4 ms·

The metaverse is another example if anyone doubts the bounds of corporate stupidity.

lesuorac 5mo ago
Why? FaceBook largely requires an Apple iPhone, Apple computer, "Microsoft" computer, "Google" phone, or a "Google" computer to use it. At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]). The Metaverse was a long term goal to get people onto a device (Occulus) that Meta controlled. While I think an AR device is much more useful than VR; I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms. [1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
- IshKebab 5mo ago
  Because it's been very clear for a long time that the vast majority of people do not want to play VR Second Life.
  - snek_case 5mo ago
    Meta's vision was worse than that. They were trying to hype doing work meetings in VR. There's a case to be made that VR games and VR universes can be fun... But work meetings?
    - ethbr1 5mo ago
      Mark Zuckerberg using his company to build things he's the primary user for?
      - jimbokun 5mo ago
        It worked when he wanted a system for ranking Harvard girls by appearance.
    - mschuster91 5mo ago
      > There's a case to be made that VR games and VR universes can be fun... But work meetings? If it's actual holograms like in Star Wars? Sure, why not. Get the visual and body language cues of the rest of the room but no one has to physically congregate at a location. But pixelated, cartoon avatars? Yeah, wtf.
- latexr 5mo ago
  > I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms. Devoid of other context, it’s hard to disagree. But your parent comment only asserted that the metaverse specifically as proposed by Facebook was an obviously stupid idea.
- turtlesdown11 5mo ago
  so after $80 billion spent, they must have an ecosystem of hundreds of millions of users? Right? Maybe they should have spent that on the facebookphone
- corford 5mo ago
  >Why? Patrick Boyle did a nice video a few weeks back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BaSBjxNg-M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BaSBjxNg-M
- PKop 5mo ago
  Because it's been a massively expensive failure. They can't just will their own platform into existence just because it would be good to have, consumers have a say and they've rejected it completely.
- everforward 5mo ago
  I think this is sane washing their idea in the modern context of it having failed. I think at the time, they thought VR would be the next big thing and wanted to become the dominant player via first mover advantage. The headsets don’t really make sense to me in the way you’re describing. Phones are omnipresent because it’s a thing you always just have on you. Headsets are large enough that it’s a conscious choice to bring it; they’re closer to a laptop than a phone. Also, the web interface is like right there staring at them. Any device with a browser can access Facebook like that. Google/Apple/Microsoft can’t mess with that much without causing a huge scene and probably massive antitrust backlash.
  - Aerroon 5mo ago
    I think headsets might work, but I think Meta trying to use their first mover advantage so hard so early backfired. Oculus, as a device, became less desirable after it required Facebook integration. It's kind of like Microsoft with copilot - the idea about having an AI assistant that can help you use the computer is great. But it can't be from Microsoft because people don't trust them with that.
    - everforward 5mo ago
      Interaction feels like the issue with headsets. You either need a fair bit of space for gesture controls, or you have to talk to yourself for voice control. I think VR has more niche uses than the craze implied. It’s got some cool games, virtual screens for a desktop could be cool someday, but I don’t see a near future where they replace phones.
      - timacles 5mo ago
        People are discounting the fact the almost no one wants a contraption on their head for an extended period of time. It is a universal preference Until VR is done via glasses or some wire you stick in your neck matrix style, it will never take off
        5mo ago
- etempleton 5mo ago
  Naming your company off a product that doesn't really exist yet and then ultimately fails is a pretty crazy and stupid thing to do. A bit cart before horse.
  - FartyMcFarter 5mo ago
    I think they were trying to disassociate themselves from the PR disasters Facebook was facing back then (privacy related IIRC).
    - etempleton 5mo ago
      Oh, I know, but they could have named themselves anything. They believed in the metaverse, They thought it was the next big thing. The same way Zuckerburg thought voice assistants, and AI will be a thing.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- lxxpxlxxxx 5mo ago
  Can anybody cut meta off? I don't think you could mass market a device with no access to FB, IG or WS. Maybe a niche product could do it, but good luck selling a laptop that won't open FB
  - goosejuice 5mo ago
    No? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47454647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47454647
    - Dylan16807 5mo ago
      That's both niche and for kids too young to have a facebook account in the first place.
      - goosejuice 5mo ago
        It is, but it's part of a larger trend of buying dumbphones amongst the younger generations.
- adrr 5mo ago
  For the money spent(over $80b), they could have launched a phone or a car. Now their pivot is to smart glasses which require a phone so once again they are beholden to phone manufacturers.
- aucisson_masque 5mo ago
  Good luck using an Oculus in your car or while waiting the bus. If it was really their goal, they would have made an Android competitor. Maybe a fork like amazon did and sell phones that supported it. Zuckerberg had one great idea (and then it wasn't really his idea) at the right time, since then he failed over and over at everything else. 'Internet for all', remember ? I really wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt.
- Dylan16807 5mo ago
  > At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]). Some of those companies can cut off invasive apps. There is no risk of facebook.com getting blocked. And absolutely nobody is going to prefer a headset over a website for doing facebook things.
- JKCalhoun 5mo ago
  "I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms." But thinking AR/VR was the way to go is a failure to read the room. If anything the up and coming generations seem to be recoiling from tech. Regardless, as Microsoft found, it's too late for a 3rd platform and it seems somehow that there's only room in the world for two. (Meta would have done better to start up a line of caffeinated sugar drinks.)

