23 ms·

All of the discussion around the metaverse as if it's something we should take seriously has me baffled. It's an ill defined concept and the effort is being led

by suby 5y ago

All of the discussion around the metaverse as if it's something we should take seriously has me baffled. It's an ill defined concept and the effort is being led by a company that hardly anyone trusts or even likes. As far as I can tell it's the internet but in VR with an avatar. Or in other words it's the internet but with extra steps in the way of obtaining the information or completing the transaction, not to mention the increased hardware costs (VR headsets are expensive) and bandwidth costs associated with this superfluous fluff. I just don't understand how they aren't being laughed out of the room. This is fantasy level stuff and it's going to be an absolutely massive failure.

deltree7 5y ago
Yep, some people laugh at new ideas. They are also the same set of people who cry about Rich-getting-richer when they had the same set of opportunities as other new millionaires to invest in these laughable ideas.
- 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
  > new ideas Your post makes it sound like many new ideas succeed. This is certainly not the case, "new ideas" happen all the time, everywhere, spawned by both small and large companies and individuals. Most of them fail, and everyone wants to be "the new internet". > they had the same set of opportunities as other new millionaires This is not true for the majority of cases. If you take a look at millionaires and billionaires and their parents, most of them already started at what many would consider rich/wealthy (or very close to it). But the exceptions obviously make for better stories and headlines.
wiliaonson 5y ago
But, what if they're serious about it and other companies will try to join into the fray? You can't just assume that this is some kind of fantasy-level stuff.
an9n 5y ago
> it's going to be an absolutely massive failure. And if it's not, and like a smartphone it becomes a requirement for life in the modern world, this is the step where I say nope and go full Ted innawoods for good.
- c7DJTLrn 5y ago
  Can we share a cabin?
distrill 5y ago
Headsets today are not that expensive and they're getting cheaper.
- ghaff 5y ago
  And basically no one wants to wear them besides some hardcore games and other niches. Certainly not going to wear one for a business meeting.
  - MikusR 5y ago
    Basically no one has tried them.
  - sho_hn 5y ago
    This to me is one of the sticking points I've been wondering about: Are VR/HR headsets just inherently too uncomfortable for mass adoption, or will we be willing to put up with them? Surely this depends on a lot of societal/economic factors (i.e. a "you do it or don't eat" job market, say) and the evolution of the form factor (size/weight/quality/individual ergonomic options). Is it just a variant of "button-less on-screen keyboards?! we will never!" or is there something more fundamental? I'm curious about the state of the art of serious research on this, if anyone has some good links/references.
    - drusepth 5y ago
      >Surely this depends on a lot of societal/economic factors (i.e. a "you do it or don't eat" job market, say) and the evolution of the form factor (size/weight/quality/individual ergonomic options). I think the former is a way bigger factor than the latter, here. Even on the old first-gen HTC Vive, I was entirely comfortable "working" 8+ hour days wearing one (coding, painting, and sometimes gaming). They've also improved massively since then in weight, weight distribution, softness, and heat management. I'd say the biggest detractor is how they look (and some other smaller factors like not being able to feel "safe" cut off from your surroundings, but all major VR companies are working on that, too). However, how they look ends up not really mattering much if you're VRing from home, where no one can see you.
jayd16 5y ago
>VR headsets are expensive Quest2 is $299, so actually on the scale of a very cheap phone. Maybe some things are more tedious but some things are better. Ever more ubiquitous computing and contextual/spatial computing of AR is really interesting. You don't get it but others find AR/VR compelling and Microsoft and FB smell money. It's worth talking about why these large companies are spending the effort.
- Zababa 5y ago
  > Quest2 is $299, so actually on the scale of a very cheap phone. $299 is not a "very cheap" phone.
  - evilos 5y ago
    It's a matter of perspective. Surprisingly poor people will get on cell plans with $1500 iphones.
    - rnd0 5y ago
      Not any I know, and I am one myself. EDIT: while you're implying they have $1500 to put down on a phone what is much more likely is that a)They're gifted said phone b)They're buying a used one off of ebay, facebook marketplace or similar for much much less money c)They're using a "lifeline" phone that they've bought at a discount from their "lifeline" provider. In none of these cases -particularly if they're getting a government subsidy ("lifeline") is it likely that they're paying >$250/mo
  - entropie 5y ago
    I agree. A phone is also quite a staple for a long time now. Smartphones were so successful because they are basically better phones. A VR headset is something normal people are just not used to. I guess that will be that way for quite a bit time.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    Under $300 is the "budget" category of new phones.
