6 ms·

Playing devil's advocate, I think they're betting on the long game. Eventually, when XR headsets become the size and have the practicality of sunglasses, they

by imiric 5y ago

Playing devil's advocate, I think they're betting on the long game. Eventually, when XR headsets become the size and have the practicality of sunglasses, they will become as ubiquitous as smartphones are today. It would be naive to think that the current smartphone design is the end-all-be-all of personal computing devices. We're already seeing small drops in smartphone sales worldwide, some of which are undoubtedly related to the global crisis, but let's be real: the design has hardly improved from the glass slab of the iPhone. We've lost bezels and the tech has seen iterative upgrades and small innovations, but in general it's a stagnated market with no clear path forward. Current generations of XR headsets are still far away from mass adoption, but once the tech is drastically easier to adopt, possibly within the next decade, companies will flock to fulfill the demand, and Meta will already have an established platform. That's their bet anyway, and while I dislike everything they stand for, I can't say they're wrong in this case. Facebook might be dying, but they're seeing the writing on the wall and trying to pivot to an—as of yet—nonexistent market.

Lamad123 5y ago
You might be a little overoptimistic! Remember you've been promised flying cars, but cars today look almost identical to those from 130 years ago.
- Banana699 5y ago
  Cars can't get any smaller because they are constrained by a much more fundamental size limit than computers: the size to fit the driver and the passenger(s) and still have an engine. Formula 1 cars are as small as it gets. They didn't get any faster than 1960s-1970s limits because of efficiency and safety considerations, as well as the fact that a faster car means absolutely nothing on a jammed road, and traffic jams happen for reasons entirely unrelated to the speed of the cars involved. They didn't fly because of a complex mix of challenging engineering, tricky economics and the naivety of cultural expectation. Computers are different. They are mainly limited by the size of the UI and other IO, the actual "computer" is inconceivably, inhumanly, unimaginably small. Most of our devices is just places for your fingers to touch and your eyes to see. We can keep shrinking until we get to the point where computers are things we put inside our brains cells and inject in our bloodstream, and perhaps even more. They can absolutely get faster and more efficient than they are today. The brain that made them makes do with 100W and makes a mockery of GPT3 and CNNs. Yes it's a specialized architecture, that's the whole point. The easy money of moore's law and Dennard scaling blinded us to a whole landscape of possible computer architecture and programming paradigms, we haven't made a dent in that mine yet.
  - foepys 5y ago
    > Formula 1 cars are as small as it gets. No, Formula 1 cars are massive. They are light but very large to maximize downforce. There are a rules that define the maximum width and no current F1 car is smaller than that. I'm fact, this year's rules also define a maximum length and some manufacturers needed to shorten their cars.
  - piva00 5y ago
    > Formula 1 cars are as small as it gets. What? A 2021 Formula 1 car is around 2 meters wide and between 5-6 meters long, those dimensions are larger than many cars, only being beaten by pickup trucks.
    - emteycz 5y ago
      Well even that size is not enough for controlled passenger flight
- SergeAx 5y ago
  Isn't this a straw man argument? Nobody in their right mind promised flying cars, it is just not feasible energy-wise. On the other hand, VR headset is just a mobile phone strapped to user's face, with it's screen always on. So the tech is already here, and if you check out Quest and Quest 2 - it is basically just that, even powered by the same Android OS.
- dagmx 5y ago
  I feel like this is a strawman argument without the nuance of the specifics of each field, or how the ideas were portrayed. Were you promised flying cars or was it concept art of a future without the limits of physics? That's very different than ideation from companies actively working on a product and having a deep understanding of the limitations involved.
  - smorgusofborg 5y ago
    Flying cars were delivered and one flew until 1977: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar The FAA rejected the dream of normal drivers instead of trained pilots having flying cars, and IMO rightly so.
specto 5y ago
So far every venture that's tried this has failed due to the lack of smarts. If their smart speakers are even remotely as smart as their XR, this is dead in the water.
jahewson 5y ago
By the same logic they should bet the house on nuclear fusion. It’s a sure winner and I’m sure they can connect billing to your Facebook Pay account or something.
- imiric 5y ago
  I think we can agree that VR headsets and nuclear fusion have slightly different timeframes for mass market adoption.
  - ryan_lane 5y ago
    That's true. One day we might have everyone using nuclear fusion.
sharken 5y ago
There is a pretty good and short walkthrough of the XR term on Quora: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-specific-difference-between-VR-AR-MR-and-XR https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-specific-difference-betwee... I have a really hard time seeing everyone would want to walk around with even sunglasses to augment their reality, though it could make sense for specific situations such as travelling to foreign countries. But its really hard to be optimistic about some Metaverse or Second Life clone by Facebook (sorry Meta), where the difference is the use of XR. If you are thinking about the future, why not consider using controlled robots as the movie Surrogates centers around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogates For gaming, XR or even VR will benefit a lot from smaller devices, but as with flying cars its still a long way off a photo realistic experience.
kbelder 5y ago
I agree. That's the inevitable convergence device, and it will rule the world, superseding the smartphone. I don't really see any other alternative. But it might be five years away or thirty. I'm skeptical of Facebook's efforts in particular.
- kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
  Also there are dozens of ginormous game companies producing what the FB metaverse needs in order to survive: CONTENT. FB won’t be able to create anything like the quantity or quality of content these game companies can. If they decide to play in a different arena than FB’s metaverse, it’ll meet the same fate as Stadia and for the same reasons.

by imiric 5y ago

Lamad123 5y ago

You might be a little overoptimistic! Remember you've been promised flying cars, but cars today look almost identical to those from 130 years ago.

