There are two types of technologies: those which give the user leverage in the real world; and games. Which is Meta? Ben Thompson tries to make the case that i

There are two types of technologies: those which give the user leverage in the real world; and games. Which is Meta? Ben Thompson tries to make the case that it's the former, but I have my doubts. Thinking about my current 95% remote work life, with very frequent calls, I think of the following frustrations: 1. Platform heterogeneity. Some people use phones, mobile, chat, Meets, Hangouts, Zoom, etc. Just trying to work out what platform (?) people use feels silly. 2. Bad hardware. I'm constantly having Bluetooth and wifi issues and so is everyone else. 3. Lack of engagement. Lots of people outside my org are just not as engaged as they were pre-pandemic. Customer service has become terrible. 4. Lack of space. My fiancé and I have to plan for an extra room if/when we move because of the WFH situation. Since we are unlikely to have a glut of spare bedrooms in London any time soon, this is likely to be a systemic problem. I can't see Meta or virtual presence/VR solving any of these problems, except incidentally (for instance, everyone loves Meta so much that everyone switches over to their perfect hardware and platform overnight). What I do see are a lot of drawbacks, such as 1. Nausea. It's well known that not everyone can tolerate VR 2. Compatibility. Can you still interact with people using other services? 3. Bandwidth. Do all your employees live somewhere with good enough internet service? 4. General creepiness. Usually the unease from new tech creeps up on you slowly (everyone normal saw iPhones and computers and even TVs as an unalloyed good from the start. Nobody seems to like the Metaverse). I think we might be on the cusp of a techno-reactionary Luddite movement. I could be wrong, but to me this feels too much like a case of companies and techies wanting something far more than customers having actual problems that this can solve.