btbuildem 5y ago
I think for a lot of people FB is just part of the landscape, like paved roads or baseball caps. Things are the way they are and people don't ask questions. People use FB for the network effect, and because it's the status quo, not because it's technologically amazing or morally correct. Most people just don't think about it. They've got a ton of money and billions of people more or less locked into their ecosystem. They're not being laughed out of the room because they've got a lot of what is considered a valuable resource today -- money and eyeballs / attention. In that way, they're a terrifying contender that will most likely win, even if them "winning" means creating a horrific reality for others.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  I saw a local Baptist church sign that said "Streaming Sat/Sun at Facebook.com/..." Never in my wildest 90s imagination would I have imagined any part of that coming to pass. PS: And as to the value of eyeballs & attention, why does everyone think Chrome is the most used web browser now? Don't laugh at Facebook's ability to push things.
  - Topgamer7 5y ago
    My very catholic mother has always been very picky about going to mass with Priests she enjoys. She enjoyed getting her pick via streaming during the lockdowns. Could attend mass from many different churches virtually.
- enos_feedler 5y ago
  I don't think they will most likely win just because they have eyeballs and attention. It's necessary but not sufficient. Take Marketplaces for example. It worked because facebook had the eyeballs and attention to seed the buyer and seller side of the marketplace. But it was also just a way better experience. I could post my used iphone in 30 seconds vs. 5 mins at my computer on craigslist. The thing with metaverse is that the use case hasn't even been proven yet. We knew people bought/sold used stuff on craigslist. And we know facebook's implementation was better. We don't know people want the metaverse, and we don't know whether facebooks implementation will be better. However, if both are true, they have the eyeballs and attention to grow and succeed with it.
HappySweeney 5y ago
At the very least, Facebook is/will be throwing a lot of money at the development of the metaverse, and people naturally want to be on the other side of those transactions. Also, many believe Zuck is some super genius and whatever he devotes the majority of his time to will be worth several billion dollars in short order.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  It's kinda true though... Oculus became a billions of dollars company almost overnight after Facebook acquired it. I don't like FBs business model regarding privacy but they sure have put VR on the map. It's entirely possible it would have fizzled out without their involvement. And this is really how the stock market works these days. It's more about belief and dreams than real-world financial results. If many people believe it's going to be big, it will be worth billions.
mavhc 5y ago
It's multiple things, it's cross platform 3d information, using your avatar from one platform in another etc. It's future AR and VR tech. It's placing things in the real world. But mostly it's a land grab to be the platform everyone else wants to integrate with, based on the assumption that AR glasses will exist in the future. Niantic's Lightship SDK is another attempt, be the platform everyone else builds their AR stuff on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
debaserab2 5y ago
The only people I see excited for "web3" (which I believe has become a blanket term for the metaverse, NFTs, and other crypto schemes) are those carving out real estate there for themselves in order to become future landlords.
- Andrex 5y ago
  Web 3.0 was already getting old ten years ago, I could have sworn we were on Web 4.0 or 5.0 by now...
  - SllX 5y ago
    I’ve been hearing Web 3 everywhere too. To be fair Web 3.0 never caught on and this is Web 3, not Web three point oh.
    - Andrex 5y ago
      Ah, so the "new hotness" is just a Web 3.x point-release. Gotcha. :P
      - SllX 5y ago
        Yep. At some point, maybe after the 4.x or 5.x releases, someone will get fed up with point releases and push for an aggressive release schedule on new Webs and incrementing the whole version number each time. I hope to be present at that meeting so I can deliver a swift Service Pack to his face.
        _carbyau_ 5y ago
        How about naming the releases after the year and month. So we can be in 21.11 release of the web now. New release due in 21 days...
- TigeriusKirk 5y ago
  If you're excited about web3, it's to be expected you'd be looking for ways jump on the opportunities you believe it presents.
Andrex 5y ago
