4 ms·

Meta rebuffs Google's virtual reality tie-up proposal

41 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

timmg 3y ago
> But such a partnership could thwart Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's plan to "own the next computational platform for AR, VR and mixed reality," according to the report. Obviously, this is important to them/him. And it certainly makes sense. But didn't Zuck's review of the Apple Vision Pro compare it's "closed platform" and Meta's is an "open platform"? I never understood how that aligned with their needs or their actions.
- prasadjoglekar 3y ago
  Open for me, not for thee :)
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  You can have an open platform that you're still in charge of. Open source projects still have leadership of some kind. And yeah, Meta's Quest platform is relatively open, at least compared to Apple. Probably wouldn't say it's fully open though.
- cma 3y ago
  Look at Meta's policy on PWAs on the Quest. Far worse than Apple, they are setting it up to take 30% of PWAs.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Quest is open because you can sideload. Apple is not. See the recent article where Apple says they'll block porn apps however they can on vision pro. Not cool, it's a really great tech for people with an open mind. SexTech is a fast growing market and imposing morals on your users isn't a nice thing to do. On quest you can just sideload such apps (though unfortunately sidequest no longer allows them in their store either after they started working with meta). Nevertheless you can still just sideload the APK directly even through sidequest. Which works fine.
m3kw9 3y ago
Google here going low ball on Meta and failing spectacularly
justinclift 3y ago
Who would want to partner with Google on something strategic? Google is more than likely to terminate the project within 2 years, which they've demonstrated time and time again.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Yep. Say of meta what you will but they stand by VR despite years of getting flak for it.
blackoil 3y ago
Whatever Meta is. I like Zuckerberg as an Entrepreneur; he makes bold gutsy moves and most of them have been right till now. Also, his position on culture, dev salaries, contracts etc. seem more reasonable than others.
- mandeepj 3y ago
  > dev salaries If this manipulation is true, would you still say he's right? https://interviewing.io/blog/how-to-negotiate-with-meta https://interviewing.io/blog/how-to-negotiate-with-meta
  - pquki4 3y ago
    I mean, lots of companies do the same thing, and it's just part of the job hunting process. If you can't stand it, you don't have to join that company, just find another one. I don't like all that stuff but there is nothing worthy of picking out Meta.
  - fatnoah 3y ago
    It is worth noting that a "lowball" from Meta is still probably more than a "best offer" from the vast majority of other companies.
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    This is the nonsense you get for inexperienced and jr devs. Let's take a look at the pandemic. The government was handing out free money. People were stuck at home. Why did big tech hire every bit of talent that applied and let them do nothing for two years? The same reason that they over hire now, and have dumb roles like "button engineers". The same reason why experienced FAANG engineers leave and build bloated systems with more servers (and problems) than users. The strategy is one to abort competition. To soften potential competitors with cushy jobs and stupid pay days. TO indoctrinate them into a way of building and thinking that isnt wholly compatible with startups. What happens when these processes misfire. You get what's app. 30 engineers and 30 servers at the time FB bought them (or some stupidly low number, I'm close). Your average post FAANG engineer would have 2 dozen people running kafka and kuberneties with a multi million dollar cloud spend and have given most of the company away to VC's. Am I suggesting there is a cabal? No, this is the 'natural order' and has been going on since Edison. The distinction is one of nuance. If you have the stomach for risk it is even easier to succeed now than it was in Edisons time (software isnt physical goods and hardware, its application not creation). Edit: peter thiel 100k dropout offer is likely an overt example of this idea put into action.
urbandw311er 3y ago
Absolutely the right decision. A very transparent attempt at control. He who owns the platform owns the kingdom.
- klabb3 3y ago
  And he who owns the kingdom owns the serfs. The result of dominance games is stagnation. Innovation happens only as a side effect during regime change.
xnx 3y ago
Would Android XR give Google anymore control over Meta than Google has over Microsoft with Edge being based off Chromium?
- geor9e 3y ago
  Chromium is open source. Android XR (and ARCore) are closed source. So for comparison think more along the lines of Android Things, a closed source OS where partners made the Lenovo Smart Display 10 for example. Google got bored, or the execs weren't impressed at IO'18, and suddenly EOL'd Android Things. Now, Lenovo has a ton of stock of a dead-end product line with no way for them to update the devices, or the OS. They don't have the source. So why would Meta trust Google not to screw them too? Compare to, say, Amazon Fire tablets. They're forked from AOSP (for FireOS) and Chromium (for Silk) so Amazon will still have the complete source code to continue, even if Google stops helping the projects. If Android Things got open-sourced so Lenovo could continue, perhaps Meta would see Android XR in a different light. But they never did. Probably just laziness. The IOT fad faded. Google doesn't like to commit any resources to things that don't have billion dollar profit potential. They just kill, kill, kill and move on. Google has a bad track record. Now it's come back to bite them. All future partnerships live under the shadow of #KilledByGoogle
