4 ms·

I don't think it's a problem that VR is a completely new business. (It has a social aspect to it but it's not relevant to the discussion). I do agree that a bet

I don't think it's a problem that VR is a completely new business. (It has a social aspect to it but it's not relevant to the discussion). I do agree that a better model would be the Amazon one. Amazon grew a completely new business (AWS) that had nothing to do with its core business (retail) but didn't lose focus on its core business and managed to grow both at the same time.

_rutinerad 4y ago
That’s a poor comparison. Amazon spun off a cost center into a separate business, so that they could make a profit on infrastructure they already had to have for their core business. So even with zero customers “AWS” would still have to exist in some form for Amazon’s core business to function. That is completely different relationship than Meta’s core business and their VR initiatives.
spookthesunset 4y ago
But when AWS started with s3 the stakes were small and they already had the technology. It was a natural, low stakes attempt to diversify. They didn’t bet the farm on AWS it just kinda happened organically. At least that is my assumption, I could be wrong. FB is betting the farm on a completely new technology with almost no user validation or product market fit. It’s incredibly higher risk than Amazon expanding into AWS.
- tinyhouse 4y ago
  I agree Amazon's approach was better. But I wouldn't say that FB is getting on something completely new without product market fit. They acquired Oculus in 2014, so they have almost a decade of experience with the technology. Also their VR headsets are very popular and have high demand. The problem is that they didn't figure out a way to monetize yet and it's far from mainstream. The main use case is still video games, far from the social vision Zuck has. I have a Quest and I like it, but even for video games if I had to pick one console, the Quest wouldn't be in my top 3 choices. I hope they succeed and I think it's not fair to judge them so early.

_rutinerad 4y ago

That’s a poor comparison. Amazon spun off a cost center into a separate business, so that they could make a profit on infrastructure they already had to have for their core business. So even with zero customers “AWS” would still have to exist in some form for Amazon’s core business to function. That is completely different relationship than Meta’s core business and their VR initiatives.

spookthesunset 4y ago

But when AWS started with s3 the stakes were small and they already had the technology. It was a natural, low stakes attempt to diversify. They didn’t bet the farm on AWS it just kinda happened organically. At least that is my assumption, I could be wrong. FB is betting the farm on a completely new technology with almost no user validation or product market fit. It’s incredibly higher risk than Amazon expanding into AWS.

tinyhouse 4y ago
I agree Amazon's approach was better. But I wouldn't say that FB is getting on something completely new without product market fit. They acquired Oculus in 2014, so they have almost a decade of experience with the technology. Also their VR headsets are very popular and have high demand. The problem is that they didn't figure out a way to monetize yet and it's far from mainstream. The main use case is still video games, far from the social vision Zuck has. I have a Quest and I like it, but even for video games if I had to pick one console, the Quest wouldn't be in my top 3 choices. I hope they succeed and I think it's not fair to judge them so early.