The metaverse concept might make sense with perfect AR. Things like QR codes on posters being highlighted, "hologram" store mascots that everyone walking by can see with AR glasses, answering an "AR" phone call while still being able to see around you (and not having to hold your phone up to your face as in video calling - early versions of this could use iOS Memoji before consumer face-scanning tech gets good), virtual computer screens to do programming or other work *anywhere* without monitors (while still being able to respond to external stimuli), etc. Maybe you could even portray yourself as a custom avatar (instead of your actual body) to those with AR glasses. IMO an early prototype of the metaverse is already here: Ingress/Pokemon Go. These games don't use fantasy-land maps, they use the Earth and real-life locations. Data and user-interactions are layered on top of that. On the other hand, any kind of VR metaverse will likely be a poor-man's Second Life, just prettier and with far more restrictions. I'm sure there's a market for that, but it's not really civilization-defining.
- wffurr 5y ago
  Or you know Google Maps, Yelp, etc. Any kind of local search or data. But hardware has to come first. None of this is possible while we're still in the "magic window" step having to look through our phone screens.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  The AR part of ingress and Pokémon go is really just a gimmick IMO. Everyone turns it off after a while because it works simpler without it. The idea of integration with real places is ok but just a gameplay mechanic and not really a compelling or fun one I think. I think most of the popularity of Pokémon go comes from it being Pokémon. It's really just Ingress with some Pokémon skin and a mini-game slapped on. I think we shouldn't think of Niantic as a "leader" in the AR realm. What they're doing is not pushing the envelope. They're just exploring the fringe inside it.
  - Andrex 5y ago
    > The AR part of ingress and Pokémon go is really just a gimmick IMO. Everyone turns it off after a while because it works simpler without it. That isn't what I was referring to. Layering user interactions on real-life locations is more akin to the metaverse in my mind than any kind of VR derivative. Whether the game was fun or not is also irrelevant, the metaverse won't be a "game." I was also clear I was speaking of a hypothetical future with perfect AR.
Trias11 5y ago
Totally agree. To add: it's an orchestrated effort to distract people from realities of the world (including FB's own troubles). Nothing in this metanonsense helps people to be more productive in solving real world problems.
- jobigoud 5y ago
  > distract people from realities of the world And that's exactly what people want. Escape. Just like with games, movies, sports, arts, etc.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > Nothing in this metanonsense helps people to be more productive in solving real world problems. Unless you read the shared article where the author describes using this tech successfully to be more productive at work.
ALittleLight 5y ago
When I was a child I was in an "Odyssey of the Mind" group and in one competition we had to solve some problem and the plan my team came up with had a few steps, one of which was "Build a robot". We were all children and none of us had even the slightest idea of how to build a robot or any relevant technical experience or ability. But somehow, we never realized this deficit and came up with our plan and tried to execute it. It wasn't until we had destructively disassembled a power tool that one of us had access to, on the theory that we could use whatever motor was inside of that tool to drive our robot, that we realized we had no idea what we were doing nor any conception of how to build a robot. I had a feeling of amazement that sticks with me today that we were able to articulate our plan to solve the problem, which depended on our robot helping us with some sub-task, but were completely unaware of the fact that the robot was far beyond our ability to construct. Our plan was like something that might have worked in a cartoon but not in reality. That feeling comes back to me as a kind of "Build a robot" moment in cases like this. "In our virtual reality metaverse people will be able to attend concerts with one another and save the tickets as NFTs!" Okay, but what you have is a screen that you can strap to your face and is nothing like a virtual reality metaverse and you have no idea how to get there. Another way of thinking about it is taking the hardest part of the problem and hand waving it away to solve the easier parts and then forgetting that there is a big blank spot in your plan. It's easy and fun to think about all the stuff you can do in a compelling virtual reality metaverse, but you don't have one and aren't likely to get one any time too soon.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > In our virtual reality metaverse people will be able to attend concerts with one another and save the tickets as NFTs! I completely agree that this sort of marketing of metaverse entirely misses the reality of tech we have and expectations. I think its also a great analogy, and i had a similar experience when i myself did Odyssey of the mind :) Based on the article, however, it seems clear that we could be around the corner from real use-cases for this tech that are actually an improved experience. I think VR tech could def improve "mise en place" tech use, where a user is focused on accomplishing one goal at a set time and place using tech. This could even be as vague as "do my remote job".
- 5y ago
jonas21 5y ago