gumby 3y ago
If I were google I'd stay far away because of the antitrust risks
pquki4 3y ago
Someone just needs to look at how Google handled their tablet and watch strategy to know Google is not a trustworthy partner. Android tablets and Wear OS had so much potential, but Google squandered their opportunities. Very sad to see Fossil exiting the watch devices. And perhaps Samsung is the only big company out there that invests so much in Android for non smartphone/smart TV devices. (And let's acknowledge that DeX is completely Samsung's work, and they really put a lot of work to make Android tablets usable.)
- Goodroo 3y ago
  Funny thing is that the other company was a serious contributor to the android ecosystem was Huawei. I can even dare say that they were even more serious than Samsung. Google's lack of support for non smartphone OS will give Huawei an opening.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  I would love the idea that if AR/VR really takes off (which is a big if) that we don't have a bunch of silo'd versions of this tech that have major fundamental differences (far more than just Android vs iOS) due to the nature of the tech. No one in their right mind should bet on building on a new tech like this from Google. What would Meta's options be if Google abandons it? Just not worth the risk.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    Incredibly bold assertion that a Meta-backed VR headset won't be just as silo'd off as a Google-backed one. Google is 100% distrustworthy for sure, but is Meta really any better at all?
    - belval 3y ago
      It's a weird world out there these days, but only one of them open-sourced their LLMs so maybe?
    - nerdjon 3y ago
      I think you misunderstood. I’m not claiming that Meta won’t be Silo’d off by making their own. But Google is not going to be the one that should be trusted to make a platform for multiple devices. Like it would be great if we had such a platform from a company that won’t abandon it in a few months. But instead we are likely just going to have Silo’d systems.
WhatIsDukkha 3y ago
I'm torn on this. First google has been asleep and not contributing much to XR for several very important years. Second meta's version of android (the vr shell is my focus) is an awkward pile of jank and fail. It doesn't feel well done in practical terms. I like android and what facebook has done is just... bad android. That said they've been helping moving forward in positive ways with openxr/webxr standards implementations work. I look forward to a large pile of opensource being contributed to the larger XR community by things getting mainlined into android. We'll see what google can manage these days with their samsung headset incoming.
taeric 3y ago
I feel like I'm being unnecessarily negative, but I really hate Android and I would not want it involved with my VR headset. A few platforms make good use of it, I think. Peloton, in particular, does impress me with how well it uses Android. Usually, seeing Android on something is akin to seeing Windows CE. I get the idea folks were aiming for, but in practice it simply lacks the stability for something that you want to build on. And I don't mean "stability" as in, "doesn't crash." That is nice and needed, of course. I more mean it in "doesnt change."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Mindwipe 3y ago
  The Quest already runs Android. It just doesn't run Google Play Services and their apps.
  - taeric 3y ago
    That doesn't shock me and is why I assume I'm being overly negative. I'm curious what sort of software is used by Playstation Portal or the PSVR2. And I get that you don't want to be in the market of custom software all the way down. I have grown rather distrustful on Google's ability to not drop things. Their API discipline is not at all pleasant for people that rely on them.
Goodroo 3y ago
Zuckerberg probably follows every #killedbygoogle social media account out there
anaisbetts 3y ago
It's unfortunate, a partnership with Google that got Play Store into Quest headsets would fill in a Huge gap that Quest has right now vs the Vision Pro, the 2D app ecosystem. Despite it not being the Headline use-case for a XR headset, it's still clearly a use-case that people find super useful
- omeze 3y ago
  I think Google denied putting the play store on the quest (Boz from Meta has said this). Thats probably a reason this potential partnership was unlikely
ilaksh 3y ago
A primary feature of the Metaverse as initially envisioned was having a platform for diverse virtual shared spaces, experiences and software. WebXR has the potential to be this shared platform. But certain features such as immersive navigation that would facilitate this may be being deliberately held back or neglected. https://github.com/immersive-web/navigation/issues/14 https://github.com/immersive-web/navigation/issues/14
ta20240226 3y ago
I don’t see how this appeals to Meta. It’s not like Meta is primarily a hardware company that doesn’t have expertise in software. They are primarily a software company. In addition, they have a lot of engineers who are familiar with low-level programming, so that is not an issue. In addition as IBM and Samsung have learned, the OS vendor, not the hardware manufacturer, is the one who controls the platform.
wkat4242 3y ago
I'm glad so much work is still being done on VR. Despite all the naysaying. I enjoy it a lot.

