9 ms·

I agree with most of what you wrote up to this point: > He's a super smart and prescient thinker, so he can see VR is a good play He made a school yearbook on

by davedx 5y ago

I agree with most of what you wrote up to this point: > He's a super smart and prescient thinker, so he can see VR is a good play He made a school yearbook on the internet and copied some features from existing social networks like MySpace. Facebook was just in the right place at the right time and executed well. The jury is very much still out on whether "VR is a good play", too. It might turn out to be a gigantic over-marketed gimmick like blockchain has.

FullyFunctional 5y ago
Anyone remember that Next Big Thing was supposed to be 3D TVs? I think VR is similarly misguided (ie, will never go mainstream but will have a healthy niche).
- stingraycharles 5y ago
  VR seems more interactive and way stickier, I don’t think you can necessarily compare it to 3D TVs, in the same way a computer and TV are very different. Having said that, I’m also skeptical of the whole metaverse thing, as we had that stuff a long time ago already (Second Life) and it was a flop. VR needs to become extremely ubiquitous and hassle-free for such a thing to work.
  - pratnala 5y ago
    Idk if it is just me but I find VR headsets just tiring after a point.
    - tentacleuno 5y ago
      Quite a few people do here. I doubt I could wear them for extended periods either. I personally have to take a break after wearing headphones for a few hours, I couldn't imagine wearing a VR headset of all things.
  - tentacleuno 5y ago
    > as we had that stuff a long time ago already (Second Life) and it was a flop A flop? I remember watching a documentary a while back saying some people were totally addicted to it. I'm not sure if they're still afloat these days, though. Might go the way of Playstation Home (which I genuinely liked!).
    - wayoutthere 5y ago
      Most of the draw was that you could design your own avatar. There were a lot of furries.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      I'm sure that you can find people who are huge fans (addicted as a news article might call them) to any technology or gaming product. The world is huge. There are, for example, people who loved Windows Phone and Zune. But just because a product has a fanatical core doesn't mean it'll eventually take off - or even maintain viability.
    - jpindar 5y ago
      Second Life is still active almost 20 years later, I don't know why people keep using the past tense.
    - throwaway6532 5y ago
      >I remember watching a documentary a while back saying some people were totally addicted to it not necessarily a good thing
- brtkdotse 5y ago
  A non-trivial percentage of the population get motion sickness easily. VR is a non-starter for them.
  - prometheus76 5y ago
    Then there's the sweating and the standing in the middle of the room for hours(?) and the weird, clunky, dissociated controls.
  - jhanschoo 5y ago
    I think this is something that can be solved with more investment into electronics, alternative optics and display (e.g. Google-glass style display), as well as UX research.
    - brtkdotse 5y ago
      I don’t see how. Motion sickness is a discrepancy between visual stimulus and signals from the vestibular system. If you show people motion and the don’t feel the motion, they will get motion sickness (to varying degree)
      - jhanschoo 5y ago
        There are many VR applications that don't need to move the view separately from user input. Exercise programs for example, and a lot of office telepresence probably falls into this.
  - zmmmmm 5y ago
    I'd be curious what that percentage is now. The tech has improved enormously, as have developers understanding of what to avoid software-wise. Not a single person (dozens) I have shared my Quest with had this problem.
    - brtkdotse 5y ago
      Cursory googling says 1/3 of population
- hyperbovine 5y ago
  I think this is a great analogy in that there are fundamental physiological limits on how much 3D TV the human body wants to watch, and the answer is “not much”. All the VR/AR products I have seen fall into the same boat—a bit of a lark to use for an hour or so, beyond that, no thanks. It is a fundamentally different experience than reading a screen or listening to earbuds, and I don’t mean that in a good way.
  - zmmmmm 5y ago
    > It is a fundamentally different experience than reading a screen It's an interesting thing to say because, one of the pending killer apps for VR is liberating us from our clunky rectangular meatworld screens that can't travel with us. It's still too low resolution now in affordable hardware, but it's at a tipping point and it is going to be quite exciting to see it cross that. I wouldn't rule out that in 5 years from now, a sizeable percentage of the professional computing workforce is using VR just for this reason alone.
    - sekh60 5y ago
      Then we can cram people into even smaller cubicles.
      - xmcqdpt2 5y ago
        Bold of you to assume you'll get the minimal privacy of a cubicle's partitions. The VR office is probably going to be open concept, like a bunch or chairs in a room.
        lambic 5y ago
        Comfy chairs at least?
        traviscj 5y ago
        BYOC :-(
- verinus 5y ago
  First thing I thought about too. Metaverse is not a utopia but a dystopia! edit: typo
- dwaite 5y ago