All of the discussion around the internet as if it's something we should take seriously has me baffled. It's an ill defined concept and the effort is being led by a government department that hardly anyone trusts or even likes. As far as I can tell it's the telephone but on a screen with a typewriter. Or in other words it's the telephone but with extra steps in the way of obtaining the information or completing the transaction, not to mention the increased hardware costs (screens are expensive) and wiring costs associated with this superfluous fluff. I just don't understand how they aren't being laughed out of the room. This is fantasy level stuff and it's going to be an absolutely massive failure. - People of the 80's
- lola-hart 5y ago
  Literally no one said that.
xook 5y ago
On one hand, I am of the laughing crowd. On the other, I have to wonder if there is something I (we?) are missing if these highly paid marketers and engineers are going after it. Surely it's not so shortsighted as to be about a few (<10) percent in investments? There has to be a longer term plan if not that. Maybe I am wrong. At the end of the day, I'm standing back, wondering which fire will blow out first.
- smugglerFlynn 5y ago
  Engineers and marketers are all steered into that direction by C-level visionaries who bet on a very high-risk / high-reward idea. This idea dials up all kinds of biases in people. For example, the article which started this thread criticizes Apple for moving into AR. This is despite AR being very feasible next step in having actual working tech applicable in real-life situations. Feasible and down to earth idea is being compared to a distant wild guess which has a high risk of never happening, yet somehow it loses this comparison. There is a certain irony people call this Web 3.0 all over again. Web 3.0 was originally envisioned by influencers as heavily relying on semantic web and anthologies[1]. Despite all the visions, 14 years ago few of these things actually happened. Could it be that people are just very bad at predicting the future? Could it be that we mis-invest into wild visions based on their popularity, instead of solving boring down to earth problems? “Ah shit, here we go again.” [1] http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/10/web-30-semantic-web-web-20.html http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/10/web-30-semantic-we...
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
>and the effort is being led by a company that hardly anyone trusts or even likes. This isn't true at all, Instagram and WhatsApp are hugely popular even with people who are anti-Facebook. The rebrand makes a lot more sense when you realize just how diverse their product offering is and many people very vocally against FB still use IG and WhatsApp.
domador 5y ago
"The eminent, on the other hand, are almost forced to work on a large scale. Instead of garden sheds they must design huge art museums. One reason they work on big things is that they can: like our hypothetical novelist, they're flattered by such opportunities. They also know that big projects will by their sheer bulk impress the audience. A garden shed, however lovely, would be easy to ignore; a few might even snicker at it. You can't snicker at a giant museum, no matter how much you dislike it. And finally, there are all those people the eminent have working for them; they have to choose projects that can keep them all busy." -- Paul Graham, "The Power of the Marginal"
yodsanklai 5y ago
> I just don't understand how they aren't being laughed out of the room. This is fantasy level stuff and it's going to be an absolutely massive failure I agree with your sentiment but there are many utterly ridiculous ideas that people take seriously, think NFTs for instance. From that perspective, the metaverse isn't that crazy. And something could get out of it even though it's not the original vision that you describe. And there are seemingly unreasonable ideas that become huge success. I didn't foresee the smartphone revolution (i thought we couldn't get a proper UI from a small device). I also thought youtube would be a failure. That being said, I wouldn't bet one penny on the metaverse.
meatverse 5y ago
The Meatverse is where the action is. It is estimated that by 2050, at least half of the world's population will be made of meat (mostly). Not only that - this has been true for as long as our species has been around. The Meatverse is high-bandwidth, high-definition, and high-protein. The Meatverse is the future.
idnefju 5y ago
Comfort is the big one. VR headsets are annoying to wear. This push just screams that Zuckerberg is trying to justify the Oculus acquisition.
- machiaweliczny 5y ago
  I think AR + new input device is ulimate game. VR is good test bed.
huksley 5y ago
I think VR and metaverse concept so interesting right now is because it is the next "post-social network" evolution. Content and information become less relevant, but "internet" social standing, appearance and "existence" [1] becomes more important. What's why NFTs are so popular right now. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence
marocan 5y ago
Yes because they want to package and sell to the public, a human harvesting farm, like in Matrix, where you get into a pod and you're harvested by Facebook. They strech it and bend it in so many ways in their attept to sound legit, that they stop making sense.
machiaweliczny 5y ago
You think Apple introduced low energy cpus for fun? I think they work on AR mixed reality glasses and in 10 years it will be standard. Carmack said that currently they are limited by thermals to make nice device.

