5 ms·

Facebook's future isn't in the social media space though. Most of their endeavors are in VR and other cutting edge technologies, hence the name change to Meta.

by maldev 4y ago

Facebook's future isn't in the social media space though. Most of their endeavors are in VR and other cutting edge technologies, hence the name change to Meta. I wouldn't be surprised if they saw the writing on the walls years ago. They've been hiring AI, and VR researchers for years now and are the industry leader in VR at least.

wpietri 4y ago
But a leader in what exactly? I have been looking for years for actual usage stats. E.g., MAU and UAM for VR headsets, especially ones broken out by length of ownership. I get that people are buying Oculus units because of the hype, but is there much sustained usage? If so, what exactly is keeping people engaged once the novelty wears off? As comparison, look at Amazon's smart speakers. $10 billion spent, lots of hype, part of the zeitgeist enough that SNL is doing jokes about it [1]. End of the day it's a "colossal failure": https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/amazon-alexa-is-a-colossal-failure-on-pace-to-lose-10-billion-this-year/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/amazon-alexa-is-a-co... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvT_gqs5ETk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvT_gqs5ETk
- imiric 4y ago
  Meta is betting on the long term. They're the leader of a very niche market _now_, but as XR technology improves, that market will only grow, and Meta will be ready for it, with years ahead of the competition at that point. That's their bet, anyway, and we can speculate whether it will come to pass or not. I'm inclined to think that the tech will eventually become mainstream, when headsets are as comfortable to wear as glasses. It's a prime opportunity for Apple to jump in near the tipping point, and claim to be the innovator, once again. It would be the mainstream push the industry needs, at least. I'm less confident that Meta's verse will succeed, though. They've shown to be incapable of delivering an appealing product people want to spend hours in. And the Meta brand is tarnished beyond repair, no matter how many rebrandings they go through.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    I agree with you that Meta ads another set of ways to fail. But this is the thing I want to question: > that market will only grow I too have read science fiction, so I get the theory. You know what else is in science fiction? 3D movies and 3D TV. But we've had 3 waves of 3D films (1950s, 1980s, 2000s) and it turns out nobody cares. And 3D TV fared even worse. And let's not forget the 1990 wave of actual VR, which also cratered. So the question is: will facehugger VR go the way of other stereoscopic 3D entertainment? I think it's an open question, but my point is that it's very plausible that VR and the Metaverse will, like the jetpack, remain in the realm of sci-fi long after you and I are in the ground. And as far as I can tell, nobody is releasing data that shows it on a different arc. The Brewster Stereoscope sold a lot of units too, as did the Viewmaster. But ultimately people seem fine inferring 3D from 2D images without stereoscopic effects to help them along.
    - BlueTemplar 4y ago
      I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? 3D movies are still around, though sadly "real" 3D is pretty rare (remove the "Filmed in 2D" from the list, and of course the Digital 3D animations have different constraints : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005%E2%80%9.... But it's kind of weird that you would say this, with 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere now (if not in homes any more, though my own TV is still compatible), especially with Avatar 2 that just released ? https://news.yahoo.com/james-cameron-avatar-way-of-water-3d-high-frame-rate-104938634.html https://news.yahoo.com/james-cameron-avatar-way-of-water-3d-...
      - wpietri 4y ago
        > I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? I in fact don't. The wave starts earlier. > 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere It's an option that not many people pick. Even before the pandemic, 3D ticket sales were declining: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1554281023 https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=... And it has rebounded less well than 2D: https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office... Compare that with the introduction of color or sound, and it's pretty obvious that 3D films are at best a niche. I haven't heard of any 3D film that's offered only in 3D. Even Avatar 2 is available in 2D, suggesting that even James Cameron, one of 3D's biggest proponents, considers it optional. Will theaters keep offering it? Probably, but theaters are a business in decline and so are desperate for anything that gets people coming in. Just looking at some theaters selling Avatar tickets, 3D is treated as an amenity like Dolby sound or reclining seats or "plush rockers", whatever those are. Perfectly nice, but hardly the stuff of societal transformation like Zuckerberg is hoping for.
- maldev 4y ago
  The end result you see in the VR headset, or the games/worlds arn't really the goal. AI, and VR tech don't pay out right now. But AI is rapidly developing and Meta is one of the leaders in AI research. We could easily see chatbots, Alex like things, or even manufacturing and disability assistance. Or robots and image classification. Skies the limit. The thing is with this tech, the killer product doesn't even exist yet, and probably isn't even a thought in someones mind. The goal is to make it so when the killer product does arrive, all the R&D they've invested is able to allow them to become to dominate leader. The same also applies to VR tech and the interfaces for VR. It's not a consumer focused field, but their R&D is worth millions, and when it comes time for the killer product, they'll have it, or be able to smother the one who does. And this honestly makes sense for a company like Facebook. Their golden goose is dying. Facebook won't churn out money. All the legislation against them is killer, and they know it's a market propped up by easy VC money where almost no social media company makes money. So why not invest the all their billions into future tech we'll see likely playout in 5-10 years, where they will then be able to completely pivot to that product. It's the long game.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Yes, I understand the theory. But you've assumed the very thing I'm questioning: "when the killer product does arrive". Killer products for particular hyped tech visions frequently don't arrive, at least in the necessary window for a given wave of investment. We don't have jetpacks. There were people who invested in flying cars throughout the 20th century; Are they now "become to dominate leader"? Or look at Motorola's Iridium. Zepplins, wireless power transmission, vacations to the moon. All commonplace in sci-fi, and all things people have invested in. The killer product never arrived. Facebook is doing this because Mark Zuckerberg wants to remain rich and relevant. But just because his ego can't conceive of his company becoming irrelevant doesn't mean we have to play along.
croes 4y ago
Meta "vision" of the Metaverse is still a social media verse
nottorp 4y ago
But that's still based on selling off the users' personal data. Hence the requirement for a Facebook^H^H^H^HMeta account to use an Occulus.

