creative visionary. His version of what "metaverse" will be has Jetsons sort of logic. You get up, have some virtual toast and commute in a virtual car to a virtual office, then go home and feed your virtual pet. ... I'm exaggerating, but you get my meaning. JC, is, in contrast, quite inspiring. Anyway, Zuck's easy to make fun of. Easy to underestimate too. Back in the 90s, it was thought to have been proven that an AOL-like attempt to top-down control the WWW was doomed to failure. An open web was too powerful. Well... that was before Zuck. In many countries, FB-only internet is free and that means FB-only internet is the internet for like a billion people. Meanwhile, lots of unsophisticated users who's first and only device is a smartphone are mostly just FB users. He defied conventional wisdom, made FB a walled garden. Zuck really did "do AOL." Meanwhile, the IG & WA acquisitions are strategically flawless in retrospect. With his tactical skills in the early days, Zuck's managed to keep more shares and control over FB than other CEOs. He may not have style and he's not quite hip, but Zuck is effective in his strategies. I'd like to believe Carmack is right and Zucks' lame, top-down VR metaverse is doomed... pun intended. But I also recall that Zuck bought John out, and he's the boss. That may not be coincidence.

mmffrrss 5y ago
Although Zuck is easy to mock about this move proves courage for a company as big as Fb. In the end, zuck understands that the risk of not changing is much greater than the risk of staying the same. Technology is unstoppable
- philjohn 5y ago
  Much like Microsoft's misstep in not taking the internet seriously in the 90's, and not taking smartphones seriously in the 2000's.
  - gjvc 5y ago
    Perhaps they thought they could deal with it in their own time. Instead, the world marched on.

TheColorYellow 5y ago

Something sorely missing from the conversation is the infrastructure piece of all of this. It's much sexier to talk about VR experiences or whatever digital activity resonates with you, but none of this works without the infrastructure to connect, share, and engage across individual experiences. I was (and reluctantly remain) so excited for cryptocurrency and blockchain networks because of this aspect. Broad open networks interoperable at a data level seemed like exactly what is needed to create more dynamic interconnected digital systems. To some extent this is what is happening in the background. But the obsession with individual experiences, in crypto it is thr scam coins or ridiculous yield products, dominates the conversation. I think this has greatly derailed the other conversations. Now I worry that we're left with the only other reasonable answer. Facebook builds this infrastructure as their platform and the market ignores all the problems and flocks to it. Doesn't seem like there are many entities in between these two places that are working on a more robust, and healthy, "metaverse".

lifeisstillgood 5y ago

I'm on the side of "this is a new interesting platform and worth exploring" I am determined to try and set up a coding environment in one. I get the feeling it will transform the "laptop experience". But hours drooling in the corner. No. My son spends waaay too much time online gaming, it does so alsost exclusively with a roster of friends - chatting laughing organising new lands or strategies. It's not my grandfathers way to socialise. But it is socialising. And we parents occasionally use the internet to co-ordinate chucking them into the outdoors to basically talk about the game they would be playing if their parents weren't so awful :-) I am beginning to think of parenting in the web age as managing in the remote working era. You cannot rely on just being in same room / house as kids as some metric - we need to decide what are the activities we want to see, what are the outcomes (hours spent laughing, maths problems solved, time spent bullshitting with friends)

axismundi 5y ago

How come that the same company that ruined countless people's mental health announces that they want to completely immerse mankind in an alternative reality and take over human senses in a much more potent way, yet the most discussed aspect of it seems to be whether it's possible, and what problems need to be solved in order to make it happen. Let's about devastating mental health problems that this will cause. To me it's obvious that they will majorly fuck up human perception of reality like they did with social interactions. Oh, and what do you think which age groups will be mostly drawn to it?

amelius 5y ago

Better to keep the metaverse in its own alternate reality with this piece of code. if(user_agent.includes("facebookexternalhit")) { alert("Stay in your own metaverse!"); redirect_to("www.facebook.com"); }

rexreed 5y ago

No one has answered the question yet as to why this will succeed where Second Life failed. Is it the power of market coercion and the ad revenue stream?

LinuxBender 5y ago

Instead of Metaverse can we call it "Adverse" as in "Ad"-verse. You know there will be ads super-imposed on objects everywhere. Some obvious, some subliminal. It will be small at first until investors realize the potential benefits and then you will need some advanced AI/ML ad-blocker to virtually remove all the ads and that will be yet another artificial multi-billion dollar industry. AR/VR ad removal. This was depicted in a scene from Altered Carbon where officer Ortega had to put a physical ad-blocking patch on Kovacs neck to block the insane ads. I predict AR will eventually be outlawed in vehicle use when enough distracting ads cause car accidents. Will people draw the line at ads being super-imposed on their families faces? Will ads below the neck be permitted or will consenting adults opt-in to full body ads?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

peterashwell 5y ago

FB execs aren't stupid. This is not about the metaverse, it is about deflecting from bad press and ill will into mockery about this aloof nonsense. A few weeks or months ago you probably noticed your sentiment towards facebook turn pretty negative. Just thinking about the company as dorky instead helps their bottom line. We all know this project isn't going anywhere, including maybe everyone but zuck. The more noise about this lame ass project instead of how fb is ruining society, the better for them.

istorical 5y ago
Do you realize that Facebook Connect is a yearly event that was scheduled long before any of the latest FB outrage news stories?
- peterashwell 5y ago
  Negative sentiment has been accumulating against the company for a long while, rebrand is a good strategy
  - smaryjerry 5y ago
    It’s smart, the same way Google made alphabet. The rebrand of the name is not the point at all, it’s the fact they want to avoid the appearance of monopoly like power and all the regulation that comes with it. Having separate companies that aren’t under you primary brand name essentially gives the illusion of less dominance by that brand and makes it easy to split off should the government require them to be split at some point. Just saying Facebook now controls devices with cameras in your home is worrying - versus saying, Facebooks parent company owns another company that controls cameras in your home makes people feel the illusion that power is not too centralized by Facebook.

account-5 5y ago

Sometimes I dispare! Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, <insert-other-multinational-big-US-company>, all seem to be a threat to the open internet they themselves used to become what they are. Obviously MS and Apple were big prior but they did use the internet to become bigger and are a threat with their respective walled gardens. I am not here to pretend I know anything about whatever the metaverse is, but I do know one thing if it's controlled by any of these companies it's gonna be bad for the people using it.

hikerclimber1 5y ago

I agree.

Im_your_dada 5y ago

Facebook should try first and fix their horrible advertising platform that their users cant figure out basics before they try to jump in any into sort of VR world. Elon wants to go to Mars while earth needs fixing more than ever. Electricity poles that power pretty much all devices across US are rotten. Roads have potholes deeper than cavities. Average IQ is declining back to chimpanzee levels. I think we are already in cluelessverse of nothing productive but just hope and dreams or lot of zeros and ones. 010101101110001 = just bytes.