by suby 5y ago

deltree7 5y ago

Yep, some people laugh at new ideas. They are also the same set of people who cry about Rich-getting-richer when they had the same set of opportunities as other new millionaires to invest in these laughable ideas.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
> new ideas Your post makes it sound like many new ideas succeed. This is certainly not the case, "new ideas" happen all the time, everywhere, spawned by both small and large companies and individuals. Most of them fail, and everyone wants to be "the new internet". > they had the same set of opportunities as other new millionaires This is not true for the majority of cases. If you take a look at millionaires and billionaires and their parents, most of them already started at what many would consider rich/wealthy (or very close to it). But the exceptions obviously make for better stories and headlines.

wiliaonson 5y ago

But, what if they're serious about it and other companies will try to join into the fray? You can't just assume that this is some kind of fantasy-level stuff.

an9n 5y ago

> it's going to be an absolutely massive failure. And if it's not, and like a smartphone it becomes a requirement for life in the modern world, this is the step where I say nope and go full Ted innawoods for good.

c7DJTLrn 5y ago
Can we share a cabin?

distrill 5y ago

Headsets today are not that expensive and they're getting cheaper.

ghaff 5y ago
And basically no one wants to wear them besides some hardcore games and other niches. Certainly not going to wear one for a business meeting.
- MikusR 5y ago
  Basically no one has tried them.
- sho_hn 5y ago
  This to me is one of the sticking points I've been wondering about: Are VR/HR headsets just inherently too uncomfortable for mass adoption, or will we be willing to put up with them? Surely this depends on a lot of societal/economic factors (i.e. a "you do it or don't eat" job market, say) and the evolution of the form factor (size/weight/quality/individual ergonomic options). Is it just a variant of "button-less on-screen keyboards?! we will never!" or is there something more fundamental? I'm curious about the state of the art of serious research on this, if anyone has some good links/references.
  - drusepth 5y ago
    >Surely this depends on a lot of societal/economic factors (i.e. a "you do it or don't eat" job market, say) and the evolution of the form factor (size/weight/quality/individual ergonomic options). I think the former is a way bigger factor than the latter, here. Even on the old first-gen HTC Vive, I was entirely comfortable "working" 8+ hour days wearing one (coding, painting, and sometimes gaming). They've also improved massively since then in weight, weight distribution, softness, and heat management. I'd say the biggest detractor is how they look (and some other smaller factors like not being able to feel "safe" cut off from your surroundings, but all major VR companies are working on that, too). However, how they look ends up not really mattering much if you're VRing from home, where no one can see you.

jayd16 5y ago

>VR headsets are expensive Quest2 is $299, so actually on the scale of a very cheap phone. Maybe some things are more tedious but some things are better. Ever more ubiquitous computing and contextual/spatial computing of AR is really interesting. You don't get it but others find AR/VR compelling and Microsoft and FB smell money. It's worth talking about why these large companies are spending the effort.

Zababa 5y ago
> Quest2 is $299, so actually on the scale of a very cheap phone. $299 is not a "very cheap" phone.
- evilos 5y ago
  It's a matter of perspective. Surprisingly poor people will get on cell plans with $1500 iphones.
  - rnd0 5y ago
    Not any I know, and I am one myself. EDIT: while you're implying they have $1500 to put down on a phone what is much more likely is that a)They're gifted said phone b)They're buying a used one off of ebay, facebook marketplace or similar for much much less money c)They're using a "lifeline" phone that they've bought at a discount from their "lifeline" provider. In none of these cases -particularly if they're getting a government subsidy ("lifeline") is it likely that they're paying >$250/mo
- entropie 5y ago
  I agree. A phone is also quite a staple for a long time now. Smartphones were so successful because they are basically better phones. A VR headset is something normal people are just not used to. I guess that will be that way for quite a bit time.
- Spivak 5y ago
  Under $300 is the "budget" category of new phones.

