5 ms·
The Zuck really doesn't want to let go of the MetaVerse does he?
by wewewedxfgdf 1y ago
The Zuck really doesn't want to let go of the MetaVerse does he?
- not_a_bot_4sho 1y agoMetaverse is a huge deal among Zune owners and Quiby subscribers.
- shermantanktop 1y agoI heard about on MySpace. I think it’s going to be Web 2.1!
- mrheosuper 1y agoAnd i happy for that. Someone has to bite the bullet to push the VR tech.
- hansmayer 1y agoRight, but why?
- reassess_blind 1y agoBecause someone needs to pour the money in to get us to "Ready Player One" level game immersion.
- Cthulhu_ 1y agoBut is there much of a demand for it? VR has been a feature of video games for over a decade now, last time I used it I thought it was good enough (that was 6-7 years ago), technology wise. But it's nowhere near as popular as e.g. regular displays. Any movie depictions of VR are fully immersive - Ready Player One (at least the film) takes some liberties in depicting the game world as if it's immersive, even though the guy plays with VR glasses and force feedback gloves/suits, all current-day technology. Most others have a direct brain interface. Some (Star Trek) model a realistic immersive environment around the player, but both of those are very much science fiction still. There's some brain / tech interfaces, but if I recall correctly the brain has to learn to handle the signals first, there's no way to create a perfect, instant link.
- lm28469 1y agoThe people who wish for these worlds are either complete shut in, terminally online or already spending 8+ hours a day playing video games and walking past their lives.
- andybak 1y agoNo. We're fairly normal actually.
- lm28469 1y agoThe numbers don't lie though, statistically nobody wants VR, we haven't even reached the numbers they were predicating for 2016, 10 years later ... > It says 96 million VR headsets will be shipped in 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/paullamkin/2016/02/17/wearable-tech-market-to-be-worth-34-billion-by-2020/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paullamkin/2016/02/17/wearable-... Turns out they sold half as much.... in 5 years: https://startupsmagazine.co.uk/article-over-51-million-vr-headsets-shipped-last-5-years https://startupsmagazine.co.uk/article-over-51-million-vr-he... > the VR/AR market will reach $182 billion in revenue, including hardware and software/content, by 2025 and bypass television. https://www.startbeyond.co/media/idcvrrevenuereport https://www.startbeyond.co/media/idcvrrevenuereport Meanwhile: "The global virtual reality (VR) market size was valued at $16.32 billion in 2024" I don't know anyone with a social life who care about these toys, the only people I know of who are semi interested already spend 6+ hours a day gaming.
- andybak 1y agoI don't care how many people want it. I personally never claimed it was going to be a huge mass market thing. It's big enough to be sustainable. Stupid claims by people trying to pump investment hype have no bearing on my interest in the medium. > I don't know anyone with a social life who care about these toys, the only people I know of who are semi interested already spend 6+ hours a day gaming. The people I know with an interest in VR are mainly artists and other forms of creatives. We must move in different circles.
- lm28469 1y agoMeta alone could have solved like 50% of famines/heavy malnutrition currently happening in the world if they used their metaverse budget to do something useful. And they'd still be so rich they wouldn't know what to do with the leftovers. No one "needs" to push for that bullshit metaverse, the real world isn't shitty enough, yet, apparently they're dead set and achieving that, for people to wish to live in a computer.
- cloudflare728 1y agoYou don't understand how money works. They are not burning money, they are employing people like you directly or through 3rd party partner companies. The beneficiaries can decide themselves how to spend money. They can live a good life or help others.
- lm28469 1y agoAh yes, they're just redistributing the money, the trickle down economy right ? They're basically a non profit humanitarian association at that point
- cloudflare728 1y agoProfit or loss is out of the equation. Somehow Facebook getting a huge amount of money. They are distributing that money to a million people (directly or indirectly to employees, share holders, employees of 3rd party partners). Some people are getting billions and some are getting $100s. Instead of handful of people in Facebook management deciding to be humanitarian, you now have a million people deciding what to do with their portion. It is that simple.
- throw-10-8 1y agoStill living in the 80's? Seems like you are the one with an outdated model of how money works. Over the last couple decades it has been moving up at an ever increasing rate instead of down.
- stubish 1y ago
- taskforcegemini 1y agowhy not? As good as the options have become, for many purposes they are still not quite there yet
- fragmede 1y agoYeah, but how are we going to get there if we don't work on it?
- ildon 1y agoAs soon as I've tried the VR experience myself for something I actually found useful/entertaining (VR sports), I was immediately sold on the idea. I can't wait for this tech to get better and better
- signatoremo 1y agoWhy not? A lot of technologies exist despite no clear application initially, only taking off decades later. Lithium ion battery research started in 1960s, yet no commercial applications until at least 20 years later, and only really took off with smartphone - [0] HN crowd often criticizes big tech for milking ads and the lack of innovation. Meta deserves credit for sinking their own money into future techs like VR. By the way, Exxon the oil company funded early research of lithium ion battery tech by Dr. Whittingham, clearly not for short term benefits. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_lithium-ion_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_lithium-ion_bat...
- crote 1y agoThe applications for batteries were painfully obvious long before li-ion batteries were a thing. Rechargable batteries have been around since the 1850s. The idea of "battery, but smaller" isn't exactly a hard sell when you already have devices with huge NiMH / NiCd battery bricks attached to them. Just look at the laptops and mobile phones from the 90s! On the other hand, VR is almost entirely a solution looking for a problem. VR headsets have been around since the 80s. Sure they sucked, but the fact that there still isn't a killer app forty years later should be a good indication that the concept itself perhaps isn't too attractive. VR development is driven solely by Facebook's desire to sell VR, not by customer demand for better VR headsets. If the current headsets aren't good enough, a 50% lighter / faster one isn't going to make a difference.
- the_gipsy 1y agoThe FacebookVerse.
- Cthulhu_ 1y agoHe should've just spent the money to buy Roblox, Fortnite or Minecraft. Second Life at a stretch.
- lm28469 1y agoI was in LA in 2015 at the peak of the VR hype, I don't think zuck got the memo that it flopped hard between then and now.
- supportengineer 1y agoDid you encounter any Kouriers while travelling from one burbclave to the next?
- hnlmorg 1y agoThere is some sense in it and I’m surprised by all the naysayers here. For starters, Quest is by far the biggest selling VR/XR headset. So he is already seeing some success here. And as we’ve seen before, Facebook isn’t going to dominate forever. It makes complete sense throwing large sums of money at future technology while you still have large sums of money to burn. Chasing new technology when you’re already behind and your revenue is decline is a guaranteed way to fail. Moonshots like this you waste a tonne of money when that money is comparatively cheap anyway. Plus it keeps people talking about your business, which is never a bad thing.
- bonesss 1y agoCritically, in my estimation: Facebook/Instagram is delivered on phones, browsers, and PCs not owned by Meta. Boardroom politics could tank huge chunks of their business model without recourse. Meta establishing VR and the underlying ecosystem, building a moat, makes lots of long term sense (if they succeed).
- rchaud 1y agoThey have lost $68 billion (not spent, lost) on this project [0]. For that money they could have bought EA, owned its cash flows and still have $8 billion left over. [0] https://www.ft.com/content/df26fc4c-5488-4994-b2b8-be4bfbda2724 https://www.ft.com/content/df26fc4c-5488-4994-b2b8-be4bfbda2...