Why? FaceBook largely requires an Apple iPhone, Apple computer, "Microsoft" computer, "Google" phone, or a "Google" computer to use it. At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]). The Metaverse was a long term goal to get people onto a device (Occulus) that Meta controlled. While I think an AR device is much more useful than VR; I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms. [1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...

IshKebab 5mo ago
Because it's been very clear for a long time that the vast majority of people do not want to play VR Second Life.
- snek_case 5mo ago
  Meta's vision was worse than that. They were trying to hype doing work meetings in VR. There's a case to be made that VR games and VR universes can be fun... But work meetings?
  - ethbr1 5mo ago
    Mark Zuckerberg using his company to build things he's the primary user for?
    - jimbokun 5mo ago
      It worked when he wanted a system for ranking Harvard girls by appearance.
  - mschuster91 5mo ago
    > There's a case to be made that VR games and VR universes can be fun... But work meetings? If it's actual holograms like in Star Wars? Sure, why not. Get the visual and body language cues of the rest of the room but no one has to physically congregate at a location. But pixelated, cartoon avatars? Yeah, wtf.
latexr 5mo ago
> I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms. Devoid of other context, it’s hard to disagree. But your parent comment only asserted that the metaverse specifically as proposed by Facebook was an obviously stupid idea.
turtlesdown11 5mo ago
so after $80 billion spent, they must have an ecosystem of hundreds of millions of users? Right? Maybe they should have spent that on the facebookphone
corford 5mo ago
>Why? Patrick Boyle did a nice video a few weeks back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BaSBjxNg-M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BaSBjxNg-M
PKop 5mo ago
Because it's been a massively expensive failure. They can't just will their own platform into existence just because it would be good to have, consumers have a say and they've rejected it completely.
everforward 5mo ago
I think this is sane washing their idea in the modern context of it having failed. I think at the time, they thought VR would be the next big thing and wanted to become the dominant player via first mover advantage. The headsets don’t really make sense to me in the way you’re describing. Phones are omnipresent because it’s a thing you always just have on you. Headsets are large enough that it’s a conscious choice to bring it; they’re closer to a laptop than a phone. Also, the web interface is like right there staring at them. Any device with a browser can access Facebook like that. Google/Apple/Microsoft can’t mess with that much without causing a huge scene and probably massive antitrust backlash.
- Aerroon 5mo ago
  I think headsets might work, but I think Meta trying to use their first mover advantage so hard so early backfired. Oculus, as a device, became less desirable after it required Facebook integration. It's kind of like Microsoft with copilot - the idea about having an AI assistant that can help you use the computer is great. But it can't be from Microsoft because people don't trust them with that.
  - everforward 5mo ago
    Interaction feels like the issue with headsets. You either need a fair bit of space for gesture controls, or you have to talk to yourself for voice control. I think VR has more niche uses than the craze implied. It’s got some cool games, virtual screens for a desktop could be cool someday, but I don’t see a near future where they replace phones.
    - timacles 5mo ago
      People are discounting the fact the almost no one wants a contraption on their head for an extended period of time. It is a universal preference Until VR is done via glasses or some wire you stick in your neck matrix style, it will never take off
      - 5mo ago
etempleton 5mo ago
Naming your company off a product that doesn't really exist yet and then ultimately fails is a pretty crazy and stupid thing to do. A bit cart before horse.
- FartyMcFarter 5mo ago
  I think they were trying to disassociate themselves from the PR disasters Facebook was facing back then (privacy related IIRC).
  - etempleton 5mo ago
    Oh, I know, but they could have named themselves anything. They believed in the metaverse, They thought it was the next big thing. The same way Zuckerburg thought voice assistants, and AI will be a thing.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
lxxpxlxxxx 5mo ago
Can anybody cut meta off? I don't think you could mass market a device with no access to FB, IG or WS. Maybe a niche product could do it, but good luck selling a laptop that won't open FB
- goosejuice 5mo ago
  No? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47454647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47454647
  - Dylan16807 5mo ago
    That's both niche and for kids too young to have a facebook account in the first place.
    - goosejuice 5mo ago
      It is, but it's part of a larger trend of buying dumbphones amongst the younger generations.
adrr 5mo ago
For the money spent(over $80b), they could have launched a phone or a car. Now their pivot is to smart glasses which require a phone so once again they are beholden to phone manufacturers.
aucisson_masque 5mo ago
Good luck using an Oculus in your car or while waiting the bus. If it was really their goal, they would have made an Android competitor. Maybe a fork like amazon did and sell phones that supported it. Zuckerberg had one great idea (and then it wasn't really his idea) at the right time, since then he failed over and over at everything else. 'Internet for all', remember ? I really wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt.
Dylan16807 5mo ago
> At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]). Some of those companies can cut off invasive apps. There is no risk of facebook.com getting blocked. And absolutely nobody is going to prefer a headset over a website for doing facebook things.
JKCalhoun 5mo ago
"I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms." But thinking AR/VR was the way to go is a failure to read the room. If anything the up and coming generations seem to be recoiling from tech. Regardless, as Microsoft found, it's too late for a 3rd platform and it seems somehow that there's only room in the world for two. (Meta would have done better to start up a line of caffeinated sugar drinks.)