41 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

> But such a partnership could thwart Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's plan to "own the next computational platform for AR, VR and mixed reality," according to the report. Obviously, this is important to them/him. And it certainly makes sense. But didn't Zuck's review of the Apple Vision Pro compare it's "closed platform" and Meta's is an "open platform"? I never understood how that aligned with their needs or their actions.

prasadjoglekar 3y ago
Open for me, not for thee :)
TulliusCicero 3y ago
You can have an open platform that you're still in charge of. Open source projects still have leadership of some kind. And yeah, Meta's Quest platform is relatively open, at least compared to Apple. Probably wouldn't say it's fully open though.
cma 3y ago
Look at Meta's policy on PWAs on the Quest. Far worse than Apple, they are setting it up to take 30% of PWAs.
wkat4242 3y ago
Quest is open because you can sideload. Apple is not. See the recent article where Apple says they'll block porn apps however they can on vision pro. Not cool, it's a really great tech for people with an open mind. SexTech is a fast growing market and imposing morals on your users isn't a nice thing to do. On quest you can just sideload such apps (though unfortunately sidequest no longer allows them in their store either after they started working with meta). Nevertheless you can still just sideload the APK directly even through sidequest. Which works fine.

m3kw9 3y ago

Google here going low ball on Meta and failing spectacularly

justinclift 3y ago

Who would want to partner with Google on something strategic? Google is more than likely to terminate the project within 2 years, which they've demonstrated time and time again.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wkat4242 3y ago
Yep. Say of meta what you will but they stand by VR despite years of getting flak for it.

blackoil 3y ago

Whatever Meta is. I like Zuckerberg as an Entrepreneur; he makes bold gutsy moves and most of them have been right till now. Also, his position on culture, dev salaries, contracts etc. seem more reasonable than others.

mandeepj 3y ago
> dev salaries If this manipulation is true, would you still say he's right? https://interviewing.io/blog/how-to-negotiate-with-meta https://interviewing.io/blog/how-to-negotiate-with-meta
- pquki4 3y ago
  I mean, lots of companies do the same thing, and it's just part of the job hunting process. If you can't stand it, you don't have to join that company, just find another one. I don't like all that stuff but there is nothing worthy of picking out Meta.
- fatnoah 3y ago
  It is worth noting that a "lowball" from Meta is still probably more than a "best offer" from the vast majority of other companies.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  This is the nonsense you get for inexperienced and jr devs. Let's take a look at the pandemic. The government was handing out free money. People were stuck at home. Why did big tech hire every bit of talent that applied and let them do nothing for two years? The same reason that they over hire now, and have dumb roles like "button engineers". The same reason why experienced FAANG engineers leave and build bloated systems with more servers (and problems) than users. The strategy is one to abort competition. To soften potential competitors with cushy jobs and stupid pay days. TO indoctrinate them into a way of building and thinking that isnt wholly compatible with startups. What happens when these processes misfire. You get what's app. 30 engineers and 30 servers at the time FB bought them (or some stupidly low number, I'm close). Your average post FAANG engineer would have 2 dozen people running kafka and kuberneties with a multi million dollar cloud spend and have given most of the company away to VC's. Am I suggesting there is a cabal? No, this is the 'natural order' and has been going on since Edison. The distinction is one of nuance. If you have the stomach for risk it is even easier to succeed now than it was in Edisons time (software isnt physical goods and hardware, its application not creation). Edit: peter thiel 100k dropout offer is likely an overt example of this idea put into action.

urbandw311er 3y ago

Absolutely the right decision. A very transparent attempt at control. He who owns the platform owns the kingdom.

klabb3 3y ago
And he who owns the kingdom owns the serfs. The result of dominance games is stagnation. Innovation happens only as a side effect during regime change.

xnx 3y ago

Would Android XR give Google anymore control over Meta than Google has over Microsoft with Edge being based off Chromium?

geor9e 3y ago
Chromium is open source. Android XR (and ARCore) are closed source. So for comparison think more along the lines of Android Things, a closed source OS where partners made the Lenovo Smart Display 10 for example. Google got bored, or the execs weren't impressed at IO'18, and suddenly EOL'd Android Things. Now, Lenovo has a ton of stock of a dead-end product line with no way for them to update the devices, or the OS. They don't have the source. So why would Meta trust Google not to screw them too? Compare to, say, Amazon Fire tablets. They're forked from AOSP (for FireOS) and Chromium (for Silk) so Amazon will still have the complete source code to continue, even if Google stops helping the projects. If Android Things got open-sourced so Lenovo could continue, perhaps Meta would see Android XR in a different light. But they never did. Probably just laziness. The IOT fad faded. Google doesn't like to commit any resources to things that don't have billion dollar profit potential. They just kill, kill, kill and move on. Google has a bad track record. Now it's come back to bite them. All future partnerships live under the shadow of #KilledByGoogle