btbuildem 5y ago

I think for a lot of people FB is just part of the landscape, like paved roads or baseball caps. Things are the way they are and people don't ask questions. People use FB for the network effect, and because it's the status quo, not because it's technologically amazing or morally correct. Most people just don't think about it. They've got a ton of money and billions of people more or less locked into their ecosystem. They're not being laughed out of the room because they've got a lot of what is considered a valuable resource today -- money and eyeballs / attention. In that way, they're a terrifying contender that will most likely win, even if them "winning" means creating a horrific reality for others.

ethbr0 5y ago
I saw a local Baptist church sign that said "Streaming Sat/Sun at Facebook.com/..." Never in my wildest 90s imagination would I have imagined any part of that coming to pass. PS: And as to the value of eyeballs & attention, why does everyone think Chrome is the most used web browser now? Don't laugh at Facebook's ability to push things.
- Topgamer7 5y ago
  My very catholic mother has always been very picky about going to mass with Priests she enjoys. She enjoyed getting her pick via streaming during the lockdowns. Could attend mass from many different churches virtually.
enos_feedler 5y ago
I don't think they will most likely win just because they have eyeballs and attention. It's necessary but not sufficient. Take Marketplaces for example. It worked because facebook had the eyeballs and attention to seed the buyer and seller side of the marketplace. But it was also just a way better experience. I could post my used iphone in 30 seconds vs. 5 mins at my computer on craigslist. The thing with metaverse is that the use case hasn't even been proven yet. We knew people bought/sold used stuff on craigslist. And we know facebook's implementation was better. We don't know people want the metaverse, and we don't know whether facebooks implementation will be better. However, if both are true, they have the eyeballs and attention to grow and succeed with it.

HappySweeney 5y ago

At the very least, Facebook is/will be throwing a lot of money at the development of the metaverse, and people naturally want to be on the other side of those transactions. Also, many believe Zuck is some super genius and whatever he devotes the majority of his time to will be worth several billion dollars in short order.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
It's kinda true though... Oculus became a billions of dollars company almost overnight after Facebook acquired it. I don't like FBs business model regarding privacy but they sure have put VR on the map. It's entirely possible it would have fizzled out without their involvement. And this is really how the stock market works these days. It's more about belief and dreams than real-world financial results. If many people believe it's going to be big, it will be worth billions.

mavhc 5y ago

It's multiple things, it's cross platform 3d information, using your avatar from one platform in another etc. It's future AR and VR tech. It's placing things in the real world. But mostly it's a land grab to be the platform everyone else wants to integrate with, based on the assumption that AR glasses will exist in the future. Niantic's Lightship SDK is another attempt, be the platform everyone else builds their AR stuff on.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

debaserab2 5y ago

The only people I see excited for "web3" (which I believe has become a blanket term for the metaverse, NFTs, and other crypto schemes) are those carving out real estate there for themselves in order to become future landlords.

Andrex 5y ago
Web 3.0 was already getting old ten years ago, I could have sworn we were on Web 4.0 or 5.0 by now...
- SllX 5y ago
  I’ve been hearing Web 3 everywhere too. To be fair Web 3.0 never caught on and this is Web 3, not Web three point oh.
  - Andrex 5y ago
    Ah, so the "new hotness" is just a Web 3.x point-release. Gotcha. :P
    - SllX 5y ago
      Yep. At some point, maybe after the 4.x or 5.x releases, someone will get fed up with point releases and push for an aggressive release schedule on new Webs and incrementing the whole version number each time. I hope to be present at that meeting so I can deliver a swift Service Pack to his face.
      - _carbyau_ 5y ago
        How about naming the releases after the year and month. So we can be in 21.11 release of the web now. New release due in 21 days...
TigeriusKirk 5y ago
If you're excited about web3, it's to be expected you'd be looking for ways jump on the opportunities you believe it presents.