  3D has come and gone many times over the history of cinema, from the red/cyan glasses, the (Pulfrich) glasses with a single shaded lens, shuttered glasses and polarized screens. While the image quality and frame rate have improved, there are still fundamental limitations on the technology. One common pushback is that some people will get headaches due to scanning the scene, trying to focus on objects at their false depths. 3D film is a pain, way more than double the work. So most 3D content actually was made 3D in post rather than filming with multiple cameras. Still, the way you would frame a scene to be 'interesting' in 3D is different from how you would do so in 2D. This usually results in being able to 'tell' whether a movie you are watching was primarily made for one market or another. VR adds something other than image quality - it adds the ability to be immersed in the content. However you still have the same issues: - So far, we don't have consumer headsets that enable you to actually focus on the objects in the scene. For example, you can't hold a piece of paper up to your face to read the fine print. - Trying to capture certain kinds of media is infeasibly expensive in VR, both from a post-production cost perspective and a data size expectation. Live action basically is too difficult. The latest incarnation of 3D movies were in a sense a clever business maneuver - it created a premium tier of movie experience and got many theaters to start upgrading their older projection equipment and screens to newer digital alternatives. For home use, 3D movies were weird because they didn't follow the traditional hype curve. A lot of early adoption was by families, where unfortunately the shutter glasses still tended to be too expensive for young hands. But that market has the same thing - manufacturers will eventually take technology and reduce it down to cost, so how can you compel people to buy the newest fancy screen where you still have a good margin? Note several television manufacturers are now trying to proceed advertising and sales revenue, which is why smart TVs have now taken over - a 15-30% cut on a HBO Max subscription adds up to real money quickly over their typically poor margins on the sale of the set.
  - littlecranky67 5y ago
    100% agree with your point. I don't believe in a broad VR future. A movie, just as an open-world video game, lives of its content and storyline. I watched Avatar in 3D and it was great, but not because it was 3D, because it is a good movie. Even in 2D this would be very enjoyable. Same holds true for video games. I don't think Witcher 3 would have significant more success if it was in VR or the experience would be orders of magnitudes better just because of VR. Same as any shitty game with bad story, unlovely crafted characters etc. will not be good just because it is VR. If the Metaverse means I can watch hatespeech + antivaxx posts, pictures of peoples lunch on a 3D canvas or cat videos, I pass.
- emsy 5y ago
  The first part of your reply doesn't line up with the second. In what way are 3D TVs a healthy niche? They are mostly dead. I also can't remember anyone actually using their 3D TV or buying a TV because of its 3D capabilities (most TVs at that time had the feature anyway). Whereas stores stocked up on Quest during the holidays because of demand. I don't think your reply accurately describes reality.
- bin_bash 5y ago
  > Anyone remember that Next Big Thing was supposed to be 3D TVs? No. I remember TV companies pushing it since it was cheap for them to include and they hoped people would think of it as the "Next Big Thing", but consumers and especially reviewers during the aughts saw right through it. Even in the 90's I remember it being seen as a short-lived novelty more than anything: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-05-02-9705020368-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-05-02-970502... Regardless what you think of VR I think there are clearly far more bulls than 3D TV ever had.
- DebtDeflation 5y ago
  Also, this isn't the first go round with VR. Google Glass launched publicly in 2014 and the original Oculus Rift launched in 2016. I remember tons of discussions around enterprise adoption of VR in 2016-2017 with use cases ranging from immersive marketing campaigns to technicians using them to troubleshoot equipment.
mettamage 5y ago
I am both a fan of blockchain and VR. I also have a strong cynic inside of me that trashes on both of them whenever it can. It's fun being me I suppose :) Blockchain is IMO in a much much much more questionable state of relevancy and usefulness than VR. Why? I workout in VR (supplemental workouts by playing Eleven Table Tennis to the max). I boardgame in VR (Demeo). My GF picks up my headset and plays Beatsaber. You can have multiple screens in VR. While I'm not the biggest fan of them, I will be if I'd travel to another country, not being able to bring my monitors. Oh, and I've convinced quite a few of my friends to do the same (workout, gaming, productivity). VR is already here mate. People game, people exercise, people get new experiences by watching VR videos (I got better at skiing because of it), people are using its productivity apps to design stuff (think about designing game in Unreal Engine using VR). There are certain use-cases in which VR outperforms anything else (and in most use-cases it doesn't). VR has tons of uses! It's not perfect by any means, but we're slowly getting there. 4000x4000 per eye is the hallmark I will be patiently waiting for. Better omni-directional threadmills are something I will hope for. We already are beginning to have haptic feedback suits from owo. I'm not a fan of haptic feedback suits, but others are. VR is here to stay. It won't replace anything, it will augment how we are going about our daily stuff. Whereas with blockchain, well, it's mostly used for speculation and I still haven't seen people use it as a legitimate currency. And this includes myself! Like, I used bitcoin to buy a bitcoin wallet, but does that count? I don't think so. The current use of blockchain in terms of cryptocurrencies is speculation (at the moment) and I am hoping it will change, but I wonder if it ever will. And I am a fan of the whole thing, but let's not kid ourselves. I hope the unbanked will use it. I hope people in super high inflationary countries will use it (because as volatile is bitcoin is, it beats any currency with hyper inflation). Unfortunately, I don't have any insights on the unbanked.
