5 ms·

>This seems like a bit of 20/20 hindsight. 2nd Life, The Simms, various MMORPGS. We have loads of experience buildings virtual worlds with virtual belongings a

>This seems like a bit of 20/20 hindsight. 2nd Life, The Simms, various MMORPGS. We have loads of experience buildings virtual worlds with virtual belongings and conducting meetings virtually. I was part of a WOW guild that had meetings about raids and other small bits of admin stuff in game. But a company known for being sketchy as heck slaps on 3D goggles and makes it less fun and I’m supposed to want to be in it? I think you’ll find that a lot of people were skeptical.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
I don't disagree that the company is "sketchy as heck", but the fundamental bet was that the main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor (and also perhaps the smartphone display) to being VR. And yes, there were people skeptical about that, but I don't think that idea in and of itself (that is, taking Facebook's nefariousness out of the equation) was that outlandish a couple years ago, despite my personal disdain for the idea.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor (and also perhaps the smartphone display) to being VR Strapping a screen to your face is not ergonomic. It isn't practical.
  - bmelton 4y ago
    > Strapping a screen to your face is not ergonomic. It isn't practical That argument is only sound for as long as the screen is unwieldy. If you could wear a pair of glasses that magically converted your laptop into a stable, triple-screen workstation, it'd be a no-brainer to assert that it was useful in at least some circumstances -- working on planes, trains, automobiles now becomes more and more possible. If the tech then progressed to the point where you could do that from a phone, and not require a laptop, or even necessarily pulling the phone out of your pocket, then it seemed like a pretty powerful productivity feature _at least_ some of the time, and if executed well enough, it wouldn't shock me to see people giving up their laptops in the same way that many people don't bother having tower PC computers any more.
    - Macha 4y ago
      Right, but VR today to that vision is the gap between the Newton and the iPhone, not the gap between the LG Prada + iPod Video and the iPhone.
    - spacemadness 4y ago
      If Apple actually reveals a headset and the ergonomics are on par with what’s put there now, I think that will solidify the idea that this tech isn’t going to be ready for a long while.
      - wkat4242 4y ago
        For what Apple's headset is going to cost, it better be a lot better than what's on the market now.
    - xen2xen1 4y ago
      There's a TV show called the The First, about going to Mars. No on has computers, only voice activated TVs, and glasses that replaced computers. It's the most realistic next step in computer evolution I've ever seen. It's worth the watch just for the "near future" tech. Oddly enough, I could not figure out how we'd do the voice stuff, but it looks easy for a GPT with a little training.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > the fundamental bet was that the main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor That's not really the bet they were making. It was deeper than that. Facebook discovered that people are willing to use their product to dissociate to an extreme degree. There are some people out there whose entire lives are on FB and Instagram. Take their profiles away, and you would literally erase the livelihood and even identities of some individuals out there. They have no relationships and no skills in the material world. Their entire existence is a profile, and the relationships cultivated in that profile. Just as you and I cease to exist in the material world when we close our eyes and go to bed, these people cease to exist at all when they log off of Facebook and Instagram. And so Meta, being the consumer-focused company it is, was looking to give their best customers exactly what they want: a way to complete their dissociation in the material world, and to bring even more of their existence into the metaverse, the digital plane of existence for many of their customers. Their pitch for metaverse meetings seems so strange to us on the material plane because in-person meetings are the last thing we'd replicate digitally. But for those who are ready to dissociate into the digital plane, a digital meeting room is the next logical step. It's like what Agent Smith says about the first version of the Matrix. Yeah, it was perfect, but it wasn't real. So they added pain and suffering to make it real. The FB can offer a great dissociative experience if that's what you're looking for, but if you're really looking to let go of the material plane, you need to bring in all the pain and suffering you're used to into the metaverse. Otherwise the distinct lack of meetings gives away the charade. The problem for Meta is that the Metaverse is a very expensive proposition, and there are only so many hardcore FB and Instagram addicts at this point willing to dissociate to that degree. The rest of us enjoy our material plane of existence, and aren't addicted to Facebook and Instagram the way their users are. And there it is, the word "user", which reminds us that FB customers really have a lot in common with drug addicts.