by maldev 4y ago

wpietri 4y ago

But a leader in what exactly? I have been looking for years for actual usage stats. E.g., MAU and UAM for VR headsets, especially ones broken out by length of ownership. I get that people are buying Oculus units because of the hype, but is there much sustained usage? If so, what exactly is keeping people engaged once the novelty wears off? As comparison, look at Amazon's smart speakers. $10 billion spent, lots of hype, part of the zeitgeist enough that SNL is doing jokes about it [1]. End of the day it's a "colossal failure": https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/amazon-alexa-is-a-colossal-failure-on-pace-to-lose-10-billion-this-year/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/amazon-alexa-is-a-co... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvT_gqs5ETk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvT_gqs5ETk

imiric 4y ago
Meta is betting on the long term. They're the leader of a very niche market _now_, but as XR technology improves, that market will only grow, and Meta will be ready for it, with years ahead of the competition at that point. That's their bet, anyway, and we can speculate whether it will come to pass or not. I'm inclined to think that the tech will eventually become mainstream, when headsets are as comfortable to wear as glasses. It's a prime opportunity for Apple to jump in near the tipping point, and claim to be the innovator, once again. It would be the mainstream push the industry needs, at least. I'm less confident that Meta's verse will succeed, though. They've shown to be incapable of delivering an appealing product people want to spend hours in. And the Meta brand is tarnished beyond repair, no matter how many rebrandings they go through.
- wpietri 4y ago
  I agree with you that Meta ads another set of ways to fail. But this is the thing I want to question: > that market will only grow I too have read science fiction, so I get the theory. You know what else is in science fiction? 3D movies and 3D TV. But we've had 3 waves of 3D films (1950s, 1980s, 2000s) and it turns out nobody cares. And 3D TV fared even worse. And let's not forget the 1990 wave of actual VR, which also cratered. So the question is: will facehugger VR go the way of other stereoscopic 3D entertainment? I think it's an open question, but my point is that it's very plausible that VR and the Metaverse will, like the jetpack, remain in the realm of sci-fi long after you and I are in the ground. And as far as I can tell, nobody is releasing data that shows it on a different arc. The Brewster Stereoscope sold a lot of units too, as did the Viewmaster. But ultimately people seem fine inferring 3D from 2D images without stereoscopic effects to help them along.
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? 3D movies are still around, though sadly "real" 3D is pretty rare (remove the "Filmed in 2D" from the list, and of course the Digital 3D animations have different constraints : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005%E2%80%9.... But it's kind of weird that you would say this, with 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere now (if not in homes any more, though my own TV is still compatible), especially with Avatar 2 that just released ? https://news.yahoo.com/james-cameron-avatar-way-of-water-3d-high-frame-rate-104938634.html https://news.yahoo.com/james-cameron-avatar-way-of-water-3d-...
    - wpietri 4y ago
      > I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? I in fact don't. The wave starts earlier. > 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere It's an option that not many people pick. Even before the pandemic, 3D ticket sales were declining: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1554281023 https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=... And it has rebounded less well than 2D: https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office... Compare that with the introduction of color or sound, and it's pretty obvious that 3D films are at best a niche. I haven't heard of any 3D film that's offered only in 3D. Even Avatar 2 is available in 2D, suggesting that even James Cameron, one of 3D's biggest proponents, considers it optional. Will theaters keep offering it? Probably, but theaters are a business in decline and so are desperate for anything that gets people coming in. Just looking at some theaters selling Avatar tickets, 3D is treated as an amenity like Dolby sound or reclining seats or "plush rockers", whatever those are. Perfectly nice, but hardly the stuff of societal transformation like Zuckerberg is hoping for.
maldev 4y ago
The end result you see in the VR headset, or the games/worlds arn't really the goal. AI, and VR tech don't pay out right now. But AI is rapidly developing and Meta is one of the leaders in AI research. We could easily see chatbots, Alex like things, or even manufacturing and disability assistance. Or robots and image classification. Skies the limit. The thing is with this tech, the killer product doesn't even exist yet, and probably isn't even a thought in someones mind. The goal is to make it so when the killer product does arrive, all the R&D they've invested is able to allow them to become to dominate leader. The same also applies to VR tech and the interfaces for VR. It's not a consumer focused field, but their R&D is worth millions, and when it comes time for the killer product, they'll have it, or be able to smother the one who does. And this honestly makes sense for a company like Facebook. Their golden goose is dying. Facebook won't churn out money. All the legislation against them is killer, and they know it's a market propped up by easy VC money where almost no social media company makes money. So why not invest the all their billions into future tech we'll see likely playout in 5-10 years, where they will then be able to completely pivot to that product. It's the long game.
- wpietri 4y ago
  Yes, I understand the theory. But you've assumed the very thing I'm questioning: "when the killer product does arrive". Killer products for particular hyped tech visions frequently don't arrive, at least in the necessary window for a given wave of investment. We don't have jetpacks. There were people who invested in flying cars throughout the 20th century; Are they now "become to dominate leader"? Or look at Motorola's Iridium. Zepplins, wireless power transmission, vacations to the moon. All commonplace in sci-fi, and all things people have invested in. The killer product never arrived. Facebook is doing this because Mark Zuckerberg wants to remain rich and relevant. But just because his ego can't conceive of his company becoming irrelevant doesn't mean we have to play along.

croes 4y ago

Meta "vision" of the Metaverse is still a social media verse

nottorp 4y ago

But that's still based on selling off the users' personal data. Hence the requirement for a Facebook^H^H^H^HMeta account to use an Occulus.