- Brotkrumen 5y ago
  I rented a VR headset for a month a while ago. I think I bought most of the top games to play around with, but all feel a bit gimmicky and lacking depth. I'd claim that VR will be niche until it becomes AR. When I can see my keyboard and get multiple floaty screens,that will be productivity. Pokemon Go in AR? Skyrim AR? AR shooters in converted warehouses? Horror games in my house? That'll be games.
busymom0 5y ago
I personally don't think VR is a good play. Personally, I just can't binge on anything with VR. It's just not comfortable. But maybe we haven't had enough hardware innovation yet.
- mettamage 5y ago
  I strongly believe we didn't have enough hardware innovation. I tried watching movies as well and it sucked. I would recommend VR videos though, there are a few from Oculus TV which are amazing, they are an entirely new experience.
- mad182 5y ago
  I have the same experience. I have tried my friends VR set a few times and another one at a work party, and overall it was pretty underwhelming. Uncomfortable, a bit nausea inducing and nothing particularly impressive. Kind of cool to try out, but not something I would want to use every day or pay for. At the current state I don't see what's the fuss about. Also VR as some kind of social networking replacement seems unlikely to me because huge par of the time people spend on social networks is not while sitting at home dedicating time to this activity. Most people are not going to lug around VR headset everywhere they go.
netcan 5y ago
>>He made a school yearbook on the internet and copied some features from existing social networks like MySpace. Facebook was just in the right place... Well. That's the key point. Lots of people did social networks. Several had a lot if success with them. Remember circa 2007? FB was one of many. Zuck made a social network that (a) got and stayed popular (b) made no way and (c) successfully changed user behaviour. Before FB, social media was mostly anonymous and targeted at young, fringe or techno-elite online culture. FB are mass market. I agree that VR is yet to be seen, and that fb's ability to execute is dubious. But, Zuck is more capable than most/all CEOs of social media seen this far. Twitter us more if a lucky shot. It remains true though that social media, generally, is not technically demanding. That said, the demands of scale complicate that. Look at Amazon and aws. There aren't many fb-scale tech companies out there. It's not competition in an infinite field. It's competition in a field of one.. or perhaps three. JPMorgan or Berkshire Hathaway aren't going to beat them at this game. If it's a matter of beating other mega scale tech shops, it may be just a matter of executing better than not executing. Competition at the ground floor (say series A) is brutal. Even if you're brilliant, you probably need a great strategy and greater luck. Competition at the mid range is meaningful. A Zara, Boots or OnePlus or whatnot still need to beat other players. At the FB/google level... there just aren't enough players. They don't necessarily compete at all, against other players. Products can succeed or fail, but it's not about head to head abilities. Where competition actually exists, like azure/aws, at best it's usually a field of 2 or 6 possible competitors with a chance of outside disruption. They're not in a "beat restaurant in town" game.
- lariati 5y ago
  Facebook wasn't just at the right place though. They figured out that people wanted to use their real names on social networks. I loved Myspace. I met so many cool people in my 20s in that 2-3 year window they had that I never would have otherwise. My mom though was never joining Myspace. Myspace was almost closer to a dating site to find new friends as much as connecting with people you already knew.
fsloth 5y ago
VR/AR is already an established and necessary modality at several industrial use cases. It's definetly NOT a gimmick. Think of it as a HUD with situational awareness. Games are not really a good example of why you would want to have that. Not at least yet. See for example https://sitevision.trimble.com/ https://sitevision.trimble.com/ VR as a new way of human existence as the current metaverse hype claims - for that, I've not seen any concrete proofs of yet.
dspillett 5y ago
> Facebook was just in the right place at the right time and executed well. I wouldn't even go that far: it was merely executed well enough that it didn't squander being in the right place at the right time by being terrible. This is one of the reasons why getting a minimal viable product out quickly (where the definition of “minimal viable” includes that not-being-terrible caveat) can be so important when working on a new idea.
- lariati 5y ago
  This is just wrong. I would question if you ever went on Myspace. Facebook figured out that using your real full name in an electronic social network had huge advantages in terms of connecting your real world social network. They killed Myspace because of the network effect the above had when people started finding their friends from high school easily online. Early on I think you even had to join a network specifically for your high school so everyone had their first and last names along with their labeling for their high school. It sounds stupid and obvious now but before Facebook the average person didn't broadcast their first and last name on the internet.
  - dspillett 5y ago
    Nothing that you describe contradicts "executed well enough not absolutely well". Right thing¹, right place, right time, executed well enough. [1] whether this thing was an act of genius or just the right thing if several thrown at the wall, we could possibly debate.