Andrex 5y ago

The metaverse concept might make sense with perfect AR. Things like QR codes on posters being highlighted, "hologram" store mascots that everyone walking by can see with AR glasses, answering an "AR" phone call while still being able to see around you (and not having to hold your phone up to your face as in video calling - early versions of this could use iOS Memoji before consumer face-scanning tech gets good), virtual computer screens to do programming or other work *anywhere* without monitors (while still being able to respond to external stimuli), etc. Maybe you could even portray yourself as a custom avatar (instead of your actual body) to those with AR glasses. IMO an early prototype of the metaverse is already here: Ingress/Pokemon Go. These games don't use fantasy-land maps, they use the Earth and real-life locations. Data and user-interactions are layered on top of that. On the other hand, any kind of VR metaverse will likely be a poor-man's Second Life, just prettier and with far more restrictions. I'm sure there's a market for that, but it's not really civilization-defining.

wffurr 5y ago
Or you know Google Maps, Yelp, etc. Any kind of local search or data. But hardware has to come first. None of this is possible while we're still in the "magic window" step having to look through our phone screens.
GekkePrutser 5y ago
The AR part of ingress and Pokémon go is really just a gimmick IMO. Everyone turns it off after a while because it works simpler without it. The idea of integration with real places is ok but just a gameplay mechanic and not really a compelling or fun one I think. I think most of the popularity of Pokémon go comes from it being Pokémon. It's really just Ingress with some Pokémon skin and a mini-game slapped on. I think we shouldn't think of Niantic as a "leader" in the AR realm. What they're doing is not pushing the envelope. They're just exploring the fringe inside it.
- Andrex 5y ago
  > The AR part of ingress and Pokémon go is really just a gimmick IMO. Everyone turns it off after a while because it works simpler without it. That isn't what I was referring to. Layering user interactions on real-life locations is more akin to the metaverse in my mind than any kind of VR derivative. Whether the game was fun or not is also irrelevant, the metaverse won't be a "game." I was also clear I was speaking of a hypothetical future with perfect AR.

Trias11 5y ago

Totally agree. To add: it's an orchestrated effort to distract people from realities of the world (including FB's own troubles). Nothing in this metanonsense helps people to be more productive in solving real world problems.

jobigoud 5y ago
> distract people from realities of the world And that's exactly what people want. Escape. Just like with games, movies, sports, arts, etc.
vineyardmike 5y ago
> Nothing in this metanonsense helps people to be more productive in solving real world problems. Unless you read the shared article where the author describes using this tech successfully to be more productive at work.

ALittleLight 5y ago

When I was a child I was in an "Odyssey of the Mind" group and in one competition we had to solve some problem and the plan my team came up with had a few steps, one of which was "Build a robot". We were all children and none of us had even the slightest idea of how to build a robot or any relevant technical experience or ability. But somehow, we never realized this deficit and came up with our plan and tried to execute it. It wasn't until we had destructively disassembled a power tool that one of us had access to, on the theory that we could use whatever motor was inside of that tool to drive our robot, that we realized we had no idea what we were doing nor any conception of how to build a robot. I had a feeling of amazement that sticks with me today that we were able to articulate our plan to solve the problem, which depended on our robot helping us with some sub-task, but were completely unaware of the fact that the robot was far beyond our ability to construct. Our plan was like something that might have worked in a cartoon but not in reality. That feeling comes back to me as a kind of "Build a robot" moment in cases like this. "In our virtual reality metaverse people will be able to attend concerts with one another and save the tickets as NFTs!" Okay, but what you have is a screen that you can strap to your face and is nothing like a virtual reality metaverse and you have no idea how to get there. Another way of thinking about it is taking the hardest part of the problem and hand waving it away to solve the easier parts and then forgetting that there is a big blank spot in your plan. It's easy and fun to think about all the stuff you can do in a compelling virtual reality metaverse, but you don't have one and aren't likely to get one any time too soon.

vineyardmike 5y ago
> In our virtual reality metaverse people will be able to attend concerts with one another and save the tickets as NFTs! I completely agree that this sort of marketing of metaverse entirely misses the reality of tech we have and expectations. I think its also a great analogy, and i had a similar experience when i myself did Odyssey of the mind :) Based on the article, however, it seems clear that we could be around the corner from real use-cases for this tech that are actually an improved experience. I think VR tech could def improve "mise en place" tech use, where a user is focused on accomplishing one goal at a set time and place using tech. This could even be as vague as "do my remote job".
5y ago

jonas21 5y ago

All of the discussion around the internet as if it's something we should take seriously has me baffled. It's an ill defined concept and the effort is being led by a government department that hardly anyone trusts or even likes. As far as I can tell it's the telephone but on a screen with a typewriter. Or in other words it's the telephone but with extra steps in the way of obtaining the information or completing the transaction, not to mention the increased hardware costs (screens are expensive) and wiring costs associated with this superfluous fluff. I just don't understand how they aren't being laughed out of the room. This is fantasy level stuff and it's going to be an absolutely massive failure. - People of the 80's

lola-hart 5y ago
Literally no one said that.