  - rchaud 4y ago
    People whose lives are FB and Instagram are following celebrities and getting caught up arguing with strangers over reality TV drama. None of this exists in the Metaverse, there are no Groups or Pages where this type of discussion could take place. That's the biggest issue with Horizon Worlds -- you are expected to go there and talk to strangers. That is 100% unlike the FB experience, where someone else provides a prompt (post), and you join in the comments.
- this_user 4y ago
  > the fundamental bet was that the main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor (and also perhaps the smartphone display) to being VR That's a terrible bet. Anyone who has ever played a 3D game will immediately understand that a 3D world is a strictly inferior interface for almost all use cases where you are actually trying to get something done, e.g. read and answer an email.
  - throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
    What do you expect monitor technology to look like in 20 years; the same as today just with more pixels? If someone types by touch, what's the difference between a VR monitor and a physical monitor?
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > the same as today just with more pixels? That's the safe bet, yes. Maybe not even with more pixels.
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  My point was that this is not 20/20 hindsight. A lot of people thought this was a non-starter from the beginning. So far it's panning out the way skeptics predicted. It would be 20/20 hindsight if they succeeded and we starting post rationalizing it. Also I think people only think from the "what do I gain?" perspective. There is a comment below that asks "what do you think display technology will be like in 20 years?" I won't argue that 2 high res screens that can show my entire workspace where ever I am would not be awesome. I would try that. But consider all the things you do while you work: - Eat and drink - Stare out the window - Get up and go to the bathroom - Just have a stretch, spin in your chair. And now 2 tiny 4k screens strapped to your head is no longer ergonomic and isn't going to cut it. And a cheap and normal screens looks really good.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > I don't disagree that the company is "sketchy as heck", but the fundamental bet was that the main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor (and also perhaps the smartphone display) to being VR. And yes, there were people skeptical about that, but I don't think that idea in and of itself (that is, taking Facebook's nefariousness out of the equation) was that outlandish a couple years ago, despite my personal disdain for the idea. Actually, that idea is less outlandish now; in fact, they should double-down on it if they can. A few years ago ChatGPT and AI as they are now were not even close to allowing people to use something other than screen with (perhaps on-screen, perhaps physical) keyboard. With the advances we've now seen in AI, it makes VR more likely[1] to be the main interface to the computer, not less likely. Hence, they should double-down on VR and immediately integrate AI, even if it means ditching the bulky headset that users have already rejected. A ChatGPT-like assistant could be the final puzzle piece that causes users to stop using the monitor/screen/keyboard for interacting with their social network. Not to say that they'll switch to VR, but it becomes ever more probably, with AI assistance, to ditch the current interaction mechanism for social network users. [1] Still pretty unlikely, but more likely than before.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
Never mind the whole VR + Powerglove fail of the 1990's....
- ako 4y ago
  Sometimes it takes a few tries before they get it right, the iPhone also wasn’t the first touch based screen only phone.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    It wasn't? What were the other ones?
    - ako 4y ago
      IBM Simon was the first in 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon I had a Sony Ericsson p900 a few years before the iPhone, it had a small keyboard you’d usually flip out of the way to get a full screen touch display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_P900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_P900
    - xpl 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada for example. It looks pretty much like iPhone — no keyboard, just touchscreen. But it did not really "spark joy" (I had one), so it wasn't a big success unlike iPhone.
      - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
        Thanks for posting that, I didn't remember that one. That's one of the only ones I would consider a "true" predecessor to the iPhone - as you say, capacitive touchscreen and no keyboard. Other ones that have a touchscreen but also a number keypad or something like a slideout/flip keyboard are just not ones I would consider in the same category.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