by davedx 5y ago

FullyFunctional 5y ago

Anyone remember that Next Big Thing was supposed to be 3D TVs? I think VR is similarly misguided (ie, will never go mainstream but will have a healthy niche).

stingraycharles 5y ago
VR seems more interactive and way stickier, I don’t think you can necessarily compare it to 3D TVs, in the same way a computer and TV are very different. Having said that, I’m also skeptical of the whole metaverse thing, as we had that stuff a long time ago already (Second Life) and it was a flop. VR needs to become extremely ubiquitous and hassle-free for such a thing to work.
- pratnala 5y ago
  Idk if it is just me but I find VR headsets just tiring after a point.
  - tentacleuno 5y ago
    Quite a few people do here. I doubt I could wear them for extended periods either. I personally have to take a break after wearing headphones for a few hours, I couldn't imagine wearing a VR headset of all things.
- tentacleuno 5y ago
  > as we had that stuff a long time ago already (Second Life) and it was a flop A flop? I remember watching a documentary a while back saying some people were totally addicted to it. I'm not sure if they're still afloat these days, though. Might go the way of Playstation Home (which I genuinely liked!).
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    Most of the draw was that you could design your own avatar. There were a lot of furries.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I'm sure that you can find people who are huge fans (addicted as a news article might call them) to any technology or gaming product. The world is huge. There are, for example, people who loved Windows Phone and Zune. But just because a product has a fanatical core doesn't mean it'll eventually take off - or even maintain viability.
  - jpindar 5y ago
    Second Life is still active almost 20 years later, I don't know why people keep using the past tense.
  - throwaway6532 5y ago
    >I remember watching a documentary a while back saying some people were totally addicted to it not necessarily a good thing
brtkdotse 5y ago
A non-trivial percentage of the population get motion sickness easily. VR is a non-starter for them.
- prometheus76 5y ago
  Then there's the sweating and the standing in the middle of the room for hours(?) and the weird, clunky, dissociated controls.
- jhanschoo 5y ago
  I think this is something that can be solved with more investment into electronics, alternative optics and display (e.g. Google-glass style display), as well as UX research.
  - brtkdotse 5y ago
    I don’t see how. Motion sickness is a discrepancy between visual stimulus and signals from the vestibular system. If you show people motion and the don’t feel the motion, they will get motion sickness (to varying degree)
    - jhanschoo 5y ago
      There are many VR applications that don't need to move the view separately from user input. Exercise programs for example, and a lot of office telepresence probably falls into this.
- zmmmmm 5y ago
  I'd be curious what that percentage is now. The tech has improved enormously, as have developers understanding of what to avoid software-wise. Not a single person (dozens) I have shared my Quest with had this problem.
  - brtkdotse 5y ago
    Cursory googling says 1/3 of population
hyperbovine 5y ago
I think this is a great analogy in that there are fundamental physiological limits on how much 3D TV the human body wants to watch, and the answer is “not much”. All the VR/AR products I have seen fall into the same boat—a bit of a lark to use for an hour or so, beyond that, no thanks. It is a fundamentally different experience than reading a screen or listening to earbuds, and I don’t mean that in a good way.
- zmmmmm 5y ago
  > It is a fundamentally different experience than reading a screen It's an interesting thing to say because, one of the pending killer apps for VR is liberating us from our clunky rectangular meatworld screens that can't travel with us. It's still too low resolution now in affordable hardware, but it's at a tipping point and it is going to be quite exciting to see it cross that. I wouldn't rule out that in 5 years from now, a sizeable percentage of the professional computing workforce is using VR just for this reason alone.
  - sekh60 5y ago
    Then we can cram people into even smaller cubicles.
    - xmcqdpt2 5y ago
      Bold of you to assume you'll get the minimal privacy of a cubicle's partitions. The VR office is probably going to be open concept, like a bunch or chairs in a room.
      - lambic 5y ago