gumby 3y ago

If I were google I'd stay far away because of the antitrust risks

pquki4 3y ago

Someone just needs to look at how Google handled their tablet and watch strategy to know Google is not a trustworthy partner. Android tablets and Wear OS had so much potential, but Google squandered their opportunities. Very sad to see Fossil exiting the watch devices. And perhaps Samsung is the only big company out there that invests so much in Android for non smartphone/smart TV devices. (And let's acknowledge that DeX is completely Samsung's work, and they really put a lot of work to make Android tablets usable.)

Goodroo 3y ago
Funny thing is that the other company was a serious contributor to the android ecosystem was Huawei. I can even dare say that they were even more serious than Samsung. Google's lack of support for non smartphone OS will give Huawei an opening.
nerdjon 3y ago
I would love the idea that if AR/VR really takes off (which is a big if) that we don't have a bunch of silo'd versions of this tech that have major fundamental differences (far more than just Android vs iOS) due to the nature of the tech. No one in their right mind should bet on building on a new tech like this from Google. What would Meta's options be if Google abandons it? Just not worth the risk.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  Incredibly bold assertion that a Meta-backed VR headset won't be just as silo'd off as a Google-backed one. Google is 100% distrustworthy for sure, but is Meta really any better at all?
  - belval 3y ago
    It's a weird world out there these days, but only one of them open-sourced their LLMs so maybe?
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    I think you misunderstood. I’m not claiming that Meta won’t be Silo’d off by making their own. But Google is not going to be the one that should be trusted to make a platform for multiple devices. Like it would be great if we had such a platform from a company that won’t abandon it in a few months. But instead we are likely just going to have Silo’d systems.

WhatIsDukkha 3y ago

I'm torn on this. First google has been asleep and not contributing much to XR for several very important years. Second meta's version of android (the vr shell is my focus) is an awkward pile of jank and fail. It doesn't feel well done in practical terms. I like android and what facebook has done is just... bad android. That said they've been helping moving forward in positive ways with openxr/webxr standards implementations work. I look forward to a large pile of opensource being contributed to the larger XR community by things getting mainlined into android. We'll see what google can manage these days with their samsung headset incoming.

taeric 3y ago

I feel like I'm being unnecessarily negative, but I really hate Android and I would not want it involved with my VR headset. A few platforms make good use of it, I think. Peloton, in particular, does impress me with how well it uses Android. Usually, seeing Android on something is akin to seeing Windows CE. I get the idea folks were aiming for, but in practice it simply lacks the stability for something that you want to build on. And I don't mean "stability" as in, "doesn't crash." That is nice and needed, of course. I more mean it in "doesnt change."

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Mindwipe 3y ago
The Quest already runs Android. It just doesn't run Google Play Services and their apps.
- taeric 3y ago
  That doesn't shock me and is why I assume I'm being overly negative. I'm curious what sort of software is used by Playstation Portal or the PSVR2. And I get that you don't want to be in the market of custom software all the way down. I have grown rather distrustful on Google's ability to not drop things. Their API discipline is not at all pleasant for people that rely on them.

Goodroo 3y ago

Zuckerberg probably follows every #killedbygoogle social media account out there

anaisbetts 3y ago

It's unfortunate, a partnership with Google that got Play Store into Quest headsets would fill in a Huge gap that Quest has right now vs the Vision Pro, the 2D app ecosystem. Despite it not being the Headline use-case for a XR headset, it's still clearly a use-case that people find super useful

omeze 3y ago
I think Google denied putting the play store on the quest (Boz from Meta has said this). Thats probably a reason this potential partnership was unlikely

ilaksh 3y ago

A primary feature of the Metaverse as initially envisioned was having a platform for diverse virtual shared spaces, experiences and software. WebXR has the potential to be this shared platform. But certain features such as immersive navigation that would facilitate this may be being deliberately held back or neglected. https://github.com/immersive-web/navigation/issues/14 https://github.com/immersive-web/navigation/issues/14

ta20240226 3y ago

I don’t see how this appeals to Meta. It’s not like Meta is primarily a hardware company that doesn’t have expertise in software. They are primarily a software company. In addition, they have a lot of engineers who are familiar with low-level programming, so that is not an issue. In addition as IBM and Samsung have learned, the OS vendor, not the hardware manufacturer, is the one who controls the platform.

wkat4242 3y ago

I'm glad so much work is still being done on VR. Despite all the naysaying. I enjoy it a lot.