Banana699 5y ago
Cars can't get any smaller because they are constrained by a much more fundamental size limit than computers: the size to fit the driver and the passenger(s) and still have an engine. Formula 1 cars are as small as it gets. They didn't get any faster than 1960s-1970s limits because of efficiency and safety considerations, as well as the fact that a faster car means absolutely nothing on a jammed road, and traffic jams happen for reasons entirely unrelated to the speed of the cars involved. They didn't fly because of a complex mix of challenging engineering, tricky economics and the naivety of cultural expectation. Computers are different. They are mainly limited by the size of the UI and other IO, the actual "computer" is inconceivably, inhumanly, unimaginably small. Most of our devices is just places for your fingers to touch and your eyes to see. We can keep shrinking until we get to the point where computers are things we put inside our brains cells and inject in our bloodstream, and perhaps even more. They can absolutely get faster and more efficient than they are today. The brain that made them makes do with 100W and makes a mockery of GPT3 and CNNs. Yes it's a specialized architecture, that's the whole point. The easy money of moore's law and Dennard scaling blinded us to a whole landscape of possible computer architecture and programming paradigms, we haven't made a dent in that mine yet.
- foepys 5y ago
  > Formula 1 cars are as small as it gets. No, Formula 1 cars are massive. They are light but very large to maximize downforce. There are a rules that define the maximum width and no current F1 car is smaller than that. I'm fact, this year's rules also define a maximum length and some manufacturers needed to shorten their cars.
- piva00 5y ago
  > Formula 1 cars are as small as it gets. What? A 2021 Formula 1 car is around 2 meters wide and between 5-6 meters long, those dimensions are larger than many cars, only being beaten by pickup trucks.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    Well even that size is not enough for controlled passenger flight
SergeAx 5y ago
Isn't this a straw man argument? Nobody in their right mind promised flying cars, it is just not feasible energy-wise. On the other hand, VR headset is just a mobile phone strapped to user's face, with it's screen always on. So the tech is already here, and if you check out Quest and Quest 2 - it is basically just that, even powered by the same Android OS.
dagmx 5y ago
I feel like this is a strawman argument without the nuance of the specifics of each field, or how the ideas were portrayed. Were you promised flying cars or was it concept art of a future without the limits of physics? That's very different than ideation from companies actively working on a product and having a deep understanding of the limitations involved.
- smorgusofborg 5y ago
  Flying cars were delivered and one flew until 1977: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar The FAA rejected the dream of normal drivers instead of trained pilots having flying cars, and IMO rightly so.

specto 5y ago

So far every venture that's tried this has failed due to the lack of smarts. If their smart speakers are even remotely as smart as their XR, this is dead in the water.

jahewson 5y ago

By the same logic they should bet the house on nuclear fusion. It’s a sure winner and I’m sure they can connect billing to your Facebook Pay account or something.

imiric 5y ago
I think we can agree that VR headsets and nuclear fusion have slightly different timeframes for mass market adoption.
- ryan_lane 5y ago
  That's true. One day we might have everyone using nuclear fusion.

sharken 5y ago

There is a pretty good and short walkthrough of the XR term on Quora: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-specific-difference-between-VR-AR-MR-and-XR https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-specific-difference-betwee... I have a really hard time seeing everyone would want to walk around with even sunglasses to augment their reality, though it could make sense for specific situations such as travelling to foreign countries. But its really hard to be optimistic about some Metaverse or Second Life clone by Facebook (sorry Meta), where the difference is the use of XR. If you are thinking about the future, why not consider using controlled robots as the movie Surrogates centers around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogates For gaming, XR or even VR will benefit a lot from smaller devices, but as with flying cars its still a long way off a photo realistic experience.

kbelder 5y ago

I agree. That's the inevitable convergence device, and it will rule the world, superseding the smartphone. I don't really see any other alternative. But it might be five years away or thirty. I'm skeptical of Facebook's efforts in particular.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
Also there are dozens of ginormous game companies producing what the FB metaverse needs in order to survive: CONTENT. FB won’t be able to create anything like the quantity or quality of content these game companies can. If they decide to play in a different arena than FB’s metaverse, it’ll meet the same fate as Stadia and for the same reasons.