        Comfy chairs at least?
        traviscj 5y ago
        BYOC :-(
verinus 5y ago
First thing I thought about too. Metaverse is not a utopia but a dystopia! edit: typo
dwaite 5y ago
3D has come and gone many times over the history of cinema, from the red/cyan glasses, the (Pulfrich) glasses with a single shaded lens, shuttered glasses and polarized screens. While the image quality and frame rate have improved, there are still fundamental limitations on the technology. One common pushback is that some people will get headaches due to scanning the scene, trying to focus on objects at their false depths. 3D film is a pain, way more than double the work. So most 3D content actually was made 3D in post rather than filming with multiple cameras. Still, the way you would frame a scene to be 'interesting' in 3D is different from how you would do so in 2D. This usually results in being able to 'tell' whether a movie you are watching was primarily made for one market or another. VR adds something other than image quality - it adds the ability to be immersed in the content. However you still have the same issues: - So far, we don't have consumer headsets that enable you to actually focus on the objects in the scene. For example, you can't hold a piece of paper up to your face to read the fine print. - Trying to capture certain kinds of media is infeasibly expensive in VR, both from a post-production cost perspective and a data size expectation. Live action basically is too difficult. The latest incarnation of 3D movies were in a sense a clever business maneuver - it created a premium tier of movie experience and got many theaters to start upgrading their older projection equipment and screens to newer digital alternatives. For home use, 3D movies were weird because they didn't follow the traditional hype curve. A lot of early adoption was by families, where unfortunately the shutter glasses still tended to be too expensive for young hands. But that market has the same thing - manufacturers will eventually take technology and reduce it down to cost, so how can you compel people to buy the newest fancy screen where you still have a good margin? Note several television manufacturers are now trying to proceed advertising and sales revenue, which is why smart TVs have now taken over - a 15-30% cut on a HBO Max subscription adds up to real money quickly over their typically poor margins on the sale of the set.
- littlecranky67 5y ago
  100% agree with your point. I don't believe in a broad VR future. A movie, just as an open-world video game, lives of its content and storyline. I watched Avatar in 3D and it was great, but not because it was 3D, because it is a good movie. Even in 2D this would be very enjoyable. Same holds true for video games. I don't think Witcher 3 would have significant more success if it was in VR or the experience would be orders of magnitudes better just because of VR. Same as any shitty game with bad story, unlovely crafted characters etc. will not be good just because it is VR. If the Metaverse means I can watch hatespeech + antivaxx posts, pictures of peoples lunch on a 3D canvas or cat videos, I pass.
emsy 5y ago
The first part of your reply doesn't line up with the second. In what way are 3D TVs a healthy niche? They are mostly dead. I also can't remember anyone actually using their 3D TV or buying a TV because of its 3D capabilities (most TVs at that time had the feature anyway). Whereas stores stocked up on Quest during the holidays because of demand. I don't think your reply accurately describes reality.
bin_bash 5y ago
> Anyone remember that Next Big Thing was supposed to be 3D TVs? No. I remember TV companies pushing it since it was cheap for them to include and they hoped people would think of it as the "Next Big Thing", but consumers and especially reviewers during the aughts saw right through it. Even in the 90's I remember it being seen as a short-lived novelty more than anything: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-05-02-9705020368-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-05-02-970502... Regardless what you think of VR I think there are clearly far more bulls than 3D TV ever had.
DebtDeflation 5y ago
Also, this isn't the first go round with VR. Google Glass launched publicly in 2014 and the original Oculus Rift launched in 2016. I remember tons of discussions around enterprise adoption of VR in 2016-2017 with use cases ranging from immersive marketing campaigns to technicians using them to troubleshoot equipment.