xook 5y ago

On one hand, I am of the laughing crowd. On the other, I have to wonder if there is something I (we?) are missing if these highly paid marketers and engineers are going after it. Surely it's not so shortsighted as to be about a few (<10) percent in investments? There has to be a longer term plan if not that. Maybe I am wrong. At the end of the day, I'm standing back, wondering which fire will blow out first.

smugglerFlynn 5y ago
Engineers and marketers are all steered into that direction by C-level visionaries who bet on a very high-risk / high-reward idea. This idea dials up all kinds of biases in people. For example, the article which started this thread criticizes Apple for moving into AR. This is despite AR being very feasible next step in having actual working tech applicable in real-life situations. Feasible and down to earth idea is being compared to a distant wild guess which has a high risk of never happening, yet somehow it loses this comparison. There is a certain irony people call this Web 3.0 all over again. Web 3.0 was originally envisioned by influencers as heavily relying on semantic web and anthologies[1]. Despite all the visions, 14 years ago few of these things actually happened. Could it be that people are just very bad at predicting the future? Could it be that we mis-invest into wild visions based on their popularity, instead of solving boring down to earth problems? “Ah shit, here we go again.” [1] http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/10/web-30-semantic-web-web-20.html http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/10/web-30-semantic-we...

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

>and the effort is being led by a company that hardly anyone trusts or even likes. This isn't true at all, Instagram and WhatsApp are hugely popular even with people who are anti-Facebook. The rebrand makes a lot more sense when you realize just how diverse their product offering is and many people very vocally against FB still use IG and WhatsApp.

domador 5y ago

"The eminent, on the other hand, are almost forced to work on a large scale. Instead of garden sheds they must design huge art museums. One reason they work on big things is that they can: like our hypothetical novelist, they're flattered by such opportunities. They also know that big projects will by their sheer bulk impress the audience. A garden shed, however lovely, would be easy to ignore; a few might even snicker at it. You can't snicker at a giant museum, no matter how much you dislike it. And finally, there are all those people the eminent have working for them; they have to choose projects that can keep them all busy." -- Paul Graham, "The Power of the Marginal"

yodsanklai 5y ago

> I just don't understand how they aren't being laughed out of the room. This is fantasy level stuff and it's going to be an absolutely massive failure I agree with your sentiment but there are many utterly ridiculous ideas that people take seriously, think NFTs for instance. From that perspective, the metaverse isn't that crazy. And something could get out of it even though it's not the original vision that you describe. And there are seemingly unreasonable ideas that become huge success. I didn't foresee the smartphone revolution (i thought we couldn't get a proper UI from a small device). I also thought youtube would be a failure. That being said, I wouldn't bet one penny on the metaverse.

meatverse 5y ago

The Meatverse is where the action is. It is estimated that by 2050, at least half of the world's population will be made of meat (mostly). Not only that - this has been true for as long as our species has been around. The Meatverse is high-bandwidth, high-definition, and high-protein. The Meatverse is the future.

idnefju 5y ago

Comfort is the big one. VR headsets are annoying to wear. This push just screams that Zuckerberg is trying to justify the Oculus acquisition.

machiaweliczny 5y ago
I think AR + new input device is ulimate game. VR is good test bed.

huksley 5y ago

I think VR and metaverse concept so interesting right now is because it is the next "post-social network" evolution. Content and information become less relevant, but "internet" social standing, appearance and "existence" [1] becomes more important. What's why NFTs are so popular right now. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence

marocan 5y ago

Yes because they want to package and sell to the public, a human harvesting farm, like in Matrix, where you get into a pod and you're harvested by Facebook. They strech it and bend it in so many ways in their attept to sound legit, that they stop making sense.

machiaweliczny 5y ago

You think Apple introduced low energy cpus for fun? I think they work on AR mixed reality glasses and in 10 years it will be standard. Carmack said that currently they are limited by thermals to make nice device.