4 ms·
> Does anyone actually see the majority of the planet strapping Oculuses to their face and spending even a fraction of the amount of time there that people are
by ninth_ant 5y ago
> Does anyone actually see the majority of the planet strapping Oculuses to their face and spending even a fraction of the amount of time there that people are currently spending on FB and IG?
The straightforward answer is that FB leadership sincerely believes that yes, that will happen.
Conspiracy theories about alternative motivations may be fun, but this is precisely why they purchased Oculus in the first place and they’ve been pretty clear and consistent about this.
- asveikau 5y agoSeems more like a speculative investment to me. If it becomes big, they want to own it and be involved. If it isn't, ok. Some investments lose money.
- azinman2 5y agoI don’t think it’d be ok if not. They’ve spent many billions and their stock price is partially hinged on them owning “the next big thing.”
- asveikau 5y agoI think you're touching on why corporate America doesn't understand what r&d is supposed to be. Expecting certain returns in specific places is not the point. You fund a lot of stuff and you don't know which is going to pay off.
- azinman2 5y agoThis isn’t R&D at this point. They’re pointing the entire direction of the company at it, publicly committing to it, renaming the company after it, and spending many billions.
- plorkyeran 5y agoNaming your company after something is generally a sign you believe in it and it's not just one of many bets you're making.
- asveikau 5y agoThey probably changed the name to avoid their growing negative image. It's just a name, like Pepsi. They can abandon the metaverse and still be ok.
- vanusa 5y agoThe straightforward answer is that FB leadership sincerely believes that yes, that will happen. Or pretends to, at any rate. As per the incentive structures they may be presumed to enjoy at that payscale.