mettamage 5y ago

I am both a fan of blockchain and VR. I also have a strong cynic inside of me that trashes on both of them whenever it can. It's fun being me I suppose :) Blockchain is IMO in a much much much more questionable state of relevancy and usefulness than VR. Why? I workout in VR (supplemental workouts by playing Eleven Table Tennis to the max). I boardgame in VR (Demeo). My GF picks up my headset and plays Beatsaber. You can have multiple screens in VR. While I'm not the biggest fan of them, I will be if I'd travel to another country, not being able to bring my monitors. Oh, and I've convinced quite a few of my friends to do the same (workout, gaming, productivity). VR is already here mate. People game, people exercise, people get new experiences by watching VR videos (I got better at skiing because of it), people are using its productivity apps to design stuff (think about designing game in Unreal Engine using VR). There are certain use-cases in which VR outperforms anything else (and in most use-cases it doesn't). VR has tons of uses! It's not perfect by any means, but we're slowly getting there. 4000x4000 per eye is the hallmark I will be patiently waiting for. Better omni-directional threadmills are something I will hope for. We already are beginning to have haptic feedback suits from owo. I'm not a fan of haptic feedback suits, but others are. VR is here to stay. It won't replace anything, it will augment how we are going about our daily stuff. Whereas with blockchain, well, it's mostly used for speculation and I still haven't seen people use it as a legitimate currency. And this includes myself! Like, I used bitcoin to buy a bitcoin wallet, but does that count? I don't think so. The current use of blockchain in terms of cryptocurrencies is speculation (at the moment) and I am hoping it will change, but I wonder if it ever will. And I am a fan of the whole thing, but let's not kid ourselves. I hope the unbanked will use it. I hope people in super high inflationary countries will use it (because as volatile is bitcoin is, it beats any currency with hyper inflation). Unfortunately, I don't have any insights on the unbanked.

Brotkrumen 5y ago
I rented a VR headset for a month a while ago. I think I bought most of the top games to play around with, but all feel a bit gimmicky and lacking depth. I'd claim that VR will be niche until it becomes AR. When I can see my keyboard and get multiple floaty screens,that will be productivity. Pokemon Go in AR? Skyrim AR? AR shooters in converted warehouses? Horror games in my house? That'll be games.

busymom0 5y ago

I personally don't think VR is a good play. Personally, I just can't binge on anything with VR. It's just not comfortable. But maybe we haven't had enough hardware innovation yet.

mettamage 5y ago
I strongly believe we didn't have enough hardware innovation. I tried watching movies as well and it sucked. I would recommend VR videos though, there are a few from Oculus TV which are amazing, they are an entirely new experience.
mad182 5y ago
I have the same experience. I have tried my friends VR set a few times and another one at a work party, and overall it was pretty underwhelming. Uncomfortable, a bit nausea inducing and nothing particularly impressive. Kind of cool to try out, but not something I would want to use every day or pay for. At the current state I don't see what's the fuss about. Also VR as some kind of social networking replacement seems unlikely to me because huge par of the time people spend on social networks is not while sitting at home dedicating time to this activity. Most people are not going to lug around VR headset everywhere they go.

netcan 5y ago

>>He made a school yearbook on the internet and copied some features from existing social networks like MySpace. Facebook was just in the right place... Well. That's the key point. Lots of people did social networks. Several had a lot if success with them. Remember circa 2007? FB was one of many. Zuck made a social network that (a) got and stayed popular (b) made no way and (c) successfully changed user behaviour. Before FB, social media was mostly anonymous and targeted at young, fringe or techno-elite online culture. FB are mass market. I agree that VR is yet to be seen, and that fb's ability to execute is dubious. But, Zuck is more capable than most/all CEOs of social media seen this far. Twitter us more if a lucky shot. It remains true though that social media, generally, is not technically demanding. That said, the demands of scale complicate that. Look at Amazon and aws. There aren't many fb-scale tech companies out there. It's not competition in an infinite field. It's competition in a field of one.. or perhaps three. JPMorgan or Berkshire Hathaway aren't going to beat them at this game. If it's a matter of beating other mega scale tech shops, it may be just a matter of executing better than not executing. Competition at the ground floor (say series A) is brutal. Even if you're brilliant, you probably need a great strategy and greater luck. Competition at the mid range is meaningful. A Zara, Boots or OnePlus or whatnot still need to beat other players. At the FB/google level... there just aren't enough players. They don't necessarily compete at all, against other players. Products can succeed or fail, but it's not about head to head abilities. Where competition actually exists, like azure/aws, at best it's usually a field of 2 or 6 possible competitors with a chance of outside disruption. They're not in a "beat restaurant in town" game.

lariati 5y ago
Facebook wasn't just at the right place though. They figured out that people wanted to use their real names on social networks. I loved Myspace. I met so many cool people in my 20s in that 2-3 year window they had that I never would have otherwise. My mom though was never joining Myspace. Myspace was almost closer to a dating site to find new friends as much as connecting with people you already knew.

fsloth 5y ago

VR/AR is already an established and necessary modality at several industrial use cases. It's definetly NOT a gimmick. Think of it as a HUD with situational awareness. Games are not really a good example of why you would want to have that. Not at least yet. See for example https://sitevision.trimble.com/ https://sitevision.trimble.com/ VR as a new way of human existence as the current metaverse hype claims - for that, I've not seen any concrete proofs of yet.

dspillett 5y ago

> Facebook was just in the right place at the right time and executed well. I wouldn't even go that far: it was merely executed well enough that it didn't squander being in the right place at the right time by being terrible. This is one of the reasons why getting a minimal viable product out quickly (where the definition of “minimal viable” includes that not-being-terrible caveat) can be so important when working on a new idea.

lariati 5y ago
This is just wrong. I would question if you ever went on Myspace. Facebook figured out that using your real full name in an electronic social network had huge advantages in terms of connecting your real world social network. They killed Myspace because of the network effect the above had when people started finding their friends from high school easily online. Early on I think you even had to join a network specifically for your high school so everyone had their first and last names along with their labeling for their high school. It sounds stupid and obvious now but before Facebook the average person didn't broadcast their first and last name on the internet.
- dspillett 5y ago
  Nothing that you describe contradicts "executed well enough not absolutely well". Right thing¹, right place, right time, executed well enough. [1] whether this thing was an act of genius or just the right thing if several thrown at the wall, we could possibly debate.