I don't disagree that the company is "sketchy as heck", but the fundamental bet was that the main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor (and also perhaps the smartphone display) to being VR. And yes, there were people skeptical about that, but I don't think that idea in and of itself (that is, taking Facebook's nefariousness out of the equation) was that outlandish a couple years ago, despite my personal disdain for the idea.

andsoitis 4y ago
> main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor (and also perhaps the smartphone display) to being VR Strapping a screen to your face is not ergonomic. It isn't practical.
- bmelton 4y ago
  > Strapping a screen to your face is not ergonomic. It isn't practical That argument is only sound for as long as the screen is unwieldy. If you could wear a pair of glasses that magically converted your laptop into a stable, triple-screen workstation, it'd be a no-brainer to assert that it was useful in at least some circumstances -- working on planes, trains, automobiles now becomes more and more possible. If the tech then progressed to the point where you could do that from a phone, and not require a laptop, or even necessarily pulling the phone out of your pocket, then it seemed like a pretty powerful productivity feature _at least_ some of the time, and if executed well enough, it wouldn't shock me to see people giving up their laptops in the same way that many people don't bother having tower PC computers any more.
  - Macha 4y ago
    Right, but VR today to that vision is the gap between the Newton and the iPhone, not the gap between the LG Prada + iPod Video and the iPhone.
  - spacemadness 4y ago
    If Apple actually reveals a headset and the ergonomics are on par with what’s put there now, I think that will solidify the idea that this tech isn’t going to be ready for a long while.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      For what Apple's headset is going to cost, it better be a lot better than what's on the market now.
  - xen2xen1 4y ago
    There's a TV show called the The First, about going to Mars. No on has computers, only voice activated TVs, and glasses that replaced computers. It's the most realistic next step in computer evolution I've ever seen. It's worth the watch just for the "near future" tech. Oddly enough, I could not figure out how we'd do the voice stuff, but it looks easy for a GPT with a little training.
ModernMech 4y ago
> the fundamental bet was that the main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor That's not really the bet they were making. It was deeper than that. Facebook discovered that people are willing to use their product to dissociate to an extreme degree. There are some people out there whose entire lives are on FB and Instagram. Take their profiles away, and you would literally erase the livelihood and even identities of some individuals out there. They have no relationships and no skills in the material world. Their entire existence is a profile, and the relationships cultivated in that profile. Just as you and I cease to exist in the material world when we close our eyes and go to bed, these people cease to exist at all when they log off of Facebook and Instagram. And so Meta, being the consumer-focused company it is, was looking to give their best customers exactly what they want: a way to complete their dissociation in the material world, and to bring even more of their existence into the metaverse, the digital plane of existence for many of their customers. Their pitch for metaverse meetings seems so strange to us on the material plane because in-person meetings are the last thing we'd replicate digitally. But for those who are ready to dissociate into the digital plane, a digital meeting room is the next logical step. It's like what Agent Smith says about the first version of the Matrix. Yeah, it was perfect, but it wasn't real. So they added pain and suffering to make it real. The FB can offer a great dissociative experience if that's what you're looking for, but if you're really looking to let go of the material plane, you need to bring in all the pain and suffering you're used to into the metaverse. Otherwise the distinct lack of meetings gives away the charade. The problem for Meta is that the Metaverse is a very expensive proposition, and there are only so many hardcore FB and Instagram addicts at this point willing to dissociate to that degree. The rest of us enjoy our material plane of existence, and aren't addicted to Facebook and Instagram the way their users are. And there it is, the word "user", which reminds us that FB customers really have a lot in common with drug addicts.
- rchaud 4y ago
  People whose lives are FB and Instagram are following celebrities and getting caught up arguing with strangers over reality TV drama. None of this exists in the Metaverse, there are no Groups or Pages where this type of discussion could take place. That's the biggest issue with Horizon Worlds -- you are expected to go there and talk to strangers. That is 100% unlike the FB experience, where someone else provides a prompt (post), and you join in the comments.
this_user 4y ago
> the fundamental bet was that the main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor (and also perhaps the smartphone display) to being VR That's a terrible bet. Anyone who has ever played a 3D game will immediately understand that a 3D world is a strictly inferior interface for almost all use cases where you are actually trying to get something done, e.g. read and answer an email.
- throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
  What do you expect monitor technology to look like in 20 years; the same as today just with more pixels? If someone types by touch, what's the difference between a VR monitor and a physical monitor?
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > the same as today just with more pixels? That's the safe bet, yes. Maybe not even with more pixels.
2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
My point was that this is not 20/20 hindsight. A lot of people thought this was a non-starter from the beginning. So far it's panning out the way skeptics predicted. It would be 20/20 hindsight if they succeeded and we starting post rationalizing it. Also I think people only think from the "what do I gain?" perspective. There is a comment below that asks "what do you think display technology will be like in 20 years?" I won't argue that 2 high res screens that can show my entire workspace where ever I am would not be awesome. I would try that. But consider all the things you do while you work: - Eat and drink - Stare out the window - Get up and go to the bathroom - Just have a stretch, spin in your chair. And now 2 tiny 4k screens strapped to your head is no longer ergonomic and isn't going to cut it. And a cheap and normal screens looks really good.
lelanthran 4y ago
> I don't disagree that the company is "sketchy as heck", but the fundamental bet was that the main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor (and also perhaps the smartphone display) to being VR. And yes, there were people skeptical about that, but I don't think that idea in and of itself (that is, taking Facebook's nefariousness out of the equation) was that outlandish a couple years ago, despite my personal disdain for the idea. Actually, that idea is less outlandish now; in fact, they should double-down on it if they can. A few years ago ChatGPT and AI as they are now were not even close to allowing people to use something other than screen with (perhaps on-screen, perhaps physical) keyboard. With the advances we've now seen in AI, it makes VR more likely[1] to be the main interface to the computer, not less likely. Hence, they should double-down on VR and immediately integrate AI, even if it means ditching the bulky headset that users have already rejected. A ChatGPT-like assistant could be the final puzzle piece that causes users to stop using the monitor/screen/keyboard for interacting with their social network. Not to say that they'll switch to VR, but it becomes ever more probably, with AI assistance, to ditch the current interaction mechanism for social network users. [1] Still pretty unlikely, but more likely than before.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

Never mind the whole VR + Powerglove fail of the 1990's....

ako 4y ago
Sometimes it takes a few tries before they get it right, the iPhone also wasn’t the first touch based screen only phone.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  It wasn't? What were the other ones?
  - ako 4y ago
    IBM Simon was the first in 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon I had a Sony Ericsson p900 a few years before the iPhone, it had a small keyboard you’d usually flip out of the way to get a full screen touch display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_P900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_P900
  - xpl 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada for example. It looks pretty much like iPhone — no keyboard, just touchscreen. But it did not really "spark joy" (I had one), so it wasn't a big success unlike iPhone.
    - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
      Thanks for posting that, I didn't remember that one. That's one of the only ones I would consider a "true" predecessor to the iPhone - as you say, capacitive touchscreen and no keyboard. Other ones that have a touchscreen but also a number keypad or something like a slideout/flip keyboard are just not ones I would consider in the same category.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago