[HN Gopher] Facebook Renames to Meta
___________________________________________________________________
Facebook Renames to Meta
Author : MikusR
Score : 776 points
Date : 2021-10-28 18:17 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (about.facebook.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (about.facebook.com)
| d--b wrote:
| In all seriousness, this looks like an Hooli ad from the Silicon
| Valley TV show. I can really picture Mark Zuckerberg as a real
| life Gavin Belson surrounded by minions telling him all day long
| how great this Meta thing is.
| [deleted]
| wayfarer1291 wrote:
| The whole presentation felt a lot like visions of the internet
| from companies like Microsoft (and others) in the mid-90s.. top-
| down, centralized.
| corysama wrote:
| Related: "Facebook's metaverse spending will top $10 billion this
| year"
|
| https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/facebook-metaverse-10-bil...
| omot wrote:
| I'm suddenly teleported back to 2006 when people didn't take
| Facebook seriously at all.
| [deleted]
| timwis wrote:
| Wait is this like Google inc rebranding as Alphabet and owning
| Google as its main product, or is the social media platform being
| renamed to Meta along with the company?
| blsapologist42 wrote:
| Like Alphabet
| jgalt212 wrote:
| I just want to repurpose all of Yakov Smirnoff's jokes about
| Russia for the metaverse.
| donretag wrote:
| How long until I get a "Come join Meta!" recruiting email?
| [deleted]
| speedgoose wrote:
| Congratulations for your rebranding! Now, can you respect us?
| anter wrote:
| Meta for Metastasis
| codred wrote:
| Perfect!
| dbish wrote:
| MANGA sounds more fun then FAANG so that's nice
| [deleted]
| jedberg wrote:
| If we didn't change G to A I don't think we'll change F to M
| either.
| vettedvat wrote:
| "He still has PTSD from his tour in NAAAM"
| lapetitejort wrote:
| Well that's just your opinion MAAAN.
| efrecon wrote:
| We just need Microsoft and Netflix to rebrand AAAAA
| parenthesis wrote:
| Microsoft could change their name to Azure, and Facebook
| -- or Meta -- could be ejected.
| tobr wrote:
| > Microsoft
|
| Folks, here's a good example of why you should read the
| article, or at least the title, or at least the thread
| you're replying to before you comment.
| gnabgib wrote:
| Microsoft should be in there, but the M in this case is
| from Facebook->Meta... so you need Facebook to rebrand
| again for AAAAA.
| bytematic wrote:
| I like MANAA
| aylmao wrote:
| MAAAN
| mherdeg wrote:
| There's a new ticker symbol for this one: FB->MVRS.
|
| (There's already an ETF called "META"; 6% of its holdings are
| FB.)
|
| I'm kind of curious about what will happen as either:
|
| (1) confused investors buy into META instead of MVRS over the
| next few months
|
| (2) confused investors can no longer find FB and instead buy
| FBK (FB Financial) or another one of the top Robinhood search
| results (FBHS, FBNC, FBC).
| reayn wrote:
| At least the acronym that includes microsoft isn't offensive
| anymore, just a nice MAGMAN.
| alanlammiman wrote:
| I've often found the need to refer to Facebook, Apple, Google
| but excluding Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft (ie in the context
| specifically of consumer internet, mobile, social but not
| ecommerce, b2b or streaming), but have shied away from FAG.
| GAF ('gaffe') would be great, but not sure anyone would
| understand it.
| mandeepj wrote:
| Is n't MAGNA better?
| kroltan wrote:
| Not if you read Japanese comics, or if you speak Portuguese.
| playpause wrote:
| It's a good thing if it clashes with existing words?
| kroltan wrote:
| Magna is also a clash, so I'm not sure what's the benefit
| there.
|
| At least manga and mangoes are funny, magna seems just
| posh and insufferable (which if you ask the right people,
| is an accurate description of those companies)
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| If you replace F with M, you must replace G with A as well.
| ModernMech wrote:
| MANAA
| CookiesOnMyDesk wrote:
| I'm gonna miss FAGMAN.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| You're the only one.
| crocodiletears wrote:
| Yeah, I liked that one.
| tasogare wrote:
| In France it's GAFAM that is most used, which makes sense since
| Microsoft is way more influential on the tech scene than
| Netflix, which is just a content provider.
| dekhn wrote:
| it's really FAAMG in the US too, the people who coined the
| phrase were confused.
| kixiQu wrote:
| opinions here seem to vary based on where on the west coast
| the speaker lives
| p4bl0 wrote:
| GAFAM should now be replaced by MAGMA. It better represents
| the evil that will burn you alive.
| philwelch wrote:
| I think FAANG is more often used as a career benchmark, i.e.
| working at Netflix looks good on your resume and pays well.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| It's just because FANG (don't think Apple was originally
| part of it) was a list of fast-growing stocks, coined by
| none another than Mad Moneyman Jim Cramer
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech#FAANG
|
| Quite honestly that term in both stock and big tech senses
| is outdated. It should really include a few post-unicorn
| giants like Uber nowadays.
| tvararu wrote:
| I've seen FAANGMULASS a couple of times.
| bostik wrote:
| If you ignore Netflix, you can get a pretty close approximation
| what this is all about.
| endisneigh wrote:
| well G is not A, so it would be MAAAN.
|
| used in a sentence:
|
| MAAAN, why can't I get some money.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| Stick it to the MAAAN!
| ksec wrote:
| MAGMA
|
| Microsoft, Apple, Google, Meta, Amazon
|
| ( Netflix doesn't belong to Big Tech )
| hoelle wrote:
| MAAMA
|
| (Google is now Alphabet)
| e12e wrote:
| Google should probably be Alphabet, though?
| Microsoft Apple Meta Amazon Alphabet
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Netflix got shoved into this for no reason. It does not fit as
| "Big Tech".
| babelfish wrote:
| Why not?
| broof wrote:
| Well I don't think the acronym for Facebook Amazon Apple
| Google would've been palatable
| mbg721 wrote:
| Next thing, you'll be telling me my Lettuce, Guacamole,
| Bacon, and Tomato sandwich is in poor taste.
| bink wrote:
| That would be quite the GAAF.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| The reason was because of stocks:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech#FAANG
| hajile wrote:
| Netflix is currently 12-13% of all internet traffic down from
| around 15% or so.
|
| Dialing in a little, they peaked out at something like 40% of
| all US internet traffic 4-5 years ago.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Personally, the only thing I ever watch on Netflix now is
| the new Israeli TV stuff -- Fauda, Mossad 101, etc. I think
| this is one consequence of them shifting to being a
| "channel" with their own content (which I mostly don't care
| for).
|
| Almost all my streaming is with Amazon Prime, which has a
| much bigger selection of content suited to my tastes.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Without Netflix we've got MAGA. Can't say I like it.
| odiroot wrote:
| Can we finally remove Netflix which doesn't fit in here? We can
| always replace it with Microsoft.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| I hope they have no exclusive rights to the name. So many
| metaverse things already exist it would be a shame to see them
| being sued by FB
|
| As for the rest, he's advertising a new Second Life / High
| Fidelity as if he invented it himself. Shameful not to mention
| that all this has been done before, the main difference being the
| VR glasses. And i m glad that this is going to fail because
| virtual worlds are the 100% opposite of facebook (pseudonymous,
| not real life, NOT real friends, create instead of consume etc)
| powerset wrote:
| Glad to hear they're at least claiming their contribution to the
| metaverse will be built on open standards and protocols, I hope
| they follow through on that. Pretty sure nobody would want a
| walled meta-garden.
| rexreed wrote:
| Can someone PLEASE tell me why the metaverse will succeed when
| things like Second Life and oh so many other immersive realities
| have failed. Is it because of the VR? Honestly why is this a
| thing?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Fax Machine conundrum I suppose, only useful once everyone else
| is on it.
|
| I don't see it taking off tho, if Facebook.com can't get a 2D
| text interface to load faster than multiple seconds what hope
| is there for an immersive world working on anything but the
| best fiber connections?
| AJRF wrote:
| I was watching the video and got to a bit where Mark said "So we
| are going to see what some metaverse experiences will be like"
| and then a pop up came over the video and said "Log In" and I
| clicked cancel because I didn't want to and the page reloaded
| itself and lost my place in the video.
| stelcodes wrote:
| Yep, same. Speaks volumes!
| rl3 wrote:
| October 28th, 2021 4:44PM EDT
|
| Following a new keynote from augmented reality company _Meta_ on
| Thursday, scientists continue to investigate how Epic Games '
| _MetaHuman_ technology has become categorically superior to real-
| life actors in terms of expressed humanistic qualities, seemingly
| overnight.
|
| Responding to questions surrounding the unfortunate name clash,
| Epic Games CEO _Tim Sweeney_ denied this would cement his
| position as a present day _Eldon Tyrell_ : "We never said that. '
| _More human than human_ ' isn't our motto and never was; today it
| just happens to be true. The technology is still in its early
| stages, and it clearly isn't there yet."
|
| When asked for further clarification, Sweeney elaborated with
| candor: "It's eerie, you know? From the outset, we knew their
| strategy was to bring the one-dimensional qualities of stock
| photo models to life, we just didn't think they'd succeed this
| early."
|
| "It's really made us question our product strategy as a whole."
| said Sweeney. "We're trying to make fake humans realistic, and
| they're trying to make real humans fake. What's their end game?
| It's kind of a mind fuck, honestly."
|
| When reached for comment Meta CEO _Mark Zuckerberg_ declined to
| be interviewed for this article, electing instead to maintain an
| unblinking gaze as his arms continued to awkwardly gesture with
| sterile insincerity.
| astlouis44 wrote:
| They want to own the SEO around the "metaverse", so renaming
| their company to half the world means they dominate all search
| around it. Genius move, Mark.
| imilk wrote:
| If that was the goal, there are many many ways that a company
| with the resources of Facebook could dominate rankings for a
| term without renaming their entire company a subset of that
| term.
| IceWreck wrote:
| Looks like Zuckyboi is a big fan of Ready Player One.
| citizenkeen wrote:
| I am not looking forward to all the people who get C&Ds for using
| the words 'meta' or 'metaverse'.
| rvz wrote:
| It is been finally admitted.
|
| Facebook Inc. aka Meta Inc. is going to kill Apple and put an end
| to the iPhone.
|
| Going to watch this.
|
| To Downvoters: Here's a reminder of how wrong the HN bubble was
| back then: [0] [1]
|
| This is the same place that reacted to Facebook acquiring
| Instagram and WhatsApp to being the dumbest decisions Mark
| Zuckerberg made and now it became a $1T company with billions in
| profit and billions in monthly active users.
|
| If users cared about privacy, why are they still on WhatsApp and
| Instagram and failed to move elsewhere? Exactly because the
| money, creators, social inertia and followers are still there.
|
| We'll come back in 10 years and we'll see if you still like Apple
| and Google's walled gardens and 30% taxes.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817840&p=2
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7266796
| not2b wrote:
| And how are they going to do that? Do they think people will
| discard their phones, replace them with next-gen Google Glass,
| live in the "metaverse" and let Zuck listen in on every
| interaction? Surely this will kill Apple dead.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Exactly, all hail King Zuckerberg?
|
| Snark aside, if something like this virtual world were to be
| created, I would want more democratic representation, not
| where one person can rule for life.
| wut42 wrote:
| wat.
| rvz wrote:
| yes.
|
| and you are going to watch them do it on 'the metaverse'.
| nanomonkey wrote:
| Damn, I love the term "meta", and generally enjoy meta concepts
| (metamodernism, metacognition, metaverse, metamorphosis, etc.).
| This taints the term terribly.
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| It's also so fucking unoriginal... "hmm we need a parent
| company that owns all the other companies, what should we call
| it?"
|
| I'm not sure how the structure is, if Facebook, Instagram,
| WhatsApp and Oculus are separate companies owned by the holding
| company also named "Facebook".
|
| Obviously the websites/apps will keep their names, just a
| design will change, e.g. if you load Instagram, the splash
| screen says currently "Instagram, from Facebook", and it'll be
| "... from Meta" soon enough.
| seanalltogether wrote:
| So is this like Google -> Alphabet where it's mostly a behind-
| the-scenes type thing?
| rvz wrote:
| yes.
|
| On top of that it seems that the interoperable metaverse is
| where the future is heading. Not an Apple or Google walled
| garden of apps and is reinforced by Oculus being integrated in
| the 'glasses' and a new ecosystem will be created from that.
|
| They seem to be on to something.
| danShumway wrote:
| The core idea of having a universal layer on top of reality that
| is owned by _any_ company, at all, is utterly repulsive to me. I
| 'm not sure I have the words to describe it.
|
| The type of world Facebook is describing is always -- 100% of the
| time -- a dystopia if it is a privatized, corporate-controlled
| AR/VR layer where ordinary people need permission and contracts
| to interact with each-other. Anything any single company or
| coordinated group of FAANG companies make will be awful when
| scaled up to the level Mark is talking about. There's no promise
| they can make to me, there's no strategy they can pursue to ease
| my worries. Purely by virtue of a single company (or a group of
| FAANG companies) being in charge of it, it's already garbage.
|
| Having said that, of all of the companies to try and assert
| control over a "metaverse", Facebook is probably amongst the
| least suited and most dangerous companies to do so. If they can't
| even run the Oculus platform competently, how can they possibly
| claim they're competent enough to run a giant industry-wide
| platform on top of Oculus?
|
| ----
|
| > The metaverse will be a collective project that goes beyond a
| single company. It will be created by people all over the world,
| and open to everyone.
|
| And this stuff is just complete nonsense. No platform that
| Facebook has ever been involved with has ever even remotely come
| close to being "collective" or "open" to everyone worldwide, and
| it's just wildly insulting to pretend that anything about that is
| going to change now.
|
| Facebook can't even launch _this announcement article_ without
| making a bunch of XHR requests and falling over if Javascript isn
| 't enabled. So sure, let's all close our eyes and pretend that
| they're magically capable of building an accessible, open VR
| platform that respects user privacy/agency. What has Facebook
| _ever_ done in its entire history as a company that would make us
| believe that they are in any way trustworthy or qualified enough
| to try and build a consumer platform /medium of this scale?
| awestroke wrote:
| Reading about this company just drains my energy and enthusiasm
| right away. Can't put my finger on why.
| Havoc wrote:
| > Can't put my finger on why.
|
| Cause they're evil like a certain other company but managed to
| skip straight over the "Don't be evil" phase.
| achr2 wrote:
| You know in the Matrix how human's are the batteries? Well
| "Meta" is powered in a similar way, except it is your basic
| humanity (emotions, attention, engagement, self perception)
| that they drain to keep the lights on.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| oh my god monsters inc was an allegory for social media,
| profit via harvesting fear, laughter, empathy and anger
| chowland wrote:
| no one cares
| hprotagonist wrote:
| _The screens are blank at first, but finally the same image snaps
| into existence on all four of them at once. It is an image
| consisting of words; it says
|
| IF THIS WERE A VIRUS YOU WOULD BE DEAD NOW
|
| FORTUNATELY IT'S NOT
|
| THE METAVERSE IS A DANGEROUS PLACE; HOW'S YOUR SECURITY?
|
| CALL HIRO PROTAGONIST SECURITY ASSOCIATES FOR A FREE INITIAL
| CONSULTATION._
| htrp wrote:
| "The concept [Meta] originates from Snow Crash, a dystopian novel
| from the 1990s in which people flee the crumbling real world to
| be fully immersed in a virtual one"
|
| Facebook is creating a virtual world to allow us to escape the
| deteriorating state of this one.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Sounds like the matrix.
| neom wrote:
| I keep a pretty sharp eye on the apple job postings to see what
| type of people they're hiring. I think they've been working on
| something similar since about 2014. Around then I noticed they
| posted for, then hire a lot of optical engineers, (I'd look to
| find the hire on linkedin a while after the posting was gone) but
| people with odd skills for apple, contact lenses mostly, lasers,
| and then a bunch of people who had done PhDs around putting
| gas/liquid between plastic that can react with projected light.
| RegW wrote:
| Good god. Has Facebook now got such a bad rep it has to change
| its name?
|
| For me it will always be the fat man standing behind a lamp post.
| kerng wrote:
| Is it just me, or is that logo a little unappealing and
| distorted?
| hmate9 wrote:
| Metadata would have been a better name
| rektide wrote:
| I want to present another way of looking at this, & identifying
| it as a brilliant move. This is just one lens, not representative
| of what I really believe, but I think it's an important lens to
| pick up & assess by.
|
| Facebook makes a ton of cash, and wants to be a place where
| sharp, bright, talented engineers want to come work. But the
| family of apps are all semi-done products; they're late
| industrial creations, heavily refined, and there's just not a lot
| of open possibility space to do good things with them.
|
| Meta is a break. It's a way to create new grounds, explore new
| ideas. Whether the ideas are good or bad almost doesn't matter,
| compared to re-creating a company with some real will, drive, &
| possibility in front of it. Unchaining yourself from the town-
| planner stage of maturity that you've been whiling away at for
| almost a decade & creating permissions to try interesting things,
| to make new space where you're not always stepping on legacy
| concerns: I almost can't imagine not doing this.
|
| And Meta has a fairly catchy, nebulous set of ideas behind it.
| It's difficult to imagine how Facebook/Meta can really make
| anywhere near as much impact, make a clear win here. But I'm at a
| loss to think of other bits of terrain that are both not-yet-
| settled/won, and simultaneously as compelling & interesting to a
| potential employee-base. If I ran a hugely successful company
| that had more-or-less established itself & wasn't in existential
| peril & falling position, I'd be asking myself the same question:
| what would be fun for us to do? What would keep my us well
| engaged & might possibly yield some epic shit? Meta is a not bad
| answer.
| r-r-r wrote:
| Nicely translates to "(shes's) dead" in Hebrew...
| sushsjsuauahab wrote:
| I believe the original Facebook name in Chinese (Mandarin)
| sounded something like "have to die" as well haha
| yunusabd wrote:
| You're right, "Fei Si Bu Ke" in Chinese, "Fei Si Bu Ke ",
| which literally means "have to die".
| azth wrote:
| Similar in Arabic (maita).
| ativzzz wrote:
| While their mission of connecting people sounds nice on paper,
| they have shown over and over that they place profit first, which
| is not necessarily wrong for a corporation, but this incentives
| engagement over connection.
|
| We've seen that as Facebook grew bigger and the engagement
| algorithms took over, that the worst of humanity is brought out.
| Despite there being genuine connection and overall improvement to
| people's lives happening on FB; if not people wouldn't be using
| it, but extremism, addiction and hate have become staples of the
| platform at large.
|
| Frankly, I don't trust FB to fix these issues so I am immediately
| pessimistic about Meta, but the reality very well may be that us
| humans enjoy extremism content, don't mind digital addictions,
| and feed off hate and FB just brings out the raw truth in us.
|
| Overall, I think FB needs a different business model other than
| advertising off engagement if they want to turn the page and
| appeal to the better parts of people.
| aristofun wrote:
| This is the beginning of the end. Read this comment in 10 years
| please.
| ngneer wrote:
| Grim. Much nicer to go outside and enjoy creation. Facebook and
| Meta are no doubt austere in comparison. To quote Vonnegut, it is
| you who should be doing the becoming, not the damn fool computer.
| 3pt14159 wrote:
| Fun story, I once tried to convince a new friend of mine that his
| startup that I'd landed a small consulting gig with should focus
| on how it could make the world better, not just go after profits,
| because I could clearly see that what they had was just so useful
| and adaptable and that pharmaceutical companies would easily want
| to scoop them up.
|
| Back then they were in the midst of rebranding, but they
| ultimately changed their domain to meta.com and were acquired by
| the Chan Zuck initiative. I was happy. It seemed like one of the
| most pro-social uses of their software.
|
| It's kinda funny to see Facebook rebrand to what was a fledgling
| startup out of Toronto.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_(academic_company)
| nyt-maps wrote:
| My god, if you get it, you get it.
|
| They are going all in on metaverse / have decided that the future
| of oculus is the primary long term bet, not facebook itself.
|
| And they have the money to make it so.
|
| This is incredibly scary, and probably a good investment.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Honestly, I think this is less scary than having Facebook
| acting as a "public square". A meta-verse has a higher bar of
| entry than a website - including specialized hardware - and
| it's less likely that governments and businesses will
| distribute information exclusively in some meta-verse vs. it
| just being another channel for content distribution.
| nyt-maps wrote:
| Websites once required "specialized hardware". And if you've
| got today's top end VR rigs, it's sorta obvious that the
| world is going to go this way - it's too good, and
| productivity is enhanced on the level of "bicycle for the
| mind". Plus it'll get way cheaper in the future. Note that
| I'm not talking about entertainment usecases, which are also
| good - I'm saying metaverse is clearly the future of work,
| with massive ramifications if Meta is able to invest enough
| to make it appealing to regular people. And I think Facebook
| has way more than enough resources to make this a reality.
|
| Right now, work in the metaverse still looks like 8+ emulated
| screens floating in a sphere around you. And this is probably
| not the long term best way to work. The real question is what
| are the new primitives, is there a new underlying platform,
| can everyone get equal access to that platform, and who owns
| that platform.
|
| Just like Apple is making intel chips obsolete with the M1 on
| Mac, Meta probably is aiming to make laptops obsolete/niche
| in the long run.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > And if you've got today's top end VR rigs, it's sorta
| obvious that the world is going to go this way - it's too
| good, and productivity is enhanced on the level of "bicycle
| for the mind".
|
| How exactly? VR is just a display technology, with no new
| input methods that are even remotely usable for anything
| like games. How am I going to be better at programming by
| wearing a VR headset and typing on my keyboard than looking
| at a screen while typing on my keyboard?
|
| How am I going to be more productive when forecasting
| prices in Excel on a VR headset than on a screen? When
| drawing the layout of an integrated circuit? When
| summarizing news or books?
|
| Sure, it will be easier to visualize a few 3D models, and
| remote meetings will feel much more natural in VR, but the
| vast majority of work essentially boils down to either
| manual work, text manipulation, or fundamentally 2D models.
|
| Unless and until someone comes up with a revolutionary
| input method with the precision of a mouse and the
| flexibility of a keyboard (like they did with the touch
| screen for phones), I don't believe in any claims of a
| revolution through AR/VR. Only incremental improvements in
| specialized fields.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I don't know if I agree. Most of my job is typing text into
| various boxes - web-apps, text-editors, terminals.
| Fundamentally, long-term productivity in this task is about
| ergonomics. Wearing something on my head for 8+ hours is
| like anti-ergonomics, and the benefits are dubious. I
| _could_ have a bunch of virtual displays in a meta-space,
| or I _could_ just area bunch of real monitors. And the
| latter solution is generally simpler.
|
| But even if using a VR rig to simulate a bunch of displays
| would be more efficient, that's not a "metaverse". It's
| just a VR display. To me a metaverse implies virtual
| interaction with other people - otherwise what's the point?
| I find I'm more effective when I have uninterrupted quiet
| time to work so why would I want to work in a meta-verse
| where I can be interrupted at any time in a more invasive
| way than Slack or email can manage? It's like an open-
| office from hell. Saying it's the future of work is
| extremely premature.
|
| Edit:
|
| On the topic of this:
|
| > it's too good, and productivity is enhanced on the level
| of "bicycle for the mind"
|
| _If_ that 's true, Facebook will never crack it.
| Facebook's products are the opposite of "a bicycle for the
| mind" - they push experiences and content on you instead of
| putting you in control. I have serious doubts they could
| develop something that requires giving the user power over
| their own experience - the condescending attitude of "we
| know what's best for you" is too ingrained.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > Wearing something on my head for 8+ hours is like anti-
| ergonomics, and the benefits are dubious.
|
| Playing Devil's Advocate here, but I'm _already_ wearing
| something on my head for ~16 hours per day - my
| eyeglasses.
|
| The issue here is only that the current generation of
| devices aren't yet suitable for long-term use.
| swalsh wrote:
| I can't tell you how many times i've had political
| conversations in VR while playing a game. It's not super
| common, but it happens.
|
| I kind of fear a day when i'm just having a casual
| conversation with someone, and suddenly their voice becomes
| garbled becauese an AI detected they were telling me some
| "misinformation".
| Closi wrote:
| I think their internal definition of metaverse is probably less
| literal than people in the media seem to picture - I think they
| are actually betting on the future of however people
| communicate, whatever that ends up looking like, be that
| WhatsApp, social media, VR or something else entirely.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Even their presentation showed that with a solid mix of
| different ways of communicating and I'm pretty sure that
| wasn't just accidental. On one level its nice to see a much
| more expansive definition of metaverse (which IMO already
| exists) but on another terrifying that FB wants to be part of
| basically every human interaction.
| deelowe wrote:
| I hope they have serious plans for changing how VR works today.
| VR quickly loses it's appeal after a few hours. The isolation
| it brings with it is a huge issue. AR holds more promise in
| terms of mass appeal but I'm not sure we have that one quite
| figured out yet technically and from a UX perspective.
| drcode wrote:
| Yeah, I'm a VR nerd but I now find that wearing a VR helment
| for too long creates a kind of existential loneliness that
| will be hard to solve with better technology.
| swalsh wrote:
| It really depends on the game. I was playing H3VR, and
| definatley experienced that dreadful isolation feeling as I
| was out in the middle of nowhere surrounded by fake
| unliving things. But in multiplayer games like Onward Its
| provided the opposite feeling for me. My wife and kids left
| for a week, and I work from home... after a few days, it
| felt like hanging out with friends.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I know very little about VR so maybe this will be very off.
|
| My guess is they want to address that isolation aspect by
| making it feel better to interact with others, bringing more
| people together in the VR space.
|
| But this is me interpreting your "the isolation it brings
| with it" as people just exploring VR by themselves.
|
| Did you mean something else?
| deelowe wrote:
| I mean the isolation of basically wearing a helmet for
| hours. It's exhausting to have your vision and hearing
| constrained to the digital world in this way for long
| periods of time. To me, VR is like a roller coaster. It's
| super fun but only in small doses.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Is this bet on VR making the goggles a hardware requirement? So
| this new world will only be available to those who can afford
| gaming hardware and a high speed internet connection?
| silisili wrote:
| Not a chance. I've been wrong about a lot of things tech,
| probably even most things, but this isn't something I think
| most people want.
|
| Metaverses have always been niche. Most people don't like
| things attached to their head. Remember 3D TVs?
|
| But, perhaps you and they are right. For the first time in my
| life, I honestly feel like 'if this is the future, I want no
| part in it.' Please don't take this as like, suicidal or
| anything, more maybe going off grid or moving to another
| country.
| acchow wrote:
| A common argument for why humanity has never encountered
| extra-terrestrial life is that any hyper advanced
| civilization likely moved into a virtual world. Do you
| believe this is unlikely and humanity is not headed in this
| direction?
| silisili wrote:
| I don't believe humanity or any civilization could survive.
| It's pure hedonism, really. How does reproduction even
| occur? And if everyone in the first world is plugged in,
| what keeps a third world nation from just taking
| everything? Or killing off the power grid? It would take a
| massive scale of agreement to even allow that to work.
|
| Outside of that, I am a big believer in, well I don't know
| the name for it. But you must experience sadness to feel
| happy. And bad times to realize good times. Anyone in a
| virtual world would likely never choose scenarios that
| cause such things. So there'd be no real true joy in this
| virtual life. Life is fleeting.
|
| From a health standpoint, I don't believe a human body
| could exist long in a pure virtual world(thinking of
| something like, The Matrix). Still people tend to get
| disease, blood clots, stroke, and more. And bones and
| muscle too weak to even walk when the grid goes down. Am I
| thinking about the scenario wrong?
|
| Sorry I don't have all(or any) of the answers to that
| question, mostly just rambling, but the thought makes me
| really sad.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I've never heard of this argument. Can you point to any
| reputable scientist making this argument?
| JohnFen wrote:
| I'd never heard that, but off the top of my head, it seems
| exceedingly unlikely.
| newby wrote:
| > I honestly feel like 'if this is the future, I want no part
| in it.'
|
| I feel like that about ever larger part of the whole tech
| world. I am torn - I can still muster a lot of techno-
| optimism when I think for example about possible benefits of
| advanced AIs for humanity. But than I imagine the world where
| the most advanced AIs are controlled by corporations like
| Google and Facebook... I have a bad feeling about this.
|
| I am trying to find some reasonable middle ground between
| becoming a luddite and just continuing like I do not see all
| those unforeseen negative impacts produced by the genie that
| was once called the IT revolution.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| You are right. Pride comes before a fall, and Zuck thinks he
| is better than Cook, Musk, Bezos, by building the multiverse
| he will restore his place as the greatest technologist of our
| time
| camdat wrote:
| Do you not get sick of this being repeated constantly?
|
| Every year someone repeats that Facebooks doom is imminent,
| and every year their revenue and user base gets larger and
| larger
|
| When does this opinion just become pase?
| cranesnakecode wrote:
| They aren't going after the people who have realized over-
| technicalized life is bad for humans. They're going after the
| kids who grow up in it and will take until their 30s to
| realize they've had depersonalization disorders their entire
| lives.
| Havoc wrote:
| >this isn't something I think most people want.
|
| I think it is. Not the current crap hardware, but bit further
| advanced it definitely has a place.
|
| The gamers are basically on board already, streamers would
| benefit too and porn has a big chunk in VR already.
|
| Sharp headset that can render text clearly would be huge.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| We can call them whatever we want to. Fuck them for trying to
| take over both "meta" and "metaverse." This is them trying to
| become _the_ VR world just by having _the right name_.
|
| I don't know anyone that calls "xfinity" anything but
| "comcast." I'm pretty sure "xfinity" was them trying to get
| away from their nickname "comcrap."
|
| Imagine if the world collectively said "no" and kept right on
| calling them Facebook?
|
| They're going to run around slapping anyone who uses "meta" or
| "metaverse" with C&D letters figuring nobody will have the
| money to fight them in court.
|
| I'd chip in to the legal fund for whoever says "see you in
| court" to Facebook. I bet a lot of people would. Maybe someone
| like the EFF should set up a "meta defense" warchest.
| I-M-S wrote:
| That kinda happened to Alphabet - everybody still calls them
| Google
| bigdict wrote:
| Or maybe they have nothing else in the portfolio to bet on?
| darthvoldemort wrote:
| Maybe I'm too old, but I don't know a single person with
| Oculus, not even among my younger coworkers.
|
| I don't discount that it could be the next big thing, because
| wtf do I know, but it feels very niche to me, and certainly not
| something that can get the engagement like a phone can. And in
| terms of money, Facebook itself is a printing press, I wonder
| what the business model is for this? Selling games or
| experiences? Billboards in an AR world?
| y4mi wrote:
| I got one. My honest opinion is that it's potential is
| immense, but I wouldn't suggest anyone to get one atm.
|
| Professional headsets will likely become more widespread over
| the coming years and I fully expect that most desk jobs will
| replace their displays with a headset... But that's still at
| least 10 yrs off, likely longer. A prerequisite would be that
| it's not as stuffy/heavy to wear, but that's already
| happening at a surprising rate.
|
| It also makes remote contacts (i.e. remote work, family calls
| etc) very different, as oculus just added face tracking to
| their newest headsets... So your avatars face mirrors your
| real face.
|
| The presence you feel in these contexts is hard to explain
| and has to be experienced imo.
| JohnFen wrote:
| That's my experience, too. I know a lot of people who are
| very into tech, across the entire age range. I don't know a
| single person who owns one of these. But I think they're
| mostly used by the hardcore gamer crowd, and I only know a
| couple of those (and neither have a VR headset).
| cronix wrote:
| > I wonder what the business model is for this
|
| Addicting people to living in a fake world where anything is
| seemingly possible, and then exploiting it. Basically the
| same M.O. as their other products, but on a "next level."
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| > Addicting people to living in a fake world where anything
| is seemingly possible, and then exploiting it.
|
| The sentence I was looking for.
| MikusR wrote:
| The only person with Oculus is Mark Zuckerber as he owns
| Facebook that owns Oculus. Maybe you mean Quest or Rift? I
| personally don't know anybody who owns an iPad.
| ssully wrote:
| I don't think this downplays Oculus, but they also announced
| today that they are going to start scaling back Facebook
| integration with Oculus and start allowing other login methods
| besides Facebook.
|
| Unfortunately outside of Tweets, this is the best story I found
| on it at the moment: https://www.ign.com/articles/oculus-
| facebook-requirement-end...
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Keep in mind he used very specific working "personal facebook
| account" and just announced a new company name 'Meta.'
|
| To me that points to a 'log in with Meta' option.
| distrill wrote:
| which is probably an improvement if they're kept totally
| separate from facebook
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| I'd imagine it's not that hard to tie a "Meta" user back
| to a "Facebook" user. Seems like it's all just for PR.
| 0x4d464d48 wrote:
| Sounds like a Yudkowskyists wet dream to me.
|
| Anyone know if people there are heavily influenced by his work?
| Kinrany wrote:
| > Sounds like a Yudkowskyists wet dream to me.
|
| How so? Searching for "metaverse" on LW yields 9 results,
| most of them are irrelevant.
| 0x4d464d48 wrote:
| I'm thinking more about how this seems like a template for
| people to integrate their personal lives into an actual
| simulation and give a justification for a 'friendly AI' to
| determine what's best for us.
|
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/k3823vuarnmL5Pqin/quantum-
| no...
|
| https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/coherent-extrapolated-
| volition
| rhcom2 wrote:
| My kneejerk reaction is this will probably waste a lot of their
| money without much traction. But I'm also happy about Facebook
| wasting a bunch of their money...
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| All depends if they can deliver on AR before anyone else.
|
| Gotta remember outside of Oculus, their entire product
| portfolio exists on top of the platforms of their
| competitors. This is their play to own the entire thing from
| the foundation up and the resources they'll be willing to use
| to accomplish that will be huge and really their only
| competition is Apple because Google gave up.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > All depends if they can deliver on AR before anyone else.
|
| Nope. It matters only if the gain wide adoption before
| anyone else. If they do, they become the de facto owner of
| that space.
|
| They definitely have the resources to do that.
| aerovistae wrote:
| For real. This is the least "incredibly scary" thing I can
| think of.
| iaml wrote:
| My kneejerk reaction is that some projects with "meta" in the
| name might get into legal troubles out of the blue.
| ra7 wrote:
| Don't like Facebook one bit, but Zuck is almost always spot on
| with his bets. So yes, incredibly scary as it has a high
| likelihood of succeeding.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >Don't like Facebook one bit, but Zuck is almost always spot
| on with his bets. So yes, incredibly scary as it has a high
| likelihood of succeeding.
|
| Instagram was growing like crazy, even faster than Facebook
| in its early days so acquisition was no-brainer. Instagram
| used Facebook's social graph so acquisition made even more
| sense.
|
| On the other hand WhatsApp had hundreds millions users at the
| time of acquisition and Larry Page was very close to
| acquiring it before Zuck but Facebook offered more money
| that's why it turned out to be one of the biggest
| acquisitions in the history of Internet($19bn). WhatsApp's
| huge userbase and rapid growth could've endangered Facebook
| Messenger that Zuck was about to separate from main Facebook
| app and make it standalone instant messaging Facebook app.
|
| So both Instagram and WhatsApp were no-brainer and made
| perfect sense and Facebook had cash pile to do it so they did
| it.
| whitepaint wrote:
| What?!
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817840
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7266618
|
| Unless you're an extremely successful businessman yourself,
| calling those acquisitions no-brainers is just completely
| dishonest.
| mrkramer wrote:
| In 1.5 years Instagram had 50 million monthly active
| users[0]. Yea it was no-brainer considering other mobile
| photo apps existed and Facebook and Twitter were also
| doing photos.
|
| [0] https://techcrunch.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2017/04/instagram-...
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Yea, watching some of the demo made me think of how deeply
| involved people got with The Sims. A platform where people
| could actually be their own Sim?
|
| Maybe Second Life and those didn't take off as much because
| the technology wasn't yet there.
|
| That being said, I still don't want Zuckerberg to be the king
| of it, but there are plenty of possibilities with high-
| definition VR/AR tech.
| adpirz wrote:
| This discounts a lot of failures and products without real
| success:
|
| - Facebook Apps
|
| - Facebook Home
|
| - Facebook Workplace
|
| - Facebook Portal
|
| - Facebook Essentials
|
| What he's done well: found promising competition and subsumed
| them.
|
| I think AR is going to be a huge part of the future. I don't
| think Facebook is going to lead that effort, not because I
| don't want them to (though I don't), but because they don't
| have a track record of building anything worthwhile outside
| of their core offering (ie, the Facebook product).
| mohanmcgeek wrote:
| Also "Facebook platform" which Chamath ran to the ground.
| matt123456789 wrote:
| So what you're saying is, now would be a good time to be a
| promising social AR/VR startup?
| mig39 wrote:
| Anyone remember the Facebook Phone?
| tinktank wrote:
| Meh. Many better companies have tried and failed. Good luck to
| them but all I have for them is a _shrug_
| danso wrote:
| I was curious what meta.com looked like before FB took control of
| the domain. Recent snapshots aren't loading for me, but post-2015
| it looks like it was taken over by an AI company -- the page
| titles include "Meta -- Science Discovered" [0] and "Meta -- AI
| for Science".
|
| Prior to that, since around 2012 it was an unused Wordpress site
| [1] that redirected to meta.compgu.com (which is now "tekman.cc",
| a consulting firm or something.
|
| And its earliest owner (at least as captured by wayback) was a
| California events company "Meta Productions: Producers of Meet,
| Mix and Match. Promoting awareness through metamorphosis" [2]
|
| edit: out of curiosity, I just noticed that one of the most
| famous domains that refused to sell out [3] -- steam.com -- is
| now apparently for sale?
|
| [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20160110141037/http://meta.com/
|
| [1]
| https://web.archive.org/web/20150228180854/http://meta.compg...
|
| [2]
| https://web.archive.org/web/20081002050002/http://www.meta.c...
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20100425061122/http://meta.com/
|
| [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20161023041828/http://steam.com/
| modeless wrote:
| There was an actual AR glasses company named Meta before this.
| They failed a few years ago. I guess Facebook must have bought
| the trademark from them. But they never owned meta.com I guess.
| Their current site is https://www.metavision.com/
| renewiltord wrote:
| Many of my friends from Meta (the AR guys) went to Oculus.
| Zuck acquired Meta.com (the AI guys) like half a decade ago.
| schleck8 wrote:
| It's impressive how the logo on meta.com is not an SVG but a
| low resolution PNG
| minimaxir wrote:
| Before now, https://meta.com redirected to
| https://www.meta.org/ which is owned by the Chan Zuckerberg
| Initiative; now, there's a banner saying it will be sunset next
| March.
| Nekorosu wrote:
| I somehow feel culturally appropriated.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| In London, in the area around the London Eye, there is a tourist
| trap that offers a very poor 'haunted house' type of attraction,
| usually something having to do with zombies. As each iteration of
| this tourist trap gains a reputation for being total rubbish and
| gains one star reviews online, every few months the attraction
| rebrands to another name.
| antiterra wrote:
| This doesn't sound quite right, what's one of the names?
|
| The London Dungeon is near the Eye and has been around since
| the 70s, albeit in different forms and location. They moved
| closer to the Eye due to rail station construction in 2013, I
| believe? Down the street from the old London Dungeons location
| is the London Bridge Experience, which generally gets better
| reviews and doesn't appear to be owned by Merlin Entertainment.
| I'd avoid both, but neither appear to match your description.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| No, I don't mean any of the flagship attractions like the
| Dungeon. The one I'm thinking of is small one on the strip by
| the Aquarium.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Takeaways in the UK also do this after the Foods Standards
| Agency shuts them down.
| edgriebel wrote:
| Same thing happens with Chinese restaurants in the states.
| New name, new sign out front, but oddly enough same fixtures,
| same items on the menu, and same folks behind the counter.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| At least at that place everyone is in on the scam. Facebook
| execs have to smile and say good idea to Mark, when all they
| want to do is tell him that is stupid
| thebean11 wrote:
| Sounds like a pretty naive take, given how successful the
| company has been under Mark..
| chestertn wrote:
| It is so dumb it might work.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| boooo
| tomalpha wrote:
| Is this a change of company name or is the Facebook
| product/app/site also changing?
|
| (As an aside the GDPR popup still asks me about "Facebook"
| cookies)
| Snetry wrote:
| I'm not exactly fond of Facebook but I think this could go in the
| right direction of improving their image
| davidw wrote:
| If they really wanted to do something useful for the world, they
| could eliminate comments on local media outlet stories. The
| people there, as Obi-Wan Kenobi put it, are a "hive of scum and
| villainy".
| jstx1 wrote:
| Since the linked page didn't really tell me anything, I had to go
| their twitter for a summary:
|
| > Announcing @Meta -- the Facebook company's new name. Meta is
| helping to build the metaverse, a place where we'll play and
| connect in 3D. Welcome to the next chapter of social connection.
|
| > The names of the apps that we build--Facebook, Instagram,
| Messenger and WhatsApp--will remain the same.
| sjg007 wrote:
| The Chan-zuckerberg foundation has a scientific paper search
| engine called Meta as well.
| BrokrnAlgorithm wrote:
| I actually agree with the vision, like its clear that media
| convergence will all kinda lead us into a common tech space, be
| it AR / VR / 3D whatever.
|
| But I don't think it needs to be called metaverse. We should have
| another name for it. Not to give "Meta" as a company the same
| honor as google received for "googling".
| verdverm wrote:
| "merged reality" as the digital world merges onto IRL?
| fullshark wrote:
| Not sure I agree with the vision but i applaud any company
| investing millions (billions?) in trying to shake up the
| internet in 2021.
| pseudobry wrote:
| Looks like the future of the Internet as imagined by Vernor
| Vinge's book "Rainbows End" (set in 2025, written in 2006) just
| got a lot closer.
| gotostatement wrote:
| the picture for "responsible innovation" is so funny... they're
| like "we're approved by this disapproving black woman!"
| spoonjim wrote:
| Should have called it "Verse."
| mabub24 wrote:
| So, cut through the brand/marketing-speak and this is just like
| Alphabet, right?
| Mockapapella wrote:
| I would just like to throw my hat into the ring and say that I'm
| super excited for the metaverse and can't wait to experience it
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| What an odd move; how on earth do they expect to defend that
| trademark?
| djbusby wrote:
| Lawyers, guns and money.
| samat wrote:
| FAANG - MANGA
| DethNinja wrote:
| Any of the FAANG workers here please tell me why all the large
| companies are trying to create metaverse?
|
| I've been playing MUDs, MMOs since their very beginnings and
| literally metaverse doesn't interest me. So who is their target
| audience that they can spend billions on this metaverse?
|
| And how metaverse will be different than Second Life?
|
| Give us some insider knowledge please.
| basisword wrote:
| >> I've been playing MUDs, MMOs since their very beginnings
|
| You're old :) I don't fully get it either. I don't understand
| why kids want to watch concerts in Fortnite and spend loads of
| money on in game items that only impact aesthetics but it seems
| clear there's lots of opportunity there. The interest in NFT's,
| crypto etc among younger people is massive too. Lots of
| opportunity. What isn't clear is exactly what "the metaverse"
| will look like. There are a lot of buzzwords being thrown
| around in big tech companies rather than concrete long term
| ideas but I think it'll figure itself out with time and
| different ideas take shape and come together.
| cranesnakecode wrote:
| The metaverse isn't for us who've already spend 30+ years in tech
| and realize what tech-obsession steals from you.
|
| It's for the kids who grow up addicted to it and don't realize
| until their 30s that they've had depresonalization disorders
| their entire lives.
|
| This will succeed with them.
| theabsurdman wrote:
| "That awkward moment when Zuck takes your company's name:
| meta.inc"
| https://twitter.com/awilkinson/status/1453790072701001728?s=...
| thesquib wrote:
| Na fa la na ma na ma ba pa to wo ha...
| knowsuchagency wrote:
| A name to signify what facebook has METAstasized into
| lunch wrote:
| Welp, tried atleast 7 times to watch this without a Facebook
| account. Made it about 2 minutes each time before being
| redirected to a login page.
| vehemenz wrote:
| Great. Now when I discuss metaphysics and metaethics, I have to
| subconsciously suppress the visage of history's most mediocre
| gazillionaire.
| nerdwaller wrote:
| I picture Facebook owning the metaverse close to the alternative
| outcome to Ready Player One, if IOI ended up owning the Oasis.
|
| If you've not read it, it's an enjoyable read. Definitely skip
| the movie, however.
| czottmann wrote:
| Still a terrible, terrible organisation that's detrimental to
| societies and humankind as such.
| coolspot wrote:
| Twitter is 100 times more toxic than FB, but somehow everyone
| is focused on FB.
|
| I guess someone powerful is annoyed.
| Oddskar wrote:
| Maybe you missed the part where FB undermined the US
| election?
| InitialLastName wrote:
| FB is 10 times larger than Twitter, and is diversified across
| a fairly large number of different platforms.
| missedthecue wrote:
| I agree. Twitter is a machine devised to draw people into
| clapbacks, cheapshots, fights, spats, and arguments. It's
| completely toxic.
|
| But journalists love Twitter. Every other account is a
| journalist or media personality. So all the "social media
| bad" articles implicate Facebook.
| liaukovv wrote:
| My mom isnt on twatter
| buitreVirtual wrote:
| Whataboutism is not a good defense for FB. All social media
| companies profiting from hate and addiction are evil.
| floren wrote:
| Journalists live their lives on Twitter.
| fullshark wrote:
| And consistently reveal their biases, one of the greatest
| social platforms for that reason as you can see the sausage
| get made in real time.
| goatlover wrote:
| Is it FB or social media and big tech in general? I'm confused
| by the laser focus on FB all of a sudden.
| coolso wrote:
| > I'm confused by the laser focus on FB all of a sudden.
|
| You have to look at in the context of the 2016 election. Once
| it was discovered that the winning team utilized Facebook in
| a way the losing team had no concept of (or more likely they
| simply didn't use said concept as effectively), Facebook has
| been singled out and targeted by most media outlets for being
| evil and in need of strict government regulations, to protect
| the children and democracy and society, among other things.
|
| Yes, FB had negative press prior. But this was the clear
| turning point in press coverage and governmental oversight
| and it was like a light switch.
|
| I can't say I'm disappointed in the slightest about that, or
| that they're wrong. I despise Facebook. But I do find the
| reasoning behind this all a very disturbing extension of the
| "cancel culture" we're in today. The establishment doesn't
| like not having a monopoly on the spread of information, and
| it is fighting back.
| elwell wrote:
| But replace every instance of "Facebook" with "the
| Internet" in your message. Why not cancel the Internet as a
| whole?
| czottmann wrote:
| Your reasons are valid but way too U.S.-centric for me. I
| look at FB (the global company) in a global context and am
| shocked and disgusted at their "profits yes, responsibility
| no thanks" approach in, say, most non-English speaking
| countries around the World.
| distrill wrote:
| I don't think it's particularly sudden, although I am also
| confused by the laser focus.
| goatlover wrote:
| Before a few weeks ago, it was all social media and big
| tech that was getting a bad rap for ruining society, but
| now it's almost exclusively FB.
| goatlover wrote:
| I forgot to add ruining the "fabric" of society, as the
| media and politicians love to say about whatever X is
| doing that. I have no idea what the "fabric" of society
| is supposed to be. But I'm pretty sure it was already
| "ruined" by tv, rock & roll and video games.
| jeromegv wrote:
| FB being the biggest and the one most likely to shape our
| society, they deserve the spotlight.
| viro wrote:
| Or congress could do its job and not expect a private
| company to regulate "truth".
| czottmann wrote:
| If you think the laser focus happened "all of a sudden" I
| believe you haven't been paying enough attention. ;) I think
| outside of the U.S. there has been more concern about FB's
| awful track record for years by now.
|
| But to answer your quest: For me it's their wish to be the
| biggest dog on Earth, aiming to be "everyone's internet"
| (especially in poorer, non-western nations) while at the same
| time wilfully ignoring the responsibilities that come with
| it.
|
| Most other players are also bad, I guess, but so far not many
| of them are able to do that. much. damage. to society while
| putting profits first no matter the cost, while trying to
| game the system no matter the cost, while scorching the Earth
| to stave off perceived competition, while assuming they're
| above the law.
|
| I'm certain that if Twitter, Telegram, Baidu, VK et al are
| having their own skeletons in the closet but they're not in
| the spotlight as much (yet).
|
| (Edited for grammar.)
| viro wrote:
| Its people that are the problem, they are just using Facebook
| as a scapegoat. No matter what they do, they(FB) will get
| attacked by 50% of the country ... Remove GOP voices
| spreading crazy shit .. They are suddenly suppressing
| political voices(censorship). Leave the content up and
| suddenly Facebook is responsible for domestic terrorist
| attacks. Honestly Facebook has literally been begging
| congress to regulate them. The problem isn't Facebook its
| that congress refuses to do it job and now Americans expect a
| private company to regulate speech for nearly every country
| FB operates in.
| goatlover wrote:
| I agree. The modern internet is just a reflection of how
| people want to use the internet, with all the good and bad
| that comes with that. I guess it's too bad the utopian
| dreams of the 90s didn't pan out, but what did people
| really expect once society moved online?
| salt-thrower wrote:
| I disagree to a certain extent. The business model of
| adtech + social media creates an especially toxic product
| that brings out the worst in people, and puts vitriolic
| content in front of more eyeballs because that's what
| drives engagement.
|
| If FB's business model were significantly different and
| didn't depend on maximizing eyeballs-on-screens time, and
| didn't depend on selling the ability to manipulate people's
| emotions at scale, the product might be less toxic.
|
| In summary, I think it's a cop-out to just say "humans
| bad." Yes, but the systems we create and participate in can
| and do influence human behavior in different ways. Facebook
| wouldn't be quite so toxic if there wasn't money to be made
| from the toxicity.
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| While we are at it can we remove Antifa and BLM from
| facebook?
| czottmann wrote:
| As a European, I look at FB in a global context, i.e. less
| U.S.-centric, and am shocked and disgusted for their
| "profits yes, responsibility no thanks" approach in, say,
| non-English speaking countries around the World.
| viro wrote:
| Why isn't that the governments in those countries
| responsibility? Why should Facebook even be allowed to
| enforce Western culture(values) onto non-western
| countries.
| kgeist wrote:
| Here in Russia our local social networks are more popular
| than FB but I'd say they're way more toxic than FB. Some
| years ago it was very easy to find child porn with a few
| clicks. At least there's some conversation in the US
| going on the harmful effects of social networks; here no
| one cares. People in countries where FB is the only
| option simply don't have anything to compare it to; they
| can't know it's a pretty decent social network, compared
| to some.
| scaswqdqw wrote:
| Hahaha! Opened the about page and Zuckerberg's face is right on
| the top :D This doesn't look like a good rebranding! Young people
| don't want Zuckerberg's social networks. They need something new.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Good luck ever having them remove the data you share.
| tdonia wrote:
| visiting a friend at a facebook office a few years ago, we walked
| by a small room near the bar cordoned off with caution tape. "oh,
| they're replacing the TV again, people keep using the oculus and
| smashing it by accident, has happened a few times" -- i can't
| help but picture that small, broken room today. #meta
| kingkawn wrote:
| This transition has been hyped up since I was in college in the
| early 2000s at least, where I remember attending presentations on
| Internet 2.0 and other such buzzwords. Mass market does not want
| to wear the goggles or do some elaborate version of Second Life.
| If anything people want less screen-time rather than an even more
| isolating intrusive version of it.
| Traster wrote:
| I really hope this transparent dodge to avoid regulators doesn't
| work out. The first time Zuck says "Oh, don't subpoena me,
| subpoena this human shield" Congress needs to turn around and say
| no.
| specialp wrote:
| The choice of "Meta" is very interesting. Chan-Zuckerberg started
| a project called "Meta" to increase the dissemination of science.
| This was a project going on for a while now [1]
|
| What does this mean for that?
|
| https://sociable.co/science/aaron-swartz-chan-zuckerberg-met...
| avsbst wrote:
| They started the process of shuttering it ~6 months ago. My
| partner worked there for ~3 years. Despite meeting all their
| metrics for user growth and activity it was a decision that
| came out of the blue. Guess we know why though? Can't have it
| conflicting with the brand.
|
| I remember that two weeks before the decision came down, and
| she and her team got blindsided, she told me how a bioeng
| researcher emailed her telling her that without their tool they
| never would've found the connections and research needed to
| solve the problem they were working on. Not sure why they
| didn't just rebrand the tool and team, but it's probably just a
| blip to the facebook execs.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| Looks like it's still up? https://www.meta.org/
| avsbst wrote:
| 11:45ish they will put a banner up saying it's going to be
| shutdown end of May next year
|
| Unfortunately archive.org is capturing the SVG logo from
| the site not the actual site so I can't prove the current
| state of the website but you can look at the last valid
| capture from 10/22: https://web.archive.org/web/20211022094
| 334/https://www.meta....
| avsbst wrote:
| Right on cue: "Meta.org will sunset March 31, 2022: Meta
| will be supported through March 31, 2022. In the lead up,
| we will work with you in transitioning to alternative
| open services. Read more."
| mrkramer wrote:
| Welcome to Metaverse where we have virtual sex! Enjoy your stay.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGMa1Q-45ow
| kitd wrote:
| Meta or Facebook makes no difference. Nothing is going to change
| with this company until they are forced to publish their
| algorithms.
| astlouis44 wrote:
| Sorry Zuckerberg, but the metaverse will NOT be a walled garden,
| tied to a social media company. Is the the internet, and more
| specifically, THE WEB itself as an immersive, distributed spatial
| ecosystem of worlds.
|
| The metaverse needs to be interoperable above all else, and this
| is unachievable with the equivalent of native, vendor locked apps
| controlled by an entity. The web already does this, as every site
| is governed by standards like HTML and HTTP which are consistent
| everywhere, on every device.
|
| WebGPU, WebXR, WebAssembly, and WebTransport are the key
| foundational technologies to this future online space. Our
| startup Wonder is assembling tools to empower developers and non-
| technical creators alike to build and deploy immersive websites
| using native game engines like Unreal Engine, that allow for
| immersive virtual storefronts, hangout spaces for chatting with
| friends and family, collaboration with coworkers, or jump into a
| game or interactive experience like a concert.
|
| Why the web, you might ask? Because no owns it. There's no 30%
| cut to give Apple or Facebook for accessing it.
|
| If you're interested in learning more or registering your intent
| ahead of our general availability launch, you can join our
| Discord here:
|
| https://discord.gg/zUSZ3T8
| tracyhenry wrote:
| > WebGPU, WebXR, WebAssembly, and WebTransport are the key
| foundational technologies to this future online space.
|
| This sounds like a narrow view focusing on software. Hardware
| is apparently the bottleneck here. A 3D game on a website is at
| best semi-immersive. You need headsets/AR glasses to get full
| immersion.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| > the metaverse will NOT be a walled garden, tied to a social
| media company
|
| > If you're interested in learning more or registering your
| intent ahead of our general availability launch, you can join
| our Discord here
|
| This is award-worthy satire
| [deleted]
| throw10920 wrote:
| > the metaverse will NOT be a walled garden, tied to a social
| media company
|
| > links to a Discord server
| renewiltord wrote:
| This is fucking awesome. I am super bullish on the metaverse.
| Besides, you don't bet against the Zuck.
| losvedir wrote:
| I suspect we will be awash in critical comments shortly, so let
| me just say I'm kind of excited about this.
|
| Don't forget that the internet was originally a military project.
| I'm excited to see a huge corporation going all in on VR and AR.
| It has the potential to be really interesting technology, and the
| research in displays, sensors, and other hardware and software
| won't go to waste.
|
| If "Meta" is the new ARPANET, I wonder what the new CERN and web
| will be.
| mempko wrote:
| Google is the AT&T of the internet. Meta is the AT&T of the
| metaverse. In modern times, there is no CERN. Just AT&T.
| neither_color wrote:
| Im excited for this too, Meta seems to be his passion project
| that he wants to be remembered for, and if he sticks to his
| word of opening up Oculus for easier development and letting
| you sign in without FB this will really take off. The comments
| here remind me of slashdot comments saying the iPod sucked
| because it had less storage than a zen nano and was overpriced,
| or the iphone would flop because business users needed a
| keyboard.
| IceWreck wrote:
| > If "Meta" is the new ARPANET, I wonder what the new CERN and
| web will be.
|
| Lets not get ahead of ourselves. This so called "Metaverse"
| will be another proprietary project that may or may not gain
| traction unless they open it up for federation. And facebook is
| all about walled gardens so they won't.
|
| And if they do, how do we know that 10 years later they wont
| shutter up their instance, cut off the federated parts to
| monopolize their own (presumably biggest) instance.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > And facebook is all about walled gardens so they won't.
|
| They had tons of Open APIs and stuff until people abused it
| and the CEO had to go to congress, so idk if the blame is
| solely on the company.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| Except ARPANET and CERN conducted their research for a larger
| audience, much of it making its way to the public. FB/Meta
| research is largely proprietary.
| grae_QED wrote:
| The whole "Metaverse" thing reads like E. M. Forster's, _The
| Machine Stops_.
|
| Now we'll never need to leave our houses. All thanks to Facebo...
| Uh, Meta.
| daviding wrote:
| If there is going to be a metaverse, I'm not sure I want Facebook
| to own it. It's like a bad sci-fi pulp story.
|
| Given their investment and research, I wonder if they should open
| it all up (even if contradictory to short-term gains in ad
| revenue) so it has a chance to grow? Federate it a bit more than
| they are comfortable with, to at least give it a chance. I could
| see this flubbing out hard otherwise.
|
| I'm personally keen on the AR/VR space (surrounded by headsets
| here), but the early adopters are so polarized about
| Facebook/Oculus's involvement. I don't know if a rebrand (is this
| really that?) would be enough for the tech crowd to forget and
| move on.
| gscott wrote:
| Welcome to Ready Player One
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Except it's run by Nolan Sorrento from day one.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| So true.
| CerealFounder wrote:
| Dont worry. Unless they acquire it, they aint building it.
| api wrote:
| Virtual reality was always dystopian. It's what happens when we
| don't have a frontier and turn inward to computer aided fantasy
| and isolation.
|
| One of the best dystopian explanations for the Fermi paradox is
| that intelligences eventually figure out how to immerse
| themselves in high fidelity fantasy worlds and basically sit
| around and masturbate until some black swan event like a planet
| killer astroid or a gamma ray burst destroys them. Maybe it's
| easier to create an endlessly gratifying simulation than it is
| to build a starship.
|
| There seem to be three possible futures on offer today:
|
| (1) A Brave New World with AR, VR, social media dopamine loops,
| ARGs and conspiracy LARPs, cheap drugs, and sex robots where
| the meaning of life is to withdraw into a fantasy world and
| masturbate until you die. This offers the comfort of rewards
| without challenges.
|
| (2) Reactionary movements against modernity itself, proposing
| that we instead re-embrace feudalism or some kind of
| totalitarianism where the state or some Ubermensch gives us
| purpose. This includes authoritarian fundamentalist religious
| movements, the alt-right, neoreaction, etc. This offers the
| comfort of the "devil we know" and futures that resemble our
| past.
|
| (3) SpaceX Starship and the next frontier, a future where we
| embrace difficult adventures in the real world with high risk
| but high payoff. This offers the least comfort but a lot of
| growth and experience.
|
| Choose wisely.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| There are also leftist visions of a future world where we
| actually address the core problems plaguing our world and
| give workers democratic control over their own work, instead
| of leaving that up to wage slave owners who view all of us as
| human resources.
| api wrote:
| I didn't include that because I don't see a workable,
| viable proposal. My intention was to list futures that I
| can see actually happening.
|
| I'm not against what you describe nor do I think it's
| mutually exclusive with option (3), but so far IMHO
| leftists have offered no solution to some of the inherent
| problems of this vision.
|
| The biggest one is how to make democracy work.
|
| How do you do good work under a democratic model? The
| Soviet bureaucratic model isn't truly democratic and as
| every engineer knows nothing good ever comes from a
| committee. How can democratic governance produce efficient,
| polished, practical, cost effective outputs?
|
| How do you avoid perverse incentives, runaway complexity,
| endless bikeshedding, or stagnation due to "vetocracy" like
| what exists with California housing? How do you prevent the
| seemingly natural formation of an oligarchy?
|
| So far I don't think democracy has ever existed except at
| tribal scale (below Dunbar's Number). All former and
| current attempts are oligarchies with a degree of
| democratic veto power or a democratic facade.
|
| I think this problem is closely isomorphic or maybe even
| identical to the open problem of efficient and secure fully
| decentralized computing and global consensus in distributed
| systems without hidden centralization or brute force
| approaches like Bitcoin proof of work. (... and Bitcoin PoW
| is in reality an oligarchy if you look at the largest pools
| ...)
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > as every engineer knows nothing good ever comes from a
| committee.
|
| That's a common adage, yet some of our most used
| technologies are created or maintained by committees -
| the Internet, web technologies, ECMAScript (enemy though
| it started out as a single person project), C++, OpenSSL,
| Unicode - these are all design-by-committee projects.
|
| Regarding your point about democracy vs oligarchy, this
| is to some extent a spectrum. There are few truly
| democratic (one man one vote) organizations, that is
| quite true. But I still have much more of a say on how my
| city is run than my company.
|
| And there are some examples of huge co-ops with a great
| degree of success. The biggest is the Mondragon
| corporation in Spain. They're by no means an example of a
| perfect democracy, but again - workers clearly have much
| more of a say there than in most similarly sized corps.
|
| Also, some of the countries on Earth with the biggest
| quality of life happen to be some of the most
| democratically run as well - Switzerland perhaps being
| the most striking example.
|
| The sheer amount of effort put by those in power in
| making sure those below them don't get any ounce of power
| also shows that they see the potential risk to their
| status if some of these things happen - thinking here
| specifically of the huge union busting industry, and of
| efforts to discredit any leftist candidate that makes it
| onto the world stage (like the disgusting accusations of
| anti-Semitism against Jeremy Corbyn, or the insinuations
| of being anti-black against Bernie Sanders).
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| > That's a common adage, yet some of our most used
| technologies are created or maintained by committees -
| the Internet, web technologies, ECMAScript (enemy though
| it started out as a single person project), C++, OpenSSL,
| Unicode - these are all design-by-committee projects.
|
| I think "created or maintained by committees" here is not
| precise enough. In most of these cases, especially in the
| case of net technologies, ECMAScript, and C++, a
| committee came into place only after independent vendors
| began to blaze the trail on their own. The committee's
| job here was to take existing implementations and distill
| them into a standard. This is important because
| individual entities often have almost no incentive to
| cooperate otherwise.
|
| However, there are examples of initiatives created top-
| down by committee that ended up becoming too complicated
| to achieve actual usage. The OSI Model vs the TCP/IP
| model [1] is a good example of this failure.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suit
| e#Compar...
| tsimionescu wrote:
| It's definitely true that committees can produce terrible
| results, like the OSI stack. But the committees that I
| listed didn't just distill implementations into a
| standard, they also design new features for those
| projects and actively steer experimentation done by
| vendors (especially true for the C++ committee).
| int_19h wrote:
| Soviet democracy was never a good faith attempt. I mean,
| Bolsheviks have forcibly disbanded an elected Constituent
| Assembly after it deliberated for 13 whole hours (during
| which it became clear that they don't have majority
| support there). But it doesn't mean that the fundamental
| principles of council democracy as they _advertised_ it
| don 't work.
|
| I would suggest looking at libertarian left instead.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism, in particular.
| joshmarlow wrote:
| > So far I don't think democracy has ever existed except
| at tribal scale (below Dunbar's Number). All former and
| current attempts are oligarchies with a degree of
| democratic veto power or a democratic facade.
|
| I've not read the book, but according to this interview
| [0] something closer to half of all pre-modern societies
| had something resembling democracies (the rest being the
| autocrats we tend to expect from history).
|
| Some were a bit different - for instance, in many cases
| elected representatives would have a fixed mandate on
| issues that they had the authority to make decisions on.
| Anything broader meant going back to the constituents to
| ask for an extension of power.
|
| I'm hopeful that human society has already solved some of
| the problems of democracy - modern society has just
| glossed over those solutions with not-invented-here
| syndrome.
|
| I'm also hopeful that technologies built top of
| cryptocurrencies (like smart contracts and DAOs) will
| enable new ways for humans to coordinate.
|
| Mechanisms like quadratic voting and funding appear
| genuinely new to me - and particularly promising!
|
| [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGkhWUureVg
| mdoms wrote:
| > Federate it a bit more than they are comfortable with, to at
| least give it a chance.
|
| I have yet to see a single federated system that has
| demonstrated commercial success. There's no reason to believe
| that strategy would result in greater success than Facebook's
| usual playbook, which is proven.
| rektide wrote:
| The world wide web used to have a host of proprietary servers
| for it, but those for the most part got eaten by Apache
| (which latter renamed to Apache Http Server). And then a host
| of new open-source http servers and libraries.
|
| Sometimes what's good for markets & the world doesn't _have_
| to be owned & commercial. Sometimes the availability of
| resources such as info-resources like httpd can beget
| enormous commercial success while themselves not having much
| commercial success.
|
| A Tim O'Reilly saying comes to mind: create more value than
| you capture. In some cases, without setting free the core
| idea & letting people run wild, you'll never stand a chance
| of capturing any value what-so-ever.
| Krasnol wrote:
| > If there is going to be a metaverse, I'm not sure I want
| Facebook to own it. It's like a bad sci-fi pulp story.
|
| Wouldn't that be fitting because the word comes from a bad sci-
| fi pulp story?
| dropnerd wrote:
| every hn top thread about fb says "we don't want fb to do this"
| or "fb is evil"
|
| whether you agree or disagree, the more interesting question is
| the details behind what Meta could build
|
| the answer is not federation. federation doesn't scale.
| rdrey wrote:
| Could you flesh out the "federation doesn't scale" argument a
| bit?
| dropnerd wrote:
| https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
|
| > So while it's nice that I'm able to host my own email,
| that's also the reason why my email isn't end-to-end
| encrypted, and probably never will be. By contrast,
| WhatsApp was able to introduce end-to-end encryption to
| over a billion users with a single software update. So long
| as federation means stasis while centralization means
| movement, federated protocols are going to have trouble
| existing in a software climate that demands movement as it
| does today.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| > I'm personally keen on the AR/VR space (surrounded by
| headsets here), but the early adopters are so polarized about
| Facebook/Oculus's involvement.
|
| There is no polarization at all. I don't know a single person
| who is happy about being forced to use FB in order to be able
| to use the equipment they have bought.
| ssully wrote:
| Our version of a persistent virtual space was never going to be
| like fiction. There will be 3 or more competing metaverses,
| none of which have any interoperability.
| m4rtink wrote:
| That can actually end up more healthy overall & lead to some
| competition.
|
| Having just one metaverse everyone uses seamed like the worst
| thing in Ready Player One - because then one entity can
| control it and for their rules and morals on all
| participants.
|
| Much harder to do that with multiple competing incompatible
| metaverses.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Or hundreds of incompatible little ones. If VR really takes
| off "We need to add chat to our app" will become "We need to
| add our own metaverse to our app."
| [deleted]
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Someone will own it, every option involves human owners...
| Tepix wrote:
| Facebook is investing 10 billion dollars into the metaverse
| this year alone and will increase this amount in the future.
|
| They can probably make the Metaverse an open standard like the
| web and still end up with one of the most popular hubs.
|
| If people who value their privacy can setup their own hubs, i'm
| pretty much OK with Facebook speeding up the advancement of
| AR/VR technology for the next several years using their
| advertisement dollars.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| >They can probably make the Metaverse an open standard like
| the web
|
| Thanks I needed the laugh.
| jephdo wrote:
| Fwiw that is the stated intention:
|
| > I think the most important piece here is that the virtual
| goods and digital economy that's going to get built out,
| that that can be interoperable. It's not just about you
| build an app or an experience that can work across our
| headset or someone else's, I think it's really important
| that basically if you have your avatar and your digital
| clothes and your digital tools and the experiences around
| that -- I think being able to take that to other
| experiences that other people build, whether it's on a
| platform that we're building or not, is going to be really
| foundational and will unlock a lot of value if that's a
| thing that we can do.
|
| https://stratechery.com/2021/an-interview-with-mark-
| zuckerbe...
| int_19h wrote:
| Talk is cheap. When did Facebook ever care about interop?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| they talk about everything like this, it's vague pr speak
| that sounds open, but it never is... remember when they
| were trying to tell developing countries that "free
| basics" was the internet?
|
| if they don't have a marketplace that wraps what "other
| people build" I'll eat my hat
| carbonguy wrote:
| > If there is going to be a metaverse, I'm not sure I want
| Facebook to own it. It's like a bad sci-fi pulp story.
|
| I'm confident I don't want them to own it - or for it to be
| owned by a single party of any kind, for that matter.
|
| > Given their investment and research, I wonder if they should
| open it all up (even if contradictory to short-term gains in ad
| revenue) so it has a chance to grow?
|
| I mean, that would be nice for users, but:
|
| a) I don't think Facebook is constitutionally* able to give up
| ad revenue gains: what they do is maximize ad revenue,
| basically
|
| b) I strongly suspect they have other means at their disposal
| to maximize growth. After all, every FB-IG-WA user is a Meta
| user now, right? How much would it cost to just send every one
| of them an Oculus headset for free?
|
| And if that sounds insane, consider that this announcement is
| basically saying "we're betting our entire brand on this
| particular future" - I suspect they'll do everything in their
| power to make that bet succeed (or appear to succeed).
|
| * in the sense of "this is the fundamental basis and goal of
| the company," not in a U.S.-founding-document sense
| alasdair_ wrote:
| >b) How much would it cost to just send every one of them an
| Oculus headset for free?
|
| $300 * 3 billion people, so $900 Billion give or take which
| coincidentally is right around the market cap of the entire
| company.
| swyx wrote:
| retail price != manufacturing price, so say just 2-300 bil
| Tenoke wrote:
| >How much would it cost to just send every one of them an
| Oculus headset for free?
|
| 20-50 times what they earn per user.
| carbonguy wrote:
| I doubt it's THAT high a multiple - in 2020 they earned
| just over $32 per user [1] and an Oculus Quest 2 retails
| for $299; one assumes the manufacturing cost is lower,
| meaning the multiple is likely 9x or less.
|
| Of course, the essence of your point is true: Facebook
| doesn't make as much per year per user on average as a
| headset costs.
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/234056/facebooks-
| average...
| Tenoke wrote:
| This is revenue and not profit and I've seen a lot of
| articles claiming that they are almost definitely selling
| headsets at a cost already[0]. Point stands either way
| for giving them free and selling at a cost is just a
| lesser version of that at any rate.
|
| 0.
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pcgamer.com/amp/oculus-
| will...,
| uuddlrlr wrote:
| >I don't think Facebook is constitutionally able to give up
| ad revenue gains
|
| This "fiduciary duty" meme really needs to die.
|
| Seriously the idea of fiduciary duty [to maximixe profit] is
| dystopian, corporations don't fuck us over because they have
| to they do it because they can.
|
| Edit: clarify
| throwawaycuriou wrote:
| I also blinked at that. But then took it to mean
| constitutionally in a pure sense - whether they can keep a
| strength of belief enough to follow through. Unrelated to
| 'The Constitution' from a US citizen's point of view.
| Although now I'm pondering just how misplaced and powerful
| our reverence of that cobbled together document is.
| carbonguy wrote:
| You are correct, that is the sense that I meant it. I'll
| edit my comment to clarify.
| uuddlrlr wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying! The constitution is pretty far
| from fiduciary duty legally, so I apologize for not
| interpreting it more charitably.
|
| (In general the maximize profit meme does need to die
| tho)
| MandieD wrote:
| It's basically a peace treaty. There are things about it
| that I think are incredibly counterproductive to
| democracy (and they were _designed_ to be so!), but I
| shudder at the thought of rolling the dice on scrapping
| or heavily re-writing it.
| wyre wrote:
| They have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder
| profits. See Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| No they don't, except maybe in Michigan ( _Dodge v. Ford_
| is a Michigan Supreme Court ruling from 1919, applying
| Michigan state law; as your own article states: "In the
| 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly", so
| assuming that _Dodge v. Ford_ represents anything other
| than a quirk of Michigan law [and potentially an outdated
| one even there] is...unfounded on the evidence you have
| provided.)
| mattkrause wrote:
| _Dodge v. Ford_ was basically a perfect storm of saying
| just the wrong amount.
|
| To summarize the case, Ford was sitting on a huge amount
| of cash. Some shareholders, in particular the Dodge
| brothers, wanted it paid out as dividends. Ford said no,
| and specifically:
|
| "My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the
| benefits of this industrial system to the greatest
| possible number, to help them build up their lives and
| their homes"
|
| Had he said less, or even nothing, that would have been
| fine. Management is entitled to make whatever _business-
| related_ decisions they see fit (the "business
| judgement" rule). If the Dodges disagree with those
| decisions, they can sell their shares and reinvest the
| money elsewhere.
|
| Had Ford said more "...and we think doing so will grow
| the market for our cars", "help us retain our skilled and
| motivated workforce" or something else vaguely related to
| success of Ford Motor Company, that also would have been
| fine.
|
| Unfortunately, what Ford said fell into a gap where it
| was clear that what he was doing was _not_ a business
| decision; he was using the shareholders ' money for his
| own personal ends, charitable though they may be.
| _Shlensky v. Wrigley_ is an interesting comparison. The
| Cubs refused to have night baseball games due to
| some...idiosyncratic beliefs about the "true nature" of
| the sport. This reduced their potential profits, but was
| nevertheless okay because chasing after the "purists" OR
| going for mass-market appeal are both reasonable business
| decisions.
|
| (This is not my argument; it's made in this article:
| https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1384/)
| likpok wrote:
| Later caselaw (note that that case was from 1919) gives
| directors widespread latitude to decide what "benefiting
| the corporation" means.
|
| The second paragraph gives two such cases: AP Smith
| Manufacturing Co v. Barlow and Shlensky v. Wrigley.
| cma wrote:
| This actually just makes it worse if (plausible) Zuck is
| a sadist.
| mannerheim wrote:
| They have a legal obligation to maximise shareholder
| value, but what that entails courts will generally leave
| up to the discretion of the company's executives. In
| fact, the very first paragraph says precisely that:
|
| > At the same time, the case affirmed the business
| judgment rule
|
| What is the business judgement rule?
|
| > The business judgment rule is a case law-derived
| doctrine in corporations law that courts defer to the
| business judgment of corporate executives.
|
| In other words, if the CEO of a company says that he did
| something because e.g. he believed it was better for the
| long-term health of the company, the court will generally
| take his word for it, barring evidence of deliberate
| malfeasance.
|
| What one cannot do is as Ford did, which was to
| deliberately try and hurt other shareholders.
| wyre wrote:
| Thanks! I understand it now.
| Frondo wrote:
| The very article you cited disagrees! You said they have
| "an obligation to maximize shareholder profits" while the
| linked article says they have to "operate in the
| interests of the shareholders." Those are two very
| different things!
|
| Hunt around for just a few minutes on the google search,
| "do corporations have a legal obligation to maximize
| share value," and you'll see that what you said is the
| myth that gets repeated -- this one link probably
| summarizes the argument against the myth in the most
| neutral way:
|
| https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-
| s-co...
| anonporridge wrote:
| The problem is that the "maximize profit" meme is VERY fit
| in the evolutionary world of memes.
|
| Those organizations and people that adopt the meme become
| more powerful and choke out all those entities that don't.
|
| You can't just choose not to pursue profits at any cost if
| there are ANY competing entities out there that choose to
| do so.
| mattkrause wrote:
| Indeed! It's not even really true: I did some digging in
| this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393674
|
| The relevant legal standard is "Don't abuse the company for
| your own ends", not "you must do everything to get as much
| money as quickly as possible, consequences be damned!"
| AlexandrB wrote:
| It's especially dubious in Facebook's case because Mark
| Zuckerberg controls the majority of voting shares. If he
| wanted to run the company straight into the ground I doubt
| anyone could stop him.
| threatofrain wrote:
| I don't think you can sell shares to the public and then
| deliberately screw over your shareholders. If Zuckerberg
| acted terribly then he may be exposed to liability.
| munk-a wrote:
| That's a question of malicious intent - if he intended to
| directly cause damage to specific shareholders than yea -
| they'd have a case. General idiocy isn't going to fall
| into that category though - shareholders all voluntarily
| bought their shares.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| Mark Zuckerberg could not make his salary $800 billion,
| or donate the entire company to charity. That's what that
| means, nothing about business decisions
| alasdair_ wrote:
| >Mark Zuckerberg could not make his salary $800 billion
|
| This would be an interesting test case. The limits on
| what he can or cannot do are remarkably ill-defined.
| nradov wrote:
| Mark Zuckerberg couldn't donate Facebook the corporation
| to charity, but he absolutely could donate all of his
| personal Facebook shares to charity. If he did that then
| the charity would have a controlling stake.
| dnautics wrote:
| The "fiduciary duty meme" is exactly what GP did _not_ mean
| as per their disclaimer. Constitutionally in this sense
| means "as a result of it's constitutive makeup", i.e.,
| it's culture, hierarchy, incentive structures, employees,
| managers etc.
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| > The "fiduciary duty meme" is exactly what GP did not
| mean as per their disclaimer
|
| which was added thanks to your parent comment.
| Impossible wrote:
| For b) assuming each Quest costs Meta around $400, and they
| are sending to 1B users, $400B, so about half their market
| cap and 10x yearly revenue :).
| wlesieutre wrote:
| They sell the Quest for $200, do you really think they're
| losing another $200 on each unit?
| adventured wrote:
| > How much would it cost to just send every one of them an
| Oculus headset for free?
|
| $200+ billion. They can't afford it. They couldn't get the
| manufacturing for it, either.
| carbonguy wrote:
| > They couldn't get the manufacturing for it, either.
|
| A very good point. I think the financing would be less of
| an issue, honestly; $200 billion a lot of cash up front,
| but spread out over five or ten years it's well within
| their FCF if they wanted to allocate it that way.
|
| EDIT: As another comment pointed out, FB might also be able
| to convince advertisers to subsidize some (or all) of the
| costs of "free" headsets for the masses, if they wanted to
| try this scheme.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| At this point I'm confident I don't want there to be "a
| metaverse" at all, because under our current social and
| cultural systems, I am confident it will be very very bad no
| matter who owns it.
| bsenftner wrote:
| This is the sad reality. Our society is simply not
| structured to protect the end-users of any such service in
| any meaningful way. Our political and ethical leaders are
| simply too embedded with selfish interests. The Metaverse
| will be a fleece the customer engine, with the rate and
| manner it is developing.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| The internet exists under our current systems and, although
| there are parts of it that suck, it's dope
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| So I might have a less optimistic analysis of the
| plus/minus of the internet, but more importantly, I think
| it was _created_ under very different circumstances, in
| it 's birth-years, by actors with different interests,
| values, and goals -- than the "metaverse" will be. The
| metaverse will be much worse.
| baby wrote:
| You mean it was created by the army?
| elil17 wrote:
| As to point B, they don't even need to send one to all users
| - just the ones they think will be cash cows for advertisers.
| Everyone with a income and behavior pattern that makes them a
| super valuable ad demographic (say, 5% or even 1% of users)
| gets one for free while the rest of us pay our way on.
| carbonguy wrote:
| This is an extremely interesting idea - I wonder if they'll
| start some kind of "invitation beta" for this fraction of
| users you describe.
| thrwyoilarticle wrote:
| My outsider understanding of advertising is that the most
| valuable marks are the richest. So the PR might kill that.
| ben_w wrote:
| > How much would it cost to just send every one of them an
| Oculus headset for free?
|
| About 0.6-1 trillion dollars, give or take.
| cbtacy wrote:
| > How much would it cost to just send every one of them an
| Oculus headset for free?
|
| That's the wrong question.
|
| The right question is "how many FB users would accept a free
| headset that advertisers paid for in exchange for access to
| your data and exclusive rights to place ads in front of you?"
| mandevil wrote:
| Counterpoint: the HTC First (aka the Facebook Phone) was
| >$1 USD less than a month after it debuted, and still was a
| gigantic flop. Facebook Portal has sold ~1 million units.
| Oculus has sold ~8 million units or so (all numbers based
| on quick googling, might be wrong). So people reject
| Facebook hardware all the time, and they don't actually
| have that much in the way of hits in the HW space.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| It was $1 on a two-year contract. It was also a bad
| phone. That really doesn't say much
| Apocryphon wrote:
| It says that they're lacking in the hardware department.
| kroltan wrote:
| No, that question is wrong, because that answer rounds up
| to 100%.
|
| Maybe a vocal minority like us HN-folk, but I don't think
| that by ourselves we really matter in terms of numbers.
| cbtacy wrote:
| Exactly. You could assume that it's likely that something
| like 2.75B (out of the est 2.89B) FB users would happily
| wear (free) physical spyware in this scenario.
| srveale wrote:
| We can answer this by looking at how many facebook users
| are okay (implicitly) with using facebook in exchange for
| access to their data and exclusive rights to place ads
| right in front of them. The answer is 100%
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| I would highly doubt 100% of Facebook users would want to
| use virtual reality. Out of those who would tho, it would
| be pretty high, I doubt many Facebook users would buy HP
| Reverbs after that. Not worth the absurd cost tho
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| There's a world of difference between sharing
| cat/dinner/vacation photos with friends and family and
| living in some kind of fantasy animated cartoon world.
|
| The social dynamics are completely different. Second Life
| showed that very clearly.
|
| The three biggest things in Second Life were fantasy
| consumerism, fantasy entrepreneurship, and fantasy sex.
|
| Unless FB is getting into those markets it's going to
| find the metaverse a tough sell.
|
| Not least because the whole point of fantasy is that _it
| 's not really you._ So that immediately conflicts with
| FB's only-real-identities dogma.
| jeffwask wrote:
| > If there is going to be a metaverse, I'm not sure I want
| Facebook to own it. It's like a bad sci-fi pulp story.
|
| One step closer to real life Shadowrun.
| neuronexmachina wrote:
| Or Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, which coined the term
| "metaverse."
| JohnFen wrote:
| I genuinely wonder why Facebook thinks that using that term
| is a smart thing, considering that Snow Crash is a pretty
| heavily dystopian novel where everything is owned and run
| by corrupt, powerful, and abusive corporations.
|
| It really seems like they're tipping their hand here.
| int_19h wrote:
| Snow Crash is literally the first thing that came to my
| mind when I saw FB talking about "metaverse".
|
| And not only it is a dystopia, but the Big Bad in the
| story is literally the guy who owns the physical
| metaverse infrastructure:
|
| > "I deal in information," he says to the smarmy,
| toadying pseudojournalist who "interviews" him. He's
| sitting in his office in Houston, looking slicker than
| normal. "All television going out to consumers throughout
| the world goes through me. Most of the information
| transmitted to and from the CIC database passes through
| my networks. The Metaverse -- the entire Street -- exists
| by virtue of a network that I own and control.
|
| He's also pretty open about his methods:
|
| > "Yeah, you know, a monopolist's work is never done. No
| such thing as a perfect monopoly. Seems like you can
| never get that last one-tenth of one percent." ...
| "Y'know, watching government regulators trying to keep up
| with the world is my favorite sport. Remember when they
| busted up Ma Bell?" "Just barely." The reporter is a
| woman in her twenties. "You know what it was, right?"
| "Voice communications monopoly." "Right. They were in the
| same business as me. The information business. Moving
| phone conversations around on little tiny copper wires,
| one at a time. Government busted them up--at the same
| time when I was starting cable TV franchises in thirty
| states. Haw! Can you believe that? It's like if they
| figured out a way to regulate horses at the same time the
| Model T and the airplane were being introduced."
| thesquib wrote:
| And had a virus that transmitted to humans via the
| metaverse. Very apt for Facebook to choose this actually
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| If what they're doing now is any indication, I don't think
| they'll succeed with it anyway. They've got almost zero
| credibility with anyone under 30.
|
| Their existing prototypes are _outrageously_ embarrassing. I 'm
| the kind of person that has a hard time watching The Office
| because I feel second-hand embarrassment, and I can barely make
| it a minute in to any of their VR demos. They're so uncanny,
| awkward, and embarrassingly goofy. At least The Office has some
| endearing quality (sorry for the weird comparison).
|
| I'm not sure if it's Mark Zuckerberg's influence or what... but
| everything about Facebook lacks some sort of jour de vive.
| Like, their idea of "making work fun" is stuff like... an
| astoundingly cringe-worth video about healthcare open-
| enrollment? This kind of thing dumbfounds me
| https://vimeo.com/639318528... and I don't even consider myself
| a cynical person.
|
| All of this feels only a few degrees removed from Jonestown.
| lnanek2 wrote:
| Are you sure you aren't living in a techie bubble? Oculus
| consistently tops the best selling headsets list at amazon
| cnet, PCMag, etc.. The only non-developers I know with
| headsets all have Oculus or more rarely PSVR. Maybe they
| aren't cutting edge, but everyday people can't afford cutting
| edge anyway.
|
| They burned a lot of developer cred. by going back on the
| promise not to require Facebook login with Oculus, but the
| public at large has no knowledge of that. All the public
| knows is that it's decent hardware for a super low price
| compared to the competitors, it doesn't require a PC, and
| it's what most of their friends with a headset are using.
|
| Can't really call having the most popular headset not
| succeeding, even if it is probably subsidized with their
| massive ads money making machine.
| arduinomancer wrote:
| > They've got almost zero credibility with anyone under 30
|
| I'm not a fan of facebook either but this is simply not true.
|
| < 30 is the _largest_ proportion of facebook users
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/376128/facebook-
| global-u...
|
| Even putting Facebook aside Oculus is dominating the VR space
| due to cheap hardware, which I would bet is a ton of < 30
| people.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/265018/proportion-of-
| dir...
|
| My point here is consumers don't _actually_ care about
| company morals, despite the prevailing narrative.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| This isn't a statement about morals. I agree that no one
| cares about those.
|
| It's a statement that no one thinks "oh cool facebook"
| about literally anything they say or do. Their greatest
| successes in terms of social capital over the last decade
| have involved buying other companies.
|
| Maybe I'm in a bubble, but it seems while everyone _uses_
| Facebook to some extent... no one _likes_ it.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Nobody likes anything. People hate Google, Reddit, etc
| but they still use it because it provides utility.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I like Google and Reddit, a lot. I think a lot of people
| do. My biggest beef with Google is just that their search
| engine seems to get worse with every new release, with
| more pages and pages of ads and a clusterf of rando
| content until I get to actual search results. But I still
| really like their service.
|
| Similarly, I like Reddit a lot. There are a ton of shitty
| subreddits but so what, I just don't go there.
|
| On the other hand, I hate Facebook. I wish I could find
| an easy way to stay connected to my existing friend
| network without the amount of vitriol I feel toward how
| my feed is organized.
| echelon wrote:
| We could rename metaverse. Maybe derive prefixes from
| chemistry?
|
| Meta, ortho, para.
|
| Paraverse. Orthoverse.
|
| We can't keep using metaverse now.
| tomp wrote:
| Internetverse
|
| Neverse for short.
| anttiharju wrote:
| Subverse? Universe within a universe, a sub universe.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| You should try googling that one, preferably not at work,
| it's taken.
| shaunxcode wrote:
| I am fond of holoverse. Holonic not holographic.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Holaverse
| jl6 wrote:
| Time for your holonic irrigation.
| Kinrany wrote:
| Interverse?
| joshenberg wrote:
| That's what I wonder. Early VR adopters/technologists hate what
| happened to Oculus and there aren't a lot of newcomers to that
| market. I don't think cheaper headsets are going to fix that in
| the near future so I don't know whom they're targeting. Seems
| risky to lean into something where the experts already think
| you screwed up.
| b9a2cab5 wrote:
| Quest 2 is outselling past VR headsets by leaps and bounds
| according to news reports. The decision to make a standalone
| headset and build their own app platform was absolutely the
| right one from a growth standpoint, even if the hardcore VR
| consumers aren't biting. Early VR adopters are going to buy
| the next best product and have no loyalty.
| thow-01187 wrote:
| > The decision to make a standalone headset and build their
| own app platform was absolutely the right one
|
| Not sure whether the appeal of Quest 2 is in the
| standalone-ness and the app platform - or whether it's
| about being around half the price of comparable headsets
| before it, perhaps even being sold at a loss
| CoolGuySteve wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if the next gen Switch has a VR
| headset accessory and blows the entire market away the same
| way the iPod and NES did to their predecessors.
|
| The required parts to make a 60Hz 1080p headset are
| entering the $100 cell phone market and that segment of
| components are more or less what Nintendo traditionally
| uses in its handhelds.
|
| Nintendo also has a long history of "blue ocean" products
| that tweak existing technologies to make them more
| mainstream.
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| Very unlikely we will see it from Nintendo, Nintendo have
| lacked innovation for ages, they just sell cutesy games
| to kids. They cornered the 'disney' market, don't expect
| them to do anything great from a tech perspective
| elliekelly wrote:
| I would imagine the Switch gyro controller must be pretty
| close to the tech needed to make VR games?
| ddragon wrote:
| In my experience with a rift s, even though the oculus
| touch also has gyroscopes and accelerometers, they only
| help for a few seconds at most when the controllers leave
| the camera. Those sensors are just not accurate enough (I
| know little about the details of the sensors, but
| accelerometers are tracking the second derivative of the
| position, so any small error will accumulate fast when
| you want the latter), and you don't want to have your
| hand all over the place when you're trying to interact
| with things in VR, which is why, at least for now, you
| need to measure position directly for it to work, such as
| the camera/LED devices that are most popular with VR
| headsets and controllers (and even stuff like the PS Move
| controller).
| meheleventyone wrote:
| https://www.nintendo.com/products/detail/labo-vr-kit/
|
| In a similar vein to phone based VR that we've had since
| Google Cardboard. Modern headsets fuse gyro,
| accelerometer and camera feature tracking together to
| stably track the position of the headset and
| hands/controllers.
| CoolGuySteve wrote:
| You're talking about the company that over the past 15
| years introduced consoles with motion controls, touch
| screens, autostereoscopic 3D, proximity-based data
| sharing, wireless HDMI streaming, and seamless docking
| support?
|
| That one? That company lacks innovation?
| desiarnezjr wrote:
| Their biggest achievement is that they made all those
| things so cheap and accessible. It really reinforces that
| newer, innovative or edgier tech (ie: Kinect) isn't
| always the right approach.
| Tepix wrote:
| 60Hz 1080p isn't good enough for VR. Bulky hardware that
| can be built for $100 isn't good enough for mass
| adoption. There's a reason why Meta is investing so
| heavily.
| CoolGuySteve wrote:
| People have been arguing that Nintendo hardware doesn't
| deliver high enough fidelity ever since the Wii but that
| hasn't stopped most of their products from being
| incredibly successful.
|
| The idea that it's refresh rate or resolution that's
| keeping VR from becoming mainstream seems ridiculous when
| even a relatively friendly platform like PSVR ships with
| this bundle of cables: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikip
| edia/commons/thumb/3/3d/So...
|
| Occulus seems to realize this but their software side
| still needs work.
| sangnoir wrote:
| Nintendo offsets lackluster hardware with exceptional
| games. The end result is Nintendo rarely becomes the
| outright leader in any hardware segment. I agree they are
| successful, but I can't recall when they last "blew away
| the market"
| specialp wrote:
| 5 out of the top 10 consoles sold of all time are
| Nintendo. They are the outright leader and always have
| been in handhelds and the Switch has been the best
| selling console for the past 2 years
| int_19h wrote:
| It's not an either-or. It definitely needs to be wireless
| to truly take off, but resolution and refresh rate
| requirements are also required to provide an enjoyable
| experience.
| ben_w wrote:
| 60Hz: I agree with you
|
| 1080p: I disagree, that can either be good or bad
| depending on the content. E.g. original iPhone was only
| 320x480, but Apple made it feel _good_.
| advrs wrote:
| Have you tried VR at 1080p? I understand your point (one
| number does not adequately represent "quality of
| experience") but for VR, 1080p is simply not enough due
| to the distance to the display (pixels are very visible).
| int_19h wrote:
| FWIW, I own HP Reverb G2 (2160x2160 per eye - the highest
| I could find when I got it), and it's still not quite
| enough. 4K per eye might be what it takes.
| eli wrote:
| Oculus sold 2 of every 3 VR headsets last quarter. If there's
| a lesson here, it's that you can't extrapolate mass market
| appeal from what early adopters think.
| spideymans wrote:
| VR and AR is still in its early adoption phase. It's too
| early to make any predictions about which VR/AR platforms
| or products will ultimately have mass market appeal. As an
| analogy, none of the biggest smartphone manufactures in
| 2004 really ended up mattering in the long run.
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| I wonder how many are still actively being used. I bought
| the Oculus quest early on. Spent a bunch on different
| games, hooked it up and played PC VR games. Used it nearly
| daily for a few months but have since given it away. Partly
| due to the current limitations of VR tech (it's heavy,
| screen resolution is still very low, need a large space to
| really play it) as well as now having to use a Facebook
| account.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| I would argue that early adopters/technologists of VR are
| comparable to PC gamers and Quest adopters are comparable to
| console gamers.
|
| Both have a purpose, both are subsets of the same
| demographic... but both vote very differently with their
| wallets.
|
| Personally, I don't mind FB taking over the casual market.
| There are still alternatives and the technology will advance
| faster with such a big company behind it.
|
| That being said, I won't be touching the Metaverse unless I
| can't avoid it.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/faceboo...
|
| The BuzzFeed journalist shared a video on her Twitter
|
| https://twitter.com/katienotopoulos
|
| In the video, Facebook HR staff hide behind "the metaverse".
|
| https://player.vimeo.com/video/639318528 (Ctrl+U, Ctrl+F mp4)
|
| https://archive.org/download/facebook_open_enrollment_2022/F...
|
| What the journalists are not discussing is whether and how "the
| metaverse" will be used to surveil people and support
| advertising. No discussion of whether/how it embodies "privacy
| by design". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_by_design
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| There's a huge distinction that needs to be made between AR and
| VR. AR in public is a menace, for the same reason everyone not
| wearing one hated google glass.
| randomsearch wrote:
| Facebook can't even beat TikTok. They'r not going to win at
| building an alternate reality.
| swalsh wrote:
| There needs to be many metaverses, and NFT's should be able to
| be shared between them. It's dangerous to think about the
| prospect of a major company like Facebook (Or a DAO for that
| matter) locking up the entire universe.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Agreed, I'm pro multimetaverse. I'm also pro democratic-
| representation metaverse.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Why NFT? Why can't we just "import jpeg" instead of "link
| NFT"?
| joshmarlow wrote:
| The neat thing about using NFTs is that you can represent
| the ownership on a public blockchain and that gives you
| some nice possibilities:
|
| 1) storing virtual property rights on a public ledger means
| that it can be shared among different 'metaverses', which
| provides friction against vendor lock-in; it limits
| specific vendors (like Facebook) to only providing UIs to
| underlying property
|
| 2) a single vendor going out of business doesn't impact
| your virtual property; Blizzard could shutdown WOW and you
| would loose all of your loot, but if it's on a public
| ledger then your loot survives
|
| I think something like this is the only really plausible
| approach to building an open and interoperable metaverse
| (it's also the most compelling application of NFTs IMHO).
| cma wrote:
| Changing one bit on a texture or shifting a vertex by one
| bit changes the hash. NFT is useless for implementing IP
| without some other legal enforcement.
| joshmarlow wrote:
| > NFT is useless for implementing IP without some other
| legal enforcement.
|
| From a real-world legal perspective, you're totally
| right.
|
| But as a means of acquiring an object in one virtual
| environment and maintaining access to it in others, it
| seems like a pretty good mechanism.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >Blizzard could shutdown WOW and you would loose all of
| your loot, but if it's on a public ledger then your loot
| survives
|
| Your loot is worthless without the game. Why would you
| still want it?
| mindcandy wrote:
| There's a whole lot of BS in NFTs at the moment. But,
| there is one thing they are good for: Everyone is crying
| out for a decentralized, interoperable metaverse that is
| not walled-off and owned by corporations. OK. So, how
| does anything of monetary value interoperate in that
| scenario?
|
| So, you can make your metaverse service, I can make mine,
| and we can both interoperate by supporting each other's
| APIs. But, some of our services cost us significant money
| to provide and have market value to our users. We can
| make with work out for everyone by recognizing ownership
| of certain NFTs as decentralized verification that a
| given user has rights to things of value in our services.
|
| We don't have a lot of examples of this so far because
| corporations are incentivized to wall you off from their
| competition and the public has not the means to securely
| control and verify value outside of the blessings of the
| corporations. But, now we can do it without them.
| joshmarlow wrote:
| mindcandy's comment sums it up well, but I'll just add
| that the loot is worthless without the game _now_ - that
| 's the point of vendor lockin.
|
| But if items and their properties are stored in a public-
| by-default way, then _other_ games can incorporate those
| items in it (without Blizzard 's permission). So if you
| get some loot in one game, it can become available in
| others.
|
| The neat idea is that application data from different
| sources become _composable by default_.
|
| Frankly, I'm not much of a gamer - but an open ledger is
| the only basis that I can see to avoid vendor lock-in for
| the increasingly nuanced virtual environments that we are
| building.
| fl0wenol wrote:
| All of this assumes that other games will "play by the
| rules", in the sense that they won't let you use an item
| that you don't own. If I can see the resource (and in all
| current models, the content of the signed media/document
| an NFT authorizes is public) then I can use myself if my
| client is so configured. Most games give value to loot by
| forced scarcity, NFTs don't implicitly enable this at
| all.
| joshmarlow wrote:
| I think that's right locally - you can of course make
| your local software ignore the ownership of nfts. But if
| the crypto/ledger doesn't line up, then other better
| behaved clients can (and arguably have an incentive to)
| just ignore what your client says. That could mean (in a
| gaming context) that the rest of the network just ignores
| your progress in the game (ie, new loot acquisitions).
|
| It's the same thing with Bitcoin node software - any node
| could broadcast a transaction that contains more BTC than
| the address actually has. But the crypto/ledger won't add
| up, so the network just wouldn't accept it.
|
| In fact, flooding the networks with forgeries would
| devalue the network (and the operator's investment in the
| project).
|
| Games built on a public ledger benefit from playing by
| the rules - doing otherwise would devalue their
| investment in building on the ledger.
| [deleted]
| swalsh wrote:
| NFT's let you own digital assets. That means people can
| make a real living building them.
| stale2002 wrote:
| People don't have to pay for VR avatars when playing
| VRChat.
|
| Forced monetization of all that, is a bad thing, not a
| good thing.
| [deleted]
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Because no one has ever made a living designing graphics
| before NFTs?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| NFTs let you own a link to a digital asset... which isn't
| very useful for an infinitely reproducible asset. With a
| central entity (eg Meta) there's no need for distributed
| ownership.
| uuddlrlr wrote:
| NFTs let you own autographs of digital assets.
|
| Which is cool. If it weren't for the energy use.
| lambdadmitry wrote:
| Which is exactly the argument big studios used to argue
| for DRM. NFT is (quite literally) DRM, rebranded and
| ostensibly accessible to the masses, but with all the
| caveats amplified accordingly and with a huge energy cost
| attached.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Unlike now, where no one makes a living building anything
| digitally.
|
| Sorry if your post was sarcasm, NFTs have hit some kind
| of milestone where I can't tell the difference between
| the jokes and sincere posts.
| bduerst wrote:
| I thought the market has repeatedly shown there isn't much
| demand for persistent virtual worlds?
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| What you mean to tell me folks didn't love Playstation Home?
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Don't question it, just drink your Kool-Aid.
| Kye wrote:
| VRChat seems to have landed on something close to the right
| balance of whatever it takes to make it happen. It's
| apparently easy enough for someone to make a whole meme world
| for an event in the news in time for it to be relevant:
| https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2020/11/9/21557029/four-
| season...
|
| The video in the initial tweet is up to 2.1 million views: ht
| tps://twitter.com/thecoopertom/status/1325710953305026560?...
|
| VRChat or someone building on their proof of concept is
| likely to make it happen. It won't be Facebook with its VR
| Slack.
| echelon wrote:
| Facebook will try to buy VRChat.
| astlouis44 wrote:
| 1000% this, it's only a matter of time.
| bsanr wrote:
| If only. Arguably, part of their secret sauce is their
| restrictiveness of new users. You have to spend quite a bit
| of time in-game to gain the ability to even be seen by a
| lot of other users, and more still to be able to upload
| avatars and worlds. I'd planned on opening an art gallery
| space on the platform this summer, only to find that I
| didn't have enough friends to reach the "trust" level
| necessary to upload worlds. It's probably a good thing for
| the quality of the community itself, but anathema to growth
| or casual use.
|
| (And as for me, I'm stuck trying to figure out how to hack
| up a WebXR experience with, ah, limited programming skills.
| Until then, it should be at https://vrchat.com/home/launch?
| worldId=wrld_559152a2-44d3-44... , but it's inaccessible
| without adding me as a friend and accepting an invitation
| to an instance I spin up. So, practically useless. And
| support is no help in terms of what, exactly, I'd need to
| do to raise my trust level.)
| stonecraftwolf wrote:
| Paying for a VRChat+ subscription comes with an increased
| trust level, so possibly that.
| Kye wrote:
| I didn't know they launched a premium thing. I wondered
| how they planned to pay for it.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| "I've come to the insight that there really aren't any bad
| ideas at all. Only ideas at the wrong time.[not quite
| verbatim]" - Marc Andreesen
| bmhin wrote:
| > the market has repeatedly shown there isn't much demand for
| persistent virtual worlds
|
| I don't know if you have a more narrow view of this idea or
| specifically mean VR/AR, but that just sounds like what
| massively multiplayer online (MMO) games such as Ultima
| Online, Everquest, and World of Warcraft are. I think Roblox
| is even a broader use case, though I am fairly unfamiliar
| with that.
|
| MMOs have been very viable from both a business and user
| stand point and have been a fairly big thing for going on a
| quarter century or so at this point. Whether these branch
| into more of the Second Life non-game social space or into
| being largely AR/VR driven is pretty up in the air, but it's
| not some sci-fi concept really.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| MMOs live or die based on constant new content and even new
| mechanics, not persistent worlds.
|
| There are some niche products with stable worlds, but those
| are a minority of a minority.
| debaserab2 wrote:
| > MMOs have been very viable from both a business
|
| Really? Everything that's not named World of Warcraft seems
| to die out, usually in less than a year. It's a genre
| that's been a notorious recipe for failure for most
| companies not named Blizzard.
| tazjin wrote:
| I don't know what the situation is now that Blizzard is
| no longer really Blizzard, but back in the early years of
| WoW this was - in large part - because almost every other
| MMO that launched just plain _sucked_.
|
| Blizzard was to the gaming industry what people often
| believe Apple is to the hardware industry. They were the
| only ones that invested in polished UI, coherent UX, etc.
| and it was so incredibly noticeable.
|
| I'm sure a lot of this was pressure to get something out
| quickly to make a "WoW killer", which is what gaming
| media branded basically every MMO that launched after
| WoW.
| bduerst wrote:
| MMORPGs are not really persistent worlds though.
|
| They're an environment crafted to scratch a dopamine itch
| by providing instant gratification for work, with a social
| layer attached on top. I write this as someone who used to
| play MUDs back before MMORPGs even became a thing.
|
| Unless Facebook is planning on releasing their own WoW
| branded as the metaverse, I don't see how they're the same.
| angelzen wrote:
| Who do you want to own it?
| tlrobinson wrote:
| > I'm not sure I want Facebook to own it.
|
| I know I don't. It's a dystopian nightmare for an advertising
| company to be building "the metaverse".
|
| I hope all the other players in this space band together and
| form an open, federated metaverse.
|
| It's one use-case I can kind of see benefiting from blockchain
| protocols: enforcing digital scarcity in a federated metaverse,
| by recording transfers of avatars and assets between the
| "metaworlds" making up the metaverse ("digital identity
| scarcity" is still an unsolved problem though, I think)
| charcircuit wrote:
| >enforcing digital scarcity in a federated metaverse
|
| Until someone dumps it and reuploads whatever for free.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| What are the motivations of the other players?
|
| > enforcing digital scarcity in a federated metaverse
|
| Yeah, I'm not interested, actively anti-interested, in the
| "metaverse" we are going to get, at all. Any "players in this
| space" that aren't motivated by selling user's personal data
| are instead motivated by selling users things they don't
| need.
| danShumway wrote:
| > enforcing digital scarcity in a federated metaverse
|
| I don't know, I feel this sentiment betrays a industry-wide
| common lack of imagination. We start building digital
| realities, and our first thought is to try and make them more
| crappy like the regular one?
|
| Nobody really _likes_ scarcity other than speculators and
| collectors. We shouldn 't be trying to invent more of it, we
| shouldn't be trying to get rid of the advantages of digital
| abundance. We should instead be trying to manage and mitigate
| the limited forms of scarcity that still exist in digital
| systems -- a long term goal of the Internet should be the
| complete elimination of most non-physical scarcity. Every
| time we can make a new asset or utility stop being scarce,
| that's a step in the right direction.
|
| It's a failure of creativity, vision, and (frankly) courage,
| that so many people in the tech industry are
| incapable/unwilling to imagine worlds that aren't
| artificially hobbled and restricted so that they mimic
| existing systems.
|
| We build these incredible, world-changing technologies, and
| then instead of rethinking ownership or creator incentives we
| just waste a bunch of energy and time building little pretend
| speculative "art markets" and stressing out over whether
| somebody might copy and paste a file between two computers or
| share it online.
| cpeterso wrote:
| > I hope all the other players in this space band together
| and form an open, federated metaverse.
|
| Seems unlikely. Google, Apple, and Microsoft would surely
| each want their own proprietary metaverses. Mozilla is
| experimenting in the metaverse space linking VR and web with
| Mozilla Hubs: https://hubs.mozilla.com/
| [deleted]
| mrweasel wrote:
| While I'm not interested in VR at all, and only feel like
| should be used in limited areas, I agree on the issue of
| Facebook owning "the metaverse". Many of the early adopters are
| already of Facebook and/or dislike the company, meaning that
| there are few people to help push the products.
| stephenhuey wrote:
| 75 minutes into his keynote, he said:
|
| "...but connecting people was always much bigger...it was
| always clear that the dream was to feel present with the people
| we care about...here we are in 2021, and our devices are still
| designed around apps, not people. The experiences we're allowed
| to build and use are more tightly controlled than ever, and
| high taxes on creative new ideas are stifling. This is not the
| way that we are meant to use technology. The Metaverse gives us
| an opportunity to change that, if we build it well. But it's
| going to take all of us...Together, we can create a more open
| platform."
|
| When he says this, I hear between the lines that the platform
| will be open to all contributors as long as the "open platform"
| belongs to Meta. How does he not realize that by seeking to
| dominate and own this "open platform" instead of working
| outside of his company to build a truly open platform with
| others is actually open?
|
| Does he not read enough sci fi or literature in general to know
| that by having so much power and not seeking to let go a bit
| more, he opens himself up to the same risks and temptations
| faced by myriad dystopian villains?
| rl3 wrote:
| > _It 's like a bad sci-fi pulp story._
|
| That feeling when you don't have a single original idea, and
| unironically view Black Mirror episodes as a blueprint.
| hackernudes wrote:
| I think there is at least a chance that they handle Meta
| differently - at 1:28:24 in the keynote[1] Zuck says "...that
| means that, over time, you won't need to use Facebook to use
| our other services".
|
| [1]
| https://www.facebook.com/facebookrealitylabs/videos/56153569...
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Yeah, he means you'll need a "Meta" account.
| jfmc wrote:
| A Facebook-controlled metaverse, rising gas prices... it is
| only a matter of time that humans ends up being used as
| batteries.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| ready player one's whole premise was that is was too
| expensive to travel and everyone volunteers to live out their
| lives in a vr metaverse...
| glogla wrote:
| Fun fact, in Matrix (if that's what you're referring to)
| people were originally enslaved by the machines to provide
| compute capacity of their brains. The battery part came
| later, when someone (studio executives?) jumped in, and said
| that's too smart and people wouldn't get it so it was changed
| to batteries.
| lovecg wrote:
| That makes way more sense too. Human brains are pretty
| complex devices, it's easy to believe the machines didn't
| figure out how to make something comparable and opted for
| human farming instead. On the other hand humans make very
| crappy batteries, how does that science even work.
| anotherman554 wrote:
| I figure the machines must be draining some sort of
| psychic energy from humans. While there's no such thing
| as psychic energy as far as we know, that's because all
| knowledge of it has been left out of the matrix.
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| MORPHEUS: For the longest time, I wouldn't believe it.
| But then I saw the fields with my own eyes, watched them
| liquefy the dead so they could be fed intravenously to
| the living -
|
| NEO _(politely)_ : Excuse me, please.
|
| MORPHEUS: Yes, Neo?
|
| NEO: I've kept quiet for as long as I could, but I feel a
| certain need to speak up at this point. The human body is
| the most inefficient source of energy you could possibly
| imagine. The efficiency of a power plant at converting
| thermal energy into electricity _decreases_ as you run
| the turbines at lower temperatures. If you had any sort
| of food humans could eat, it would be more efficient to
| burn it in a furnace than feed it to humans. And now
| you're telling me that their food is _the bodies of the
| dead, fed to the living?_ Haven 't you ever heard of the
| laws of thermodynamics?
|
| MORPHEUS: Where did _you_ hear about the laws of
| thermodynamics, Neo?
|
| NEO: Anyone who's made it past one science class in high
| school ought to know about the laws of thermodynamics!
|
| MORPHEUS: Where did you go to high school, Neo?
|
| (Pause.)
|
| NEO: ...in the Matrix.
|
| MORPHEUS: The machines tell elegant lies.
|
| (Pause.)
|
| NEO _(in a small voice)_ : Could I please have a real
| physics textbook?
|
| MORPHEUS: There is no such thing, Neo. The universe
| doesn't run on math.
|
| - https://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/64/Harry-Potter-
| and-the...
| VyperCard wrote:
| Oh. An interesting philosophical approach
| dstroot wrote:
| Meta already has enough compute capacity. They have
| enslaved humans to mine their wallets.
| gdilla wrote:
| It's their metaverse. A walled garden metaverse. So maybe that
| isn't really a metaverse, but what they want you to think about
| a metaverse.
| dmix wrote:
| Zuckerberg repeatedly tried to say it will be an open
| standard with interop like HTTP links. Zero indication what
| that means.
|
| If I was FB I would have announced at least a protocol or
| some technical foundation, even if it's purely preview.
| 16bytes wrote:
| I don't understand what exactly this rename/rebrand entails.
|
| Is it restructuring FB like Google became Alphabet? So, under the
| "Meta" umbrella, you have all of the individual FB assets, and
| www.facebook.com just becomes one of those assets?
|
| Some outlets are reporting that, yes, it's something like this:
|
| https://www.npr.org/2021/10/28/1049813246/facebook-new-name-...
|
| This landing page, however, does a terrible job of explaining
| this. There's this "news" page:
|
| https://about.fb.com/news/2021/10/facebook-company-is-now-me...
|
| But even that is similarly lacking in details. Looking at this
| page you'd think Oculus is now Meta for how much they emphasize
| VR/AR and literally nothing about FB and the other apps.
|
| What weird, mixed messaging.
| fairity wrote:
| I get that it's popular to shit on Facebook and its CEO, but a
| lot of you seem to be dismissing the metaverse vision out of
| hand.
|
| It seems obvious to me that humans will eventually spend a
| significant amount of time in VR. The question is not if but
| when.
|
| As tech advances, eventually, VR environments will feel close to
| identical to IRL environments. And, when that happens, there is
| no reason to bear the commute costs of travelling to IRL
| environments.
| smuemd wrote:
| Not to happy with this. The name of my daughter (8yo) is Meta.
| :-/
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Logo looks like a ballsack.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/iucCEuc.png
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| I know most of us aren't looking forward to a future with
| Facebook in control, but ask yourself: How many times has
| Zuckerberg been wrong about tech trends?
|
| I can't think of a single time. He's gotten every major
| investment correct.
|
| This metaverse idea will either be the first major Facebook
| misstep, or it's a future we should embrace sooner than later.
| You stand to win big if you're an early adopter on any given
| platform, and perhaps it's time to start thinking about this as a
| new iOS.
|
| That said, I hope I'm mistaken.
| [deleted]
| imwm wrote:
| meta.com - used to be a Chan-Zuckerberg initiative to discover
| scientific papers. Now it's Facebook's corporate home. Hmm.
| arduinomancer wrote:
| On one hand I'm not a big fan of Facebook
|
| But it is pretty amazing to have so much money and focus being
| thrown behind VR/AR
|
| There are a ton of problems that need to be solved in that space:
| graphics/geometry algorithms, image processing, hardware,
| interface/IO, neural stuff
| paulgb wrote:
| I worry that the Facebook association is actually _holding
| back_ VR. I know a few people who have expressed interest in an
| Oculus headset, but for the Facebook association. But the
| amount of capital Facebook is throwing after it surely makes
| other vendors hesitant to compete.
| Klonoar wrote:
| This is more or less how I feel about it - I refuse to touch
| anything VR-related that is associated with Facebook as an
| entity.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _There are a ton of problems that need to be solved in that
| space: graphics /geometry algorithms, image processing,
| hardware, interface/IO,_
|
| ...advertising, spying, tracking, tabulating, monetizing,
| engaging, profiting, controlling...
| zalequin wrote:
| Fuck Uckerberg and anything that is related to thus human waste
| parenthesis wrote:
| It makes a lot more sense for Facebook to change the name of the
| parent company -- given the actual and potential proportion of
| their revenues from Instagram and WhatsApp -- than it did for
| Google to change to Alphabet given that Alphabet is still mostly
| Google in terms of making money.
|
| However, the timing makes it look like a ploy to distract from
| current controversies (although I don't think it is a ploy), and
| the name Meta is going to look really stupid if their whole
| Metaverse thing doesn't work out.
| shoto_io wrote:
| Let's have a "Meta" discussion about this rebrand.
| fossuser wrote:
| You can watch the connect talk here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKPNJ8sOU_M&t=867s
|
| It'll be interesting to watch this space and it's cool that
| someone is working on building this out - I hope they leverage
| some of the staying power of the web by leaning on protocols for
| a true platform, but that'll be hard to do.
|
| There's a ton of interesting potential if lightweight AR hardware
| works out. I think it'll be pretty interesting.
| mikl wrote:
| Thanks to Facebook, the word meta will soon sound like a curse.
| Words like "metadata" will start sounding very sinister.
|
| Anything else you can do to ruin our day, Meta?
| xyst wrote:
| Basically name squatting off the popular use of "meta" to
| describe a self referential event/action.
|
| Also FB lately has become synonymous with causing significant
| harm to democracy across multiple continents. A corporate name
| change is a cheap way to deceive people in the future. When they
| (future generations) try to lookup the history of "Meta", they
| won't immediately see the crap that FB produced in the dark ages.
|
| It's the equivalent of a restaurant or business changing their
| DBA because of shitty online reviews. Or car dealerships
| advertising "new management"
| jimkleiber wrote:
| > Basically name squatting off the popular use of "meta" to
| describe a self referential event/action.
|
| Ironically, this cannibalizing of the word "meta" makes me feel
| even more strongly in favor of breaking up the company.
| uptown wrote:
| Sure complicates the questions around what metadata they keep
| about a person.
| karaterobot wrote:
| This is your opportunity to get in on the ground floor of not
| using Meta. In retrospect, a lot of people wish they'd done this
| with Facebook, but of course it's too late now. Don't make any
| mistakes you know you'll regret.
| butterfi wrote:
| Hilariously, when you follow the above link, the site doesn't
| honor the back button. Figures.
| heydenberk wrote:
| Some of the largest companies in the world are named after
| fruits, misspelled big numbers and rainforests, but even with
| that set of comparands, this seems a bit silly.
| mrgleeco wrote:
| Wonder if gTLD is a thing here. If they already not on it, seems
| like a good (quarter million) squat.
| busymom0 wrote:
| I tried to watch the keynote video 3 times and after a few
| seconds, it would show me a login popup. I haven't had a FB
| account for over 7 years. Why can't they just let me watch what
| they are without an account?
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I wonder how this will help their case against antitrust. At
| first blush, it seems to me that this might hurt them more than
| help them. Announcing one's desire to move to a higher level, to
| transcend, gives me the impression they want to be even more of a
| monopoly, not less.
|
| Or maybe it has the sense of "we don't care about your national
| laws, we will do as we please"--a bold challenge to nation-state
| regulation.
| desktopninja wrote:
| Job recruiters to prospect: Lets take a look at your meta data
| busymom0 wrote:
| Weird that meta.com doesn't redirect to fb.
|
| It redirects to meta DOT org which is:
|
| > Meta, a Chan Zuckerberg Initiative project, is a biomedical
| research discovery tool that analyzes & connects millions of
| scientific outputs to give you a comprehensive view into science.
| You can easily explore research and follow developments by
| searching for specific terms or creating customizable feeds of
| papers and preprints.
|
| EDIT: Fixed automatically now.
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| Clean your DNS cache. It now redirects to
| https://about.facebook.com/meta.
| busymom0 wrote:
| Yep, just tried now and it fixed itself.
| aorth wrote:
| I can't even watch the keynote without logging in. I don't have a
| Facebook account... ummmmm.
| mempko wrote:
| Meta and the metaverse looks like a huge attack on Apple. In a
| metaverse world, iPhones don't make any sense. Those that own the
| platform will make all the money. Apple owned a very lucrative
| App platform that would go away if FB is successful. I'm
| wondering how Apple will respond.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| I want off this ride.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| This sounds like googles strategy to dominate social networking
| with Wave...
| otterley wrote:
| On keyboards without a Meta chord key, Emacs and Readline users
| can hit Escape first instead. Sounds like a good plan to me. ;-)
| _bramses wrote:
| MAANG just doesn't roll off the tongue as well
| silentsea90 wrote:
| I dislike FB, but I think it is very cool that Zuck has the guts
| to radically change the company's identity around a vision that
| may be arbitrarily far (see: Oculus/Magic Leap's promise vs
| progress). Most big companies are petrified to make changes that
| kill the dying golden goose.
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| I'm not sure how the structure is, if Facebook, Instagram,
| WhatsApp and Oculus are separate companies owned by the holding
| company also named "Facebook".
|
| I'm pretty sure the websites/apps will keep their names, just a
| design will change, e.g. if you load Instagram, the splash
| screen says currently "Instagram, from Facebook", and it'll be
| "... from Meta" soon enough.
| gillytech wrote:
| Hopefully this does irreversible damage to Facebook and they
| have to sell off chunks of their monopoly to survive.
| Grakel wrote:
| God, look at the comments. "I can't wait to (describes VR
| gaming.)" The misunderstanding of technology across the
| population is so profound it's dumbfounding.
| sushsjsuauahab wrote:
| While I wish them all the best, this name in my opinion only is a
| bit cringe.
|
| Carmack and Abrash have been dreaming about the "metaverse" for
| 30 years now, but I would rather view computers as tools instead
| of viewing them as things that control our perception of
| existence.
| alvis wrote:
| Meta? Does it matter?
| tyronehed wrote:
| Classic ploy: squat on an existing word with the implication that
| anytime someone describes something as "meta", Facebook can act
| like they were saying "Meta".
| cnst wrote:
| Not April 1 yet?
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Meta is as anodyne as Altria.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I just saw some ads about Meta. They are beyond cringey. Facebook
| and Zuckerberg are out of touch.
| ppjim wrote:
| Someone predicted 10 years ago in HN that this would happen.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2561810
| pronlover723 wrote:
| Facebook is the worst place to have a metaverse. The metaverse to
| me is where you get your freak on. Just look at VRChat or Second
| Life, it's full of people in highly sexualized outfits doing
| sexual things. I don't want Facebook (or any company) associating
| my sexual persona with a real name account.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Meta-comment: Corporate press releases are poor OPs; it is only
| the facts and spin they want to present, rather than good
| journalism which covers more facts, other analysis, multiple
| points of view.
|
| It's similar to the reason that Wikipedia doesn't allow primary
| sources (last I knew), only secondary ones. The primary source
| has a strong bias and can say anything.
| scaswqdqw wrote:
| So, regular people have troubles trademarking very complex names
| and they give Zuckerberg trademarks for any commonly used word.
| What a great equality of treatment!
| [deleted]
| mycentstoo wrote:
| Metabook? Instameta? WhatsMeta?
| Communitivity wrote:
| Every FAANG (or MAAAN) company has invested into the Metaverse.
| Let's all remember they didn't invent it though, so I hope they
| don't gain complete control.
|
| I'm all for it if it advances VR technology and they don't have
| full control. If the Oculus situation is any indication, Meta
| will be making a play for VR ad dominance, as will Google.
| NotChina wrote:
| So Zucks email will be data@meta.com?
| jhallenworld wrote:
| The new logo almost looks like the Space:1999 Meta
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFf5uavxYGQ
| twalla wrote:
| It's almost like Zuck saw all the ads in Ready Player One and
| read about all negative shit in Snow Crash and went "yes, I'd
| like that"
| 7373737373 wrote:
| If it's gonna be an ad-based business model, we might end up
| here, HYPER-REALITY:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs
| freediver wrote:
| Does anyone actually enjoy the VR/AR experiences in a profound
| way?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Dystopian Ready Player One.
| smilespray wrote:
| "Oh my God, it's full of ads!"
| jamestimmins wrote:
| Fairly certain that's just Ready Player One
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| kaladin-jasnah wrote:
| It's not. In the story (the book), the company that runs the
| metaverse (Gregarious Systems) is portrayed as a "benevolent"
| company that somewhat respects its users and acts in the best
| interest of people (you may be thinking of the intentions of
| IOI and Nolan Sorrento, the adverserial company that sound
| like our Facebook).
|
| Uh, there's also an unfounded claim in the story that the
| metaverse software (the OASIS) is open-source, but the author
| only mentions it once and this claim isn't exactly supported
| by the rest of the story (at least to me).
| pinewurst wrote:
| While Gregarious is somewhat benevolent, the described
| world of RP1 in general is highly dystopian.
| goatlover wrote:
| One could argue that the benevolent company was giving
| people an excuse to ignore the problems in the real world.
| Didn't the main character gain the option to delete
| Gregarious Systems if he deemed it was best for the world?
| jliptzin wrote:
| Why can't they just say we want to change the company name to
| distance ourselves from the increasingly toxic brand that is
| Facebook. Yet another dishonest, cringe, and nauseating
| announcement from Facebook.
| [deleted]
| Belphemur wrote:
| Lots of PR Bullsh*t here:
|
| > Connection is evolving and so are we. > The metaverse is the
| next evolution of social connection. Our company's vision is to
| help bring the metaverse to life, so we are changing our name to
| reflect our commitment to this future.
|
| In other words, nothing will change, just the name.
| malloreon wrote:
| I wonder if facebook employees really think they paper over the
| harm they do each day by renaming their company.
|
| if you call it something else does it still hurt people?
| hacknews20 wrote:
| Read my comment about this before: the only (best) way to fix
| this company is to go private and have as part of that a new
| executive team.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23453963
| cedricgle wrote:
| I guess no more project will dare to use _meta_ in their name.
| They will fear either a copyright lawsuit or a fall in SEO.
| lxe wrote:
| Just like that one time Netflix split into Qwikster... good times
| blunte wrote:
| How long until they begin to sue any other company with "meta" in
| its name (even pre-existing ones)? It will happen.
| dmix wrote:
| The longer FB video made me wish I was on Youtube. They don't
| even do sharing basic content well yet.
| legohead wrote:
| Everyone keeps saying metaverse, but meta makes me think of
| metadata, which is about the worst name they could have chosen.
|
| "Are you worried about FB storing all your data? Okay, lets
| rename to a word that is about scooping up all relevant data."
| schleck8 wrote:
| The entire Wikipedia article is already updated haha
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta,_Inc.
| danijelb wrote:
| This is as dumb as it would be to name your internet company Net
| in the early 90s.
|
| Metaverse is supposed to be a generic term for an interoperable
| virtual 3D world. And now the term is linked to a specific
| company. I guess if there will ever be a metaverse, it won't be
| called that.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| So is this a Google -> Alphabet thing?
|
| Or is "Facebook" being rebranded everywhere?
| oedmarap wrote:
| I imagine when the branding is complete we'll get the following
| gem: <meta property="og:title" content="Meta">
| <meta property="og:site_name" content="Meta"> <meta
| property="og:url" content="https://meta.com">
|
| Joking aside, in my view the branding (and branding ability) of
| the name change to Meta is impressive given their long term
| vision.
|
| However, I do get the feeling that Meta will aim to eventually
| become a household proprietary name and thereby water-down what
| can be considered one of the broadest, most abstract terms we're
| all familiar with.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Do humanity a favor and do not buy Oculus headsets.
|
| Force them to remove Facebook login from headsets, and force them
| to open their VR platform to people using any headset.
|
| If you don't, you may find yourself requiring an Oculus headset
| to work, do errands, etc. Just like Internet Explorer became the
| unavoidable plague of the 90s.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| interesting the instagram page for facebook is gone, changed to
| https://www.instagram.com/wearemeta/
| m3kw9 wrote:
| There is still a huge massive gap in what peoples think a
| metaverse is like(think Ready Player One, or any move with VR
| involved) vs what it is in reality.
|
| Facebook will still be Facebook for quite a while.
| mwilliaams wrote:
| I see they already bought the meta.com domain. I wonder who owned
| it before and how much it cost Facebook to acquire.
| [deleted]
| olingern wrote:
| This looks like an attempt to obfuscate the negative sentiments
| that we've come to associate with the conglomerate Facebook. I
| think there will be some short term success, but Meta and
| Facebook will become synonymous as Alphabet and Google are.
|
| I'm also reminded that our mass media will play a major role in
| how public sentiment plays out. Like him or not, you have to
| admit the great lengths our media has covered Dave Chappelle over
| the past few weeks. You'd think things like this Facebook rebrand
| or the stalled infrastructure bill would have more meaningful
| coverage. Outrage, like sex, sells. I wonder if this rebrand will
| breach the outrage threshold?
| annadane wrote:
| Who wants to bet Zuckerberg is the ONLY one within the company
| that wants this and other employees are rolling their eyes?
| TillE wrote:
| I don't understand what Facebook is even doing in terms of a
| metaverse. Like they have the VR goggles, but what are they
| actually doing with it?
|
| Coincidentally, MMO developer Raph Koster (Ultima Online, Star
| Wars Galaxies) has recently been detailing in a series of
| articles what his new company is doing in terms of building a
| metaverse, and it's pretty exciting in gaming terms.
|
| https://www.playableworlds.com/news/riffs-by-raph:-online-wo...
| shostack wrote:
| If you haven't had the chance, I'd suggest watching the FB
| Connect keyboard. It couldn't really be more explicitly spelled
| out in terms of the long term vision and the road to get there.
| isoskeles wrote:
| Maybe they'll try to make it so you can spend time with AI, VR
| avatars of your dead loved ones (like in Caprica, the prequel
| to the remake of Battlestar Galactica).
| Kinrany wrote:
| It doesn't sound any more open than then Facebookverse, so
| it'll just get bought out eventually.
| fullshark wrote:
| This was their previous attempt: https://youtu.be/PVf3m7e7OKU
|
| Which I guess became Facebook Horizon
| https://socialmediahq.com/whatever-happened-to-the-hype-surr...
| MBCook wrote:
| They're getting investor money. So far that seems to be it.
| grantc wrote:
| Even if they're at 0% done in terms of what happens after you
| connect to a digital world via immersive conduits, $10B a year
| can put a dent in that burndown.
| btbuildem wrote:
| If a metaverse is hosted by FB, it'll come with all the drama,
| nonsense and toxicity we see on there today. The product (ie,
| today's users of FB) is what stinks to high heavens.
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| Don't blame the users. Blame the choices that Facebook has
| made. They WANT the toxicity, it keeps people's eyes on their
| phone.
| threeseed wrote:
| > If a metaverse is hosted by FB, it'll come with all the
| drama, nonsense and toxicity we see on there today
|
| It is ridiculous to imply that it's somehow unique or exclusive
| to Facebook.
|
| It exists on all of the social media platforms, across the web
| and in the real world. It is more a byproduct of anonymous
| interaction than something Facebook is specifically doing.
| elmomle wrote:
| It isn't the users, it's the platform and underlying philosophy
| of the business. They are factory-farming humans' attention;
| it's no wonder the result is dystopian.
| md8z wrote:
| I see this sentiment posted often on HN but I've seen no
| social media that didn't eventually become toxic or that
| didn't feed on human attention, this website included. What
| good is a platform if nobody pays attention to it? And if
| people are paying attention to it, how do you plan to prevent
| them from fighting, competing with each other over every
| little thing, and spreading misinformation?
| afavour wrote:
| I've seen it said (somewhere, sorry) that humans simply
| aren't designed to interact on these mass social scales.
| And (without evidence, I admit) that feels kind of right to
| me. The ideal social network is a small one. But the
| incentives of advertising and/or just growth in general
| mean that it would difficult to compete in the market
| against the likes of Facebook.
| neom wrote:
| Google tells me researches at York University research
| indicates that humans can remember "10,000 faces over the
| course of a lifetime. The average person can recall
| around 5000" - and that's on lifetime scale - so it's not
| surprising that systems that are pushing past that would
| be uncomfortable/anxiety inducing. Brains are not wired
| to deal with huge numbers of humans (although I'm sure
| evolution will eventually have a thing or two to say
| about that).
| ben_w wrote:
| > I've seen it said (somewhere, sorry) that humans simply
| aren't designed to interact on these mass social scales.
|
| This is something I've said, though I doubt I'm the only
| one. One particular problem is the availability heuristic
| goes very wildly off-course when there's an internet
| bandwagon.
| threeseed wrote:
| This is completely backwards.
|
| The large scale social interaction is courtesy of the
| internet not from Facebook.
|
| For example websites like Reddit, HN, Twitter, TikTok etc
| are the ones that facilite interaction with large, broad
| groups of people whereas the majority of Facebook users
| are just interacting with their small social circle.
| ben_w wrote:
| Hm, not sure.
|
| _I'm_ as you say, but my FB friends list have the
| following friend counts: 432, 139, hidden, 176, 1213,
| 103, hidden, 510, 179, 277, 217, 262, 233, it's a cat,
| 320, 296, 317, hidden, 985, 398, hidden, hidden, 489,
| 995, hidden, hidden, 434, 167, hidden, 1080, 1297,
| hidden.
|
| And several of those friends are in FB groups which have
| leaked onto my feed as a result of my friends interacting
| with those groups.
| threeseed wrote:
| Those numbers are completely normal for the list of
| friends and acquittances you've met over your lifetime.
| And of that list you would only be interacting with a
| fraction on a regular basis.
|
| But that's completely different from say Reddit where you
| would be exposed to hundreds of thousands of different
| people over the lifetime of using the site.
| afavour wrote:
| The post I was replying to didn't mention Facebook once.
| Just social networks, which Reddit and the like would
| fall under. So you're drawing a line that doesn't exist
| in the original context.
|
| > the majority of Facebook users are just interacting
| with their small social circle
|
| That describes me and my Facebook experience is
| comparatively pleasant. But I don't know how typical it
| actually is, most of the angst on there seems to come
| from people sharing meme page posts, being members of
| groups that spread misinformation... certainly that
| describes how a number of my relatives experience
| Facebook. I don't think the social circle is that small
| for many users.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I've always presumed that the vast majority of Facebook
| engagement now is not with personal content created by
| Facebook friends, but with the mass media content from
| large Facebook communities. Most of what I see when I
| look at my feed are posts from groups or "pages" which I
| have never heard of. Most of those posts aren't even
| there because one of my Facebook friends directly shared
| or interacted with the post.
| cmorgan31 wrote:
| You provide enough value without over reaching to gobble up
| the planet's engaged time. You know massive ad engines
| which make the social media concept profit driven will not
| stop existing as a driver for the metaverse. We would need
| to pay to play in this space or accept a terrible freemium
| model which is likely to cause unintended consequences. The
| worst outcome would be a combination of both.
| ljm wrote:
| HN has its own brand of toxicity and cynicism for sure, but
| the existence of HN doesn't depend on that. It doesn't need
| you to be angry to survive, it doesn't need to know about
| you as a person. If you like the content that surfaces on
| HN and you get on well in the community then you're good.
| HN doesn't give a shit if create an account to comment on
| one or two interesting posts and then _never return_.
|
| HN can live without you.
|
| FB, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc. etc. cannot
| survive without trying to actively engage you. They are
| working tirelessly to find ways to rope you back in.
|
| They cannot live without you.
| tshaddox wrote:
| It's true that HN probably could continue to exist with
| much less overall usage and engagement than it currently
| has, but that's because it presumably costs very little
| to run (including development and moderation) and (even
| more importantly) isn't a core product for a public
| company attempting to constantly grow at all costs.
| burkaman wrote:
| > I've seen no social media that didn't eventually become
| toxic or that didn't feed on human attention
|
| What about email?
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| HN (and other discussion sites like lwn.net) are way
| different in this regard. Also, it's not a social medium
| but a forum. Before social media we had many fora. The
| success of each of them depended on their specialization
| and moderation. The more specialized the forum was, the
| easier it was to keep order because there were fewer
| trolls. Also the users knew they should not feed the
| trolls. We hat heated discussions, dramas, long-time users
| leaving the fora. But practically speaking everything was
| transparent. Nobody manipulated your "news feed" like they
| do with FB (an Instagram) to maximize revenue. Nobody
| suggested to me I should join some fringe groups,
| repeatedly. Nobody showed to me the stupidities some of my
| friends wrote on some groups (some of them not even knowing
| all their friends see it).
| md8z wrote:
| Is it? The HN front page absolutely does have some level
| of algorithmic manipulation going on. There was just a
| thread on this:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29024032
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Oh of course HN has a ton of problems and problematic
| solutions (greying out people outside of group think -
| shouldn't it be the opposite?) but it's _way_ better than
| FB. Paradoxically, I don 't remember when I used HN main
| page, I'm using alternative interfaces displaying
| censored posts etc. - one of the many things you can't do
| with FB.
| threeseed wrote:
| Of course HN is better than Facebook. It's moderated,
| limited in discussion topics and the user base skews
| heavily towards higher educated, older professional
| types.
|
| It's like being at a professional work event and truly
| shocked that everyone is well behaved.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| It's basically The Matrix but without the cool martial arts
| moves.
|
| I suppose the ultimate goal is compulsory participation, for
| more or less overt values of "compulsory."
| Mikho wrote:
| Meta worse.
| Cyberthal wrote:
| You have a tremendously valuable brand.
|
| You change it to a nerdy adjective.
| ebanana wrote:
| meta feta betta? i guess if google can be alphabet, facebook can
| be meta. i was always under the assumption from everything i have
| read about business and branding that from a marketing standpoint
| renaming your brand once established is a fairly bad idea but i
| guess that has changed?
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Hrm, so FAANG becomes MAANG. Add in Microsoft and Uber, MANGA MU.
| "Yeah, I have been shopping my resume around to the other MANGA
| MUs."
| frakt0x90 wrote:
| This person called it a week ago which I just think is impressive
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28931821
| pelasaco wrote:
| That's so woke, weird and awkward. Zuckerberg, trying to be
| natural, the interviewer, the parties.. I hope that isn't our
| future
| dmix wrote:
| Even the robot character was awkward.
| pelasaco wrote:
| almost as awkward as Zuckerberg nodding in the interview and
| saying how much fun he had playing some games.
| racl101 wrote:
| Drop the 'ta'.
|
| It's cleaner.
| buitreVirtual wrote:
| The timing of this announcement is strange. Maybe this was
| already planned for late October, or maybe this is an attempt to
| take control of the narrative after all the horrible publicity.
| dvaun wrote:
| I was building plans for a site called th.emeta.net on the domain
| emeta.net, which I own. With this announcement I may have to
| rethink that now...crud
| Graffur wrote:
| I do think VR will be part of our futures but I won't use
| Facebook as part of it.
|
| When I was watching the keynote - about 10 mins in - I got
| redirected to login to Facebook. That is not cool.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Wait what. They bought Meta VR like a couple of years ago. Some
| of my friends were there.
| macawfish wrote:
| they want to mediate all interaction, so they can tax and steer
| relationships
| jrgd wrote:
| Ridiculous Pointless Sad
| wayeq wrote:
| Facebook finally caved to their rapidly aging demographic's
| clamoring for a VR metaverse
| hardwaregeek wrote:
| I want to read the William Gibson book that inspired this reality
| Imnimo wrote:
| I don't think this strategy really worked for Ron Artest, but
| maybe it'll work for Facebook.
| duderific wrote:
| He will be rebranding as "Facebook World Peace"
| alanlammiman wrote:
| Gosh, you'd think that after CAMBRIdge AnalyticA, and to a lesser
| degree liBRA, CAMBRIA isn't the best name for the new headset...
| eatonphil wrote:
| Renaming but the domain stays the same? Clicking the logo on the
| top just takes you to about.facebook.com.
|
| Ah, going to meta.com does take you to about.facebook.com.
|
| They just aren't not-redirecting you yet.
| _alexander_ wrote:
| Facebook lates to the party - meta.ua
| mrkramer wrote:
| Metaverse in a sense of VR, AR? Just like Google wasn't the first
| search engine or Iphone the first smartphone someone else will
| dominate VR and AR someone else will make that big innovation and
| killer apps not Facebook. Facebook is big and old. Big Blue just
| like IBM.
| yumraj wrote:
| I hope the pi-hole block list maintainers block the new domains
| soon.
| bredren wrote:
| Couple quick things: Zuck's speaking has improved an incredible
| amount. So, props there.
|
| Zuck's said a few variations of "building blocks are there" or
| "it is coming together" but also, "Even though it is still a long
| way off..."
|
| This projection / demo video of the metaverse seems like a
| distraction to me. If FB doesn't have this to deliver, it is a
| lot like the old microsoft product concept videos. [1]
|
| What is the intent? To see Zuck as a visionary? Does his speaking
| deeply on this subject attempt to position him / Meta as an
| authority?
|
| Unless Facebook / Meta is setting expectations way lower than
| where they're about to deliver, I don't see how this will be
| viewed as anything other than a temporary salve to fill the
| vacuum sucking oxygen out of Facebook.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-tFdreZB94
| baby wrote:
| I mean, you gotta make people excited about the future, and I
| think they were successful in doing that here. They want to be
| an innovative company, as opposed to just a social network
| company, that's the pitch.
| ashton314 wrote:
| Dang it. How am I supposed to tell people that when I talk about
| "meta-programming" I'm talking about Lisp and macros and cools
| stuff like that, and not that I'm programming for some shady-as-
| sin company?
| solarkraft wrote:
| I for one am excited for the Metaverse and all the Second Life
| jokes we will make about it.
| breakpointalpha wrote:
| Anyone else find it hilariously dark that this page says:
|
| "The metaverse will be social" and when you click "Watch the
| Keynote" it takes you to a login screen for Facebook?
| haar wrote:
| Click to watch the keynote... "You must log in to continue."
| znull wrote:
| All I can think of is Comcast -> Xfinity and how well that's
| gone...
| wayeq wrote:
| So they finally caved to their rapidly aging demographic's call
| for a VR enabled metaverse.
| fillipvt wrote:
| Would Meta be able to build a federated Metaverse? If they are,
| things are different.
| eganist wrote:
| quasi-serious:
|
| This spells the end of the expression "that's so meta" or any
| related quip about self-referential humor.
| alex_young wrote:
| If they are actually rebranding wouldn't that be reflected on
| Facebook? I don't see it.
| gregschlom wrote:
| This HN comment from last week nailed it:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28931821
| bxparks wrote:
| Heh, I got uMatrix cranked up so high, all I get is the menu bar
| with "FACEBOOK", 3 screenfuls of complete blank, then "A future
| made by all of us". I feel strangely good about not seeing
| anything.
| ElonMuskrat wrote:
| Their new logo looks like a sagging pair of tits.
| anonu wrote:
| I was trying to understand when the metaverse concept started
| coming into more "popular" discussion.
|
| Here's an interesting thread from June 10:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27723460
| gamedna wrote:
| I wonder how much they paid for meta.com
| blhack wrote:
| I'm excited about it, and I thjnk it just means reality got a lot
| larger.
|
| I don't think Facebook will be able to control the metaverse as a
| closed platform, even if they wanted to.
| modeless wrote:
| Other interesting things said during the keynote: "and frankly,
| as we've heard your feedback more broadly, we're working on
| making it so you can log into Quest with an account other than
| your personal Facebook account. We're starting to test support
| for work accounts soon, and we're working on making a broader
| shift here within the next year. I know this is a big deal for a
| lot of people. Not everyone wants their social media profile
| linked to all these other experiences and I get that, especially
| as the metaverse expands."
|
| Also:
|
| "As big of a company as we are, we've also learned what it is
| like to build for other platforms. And living under their rules
| has profoundly shaped my views on the tech industry. Most of all,
| I've come to believe that the lack of choice and high fees are
| stifling innovation, stopping people from building new things,
| and holding back the entire internet economy. [...] We'll
| continue supporting sideloading and linking to PCs so consumers
| and developers have choice rather than forcing them to use the
| Quest store to find apps or reach customers."
| Tepix wrote:
| Sounds nice, doesn't it? However i believe they very recently
| starting requiring a validated dev account (i.e. with phone
| number) for devs to continue to sideload to their Oculus Quest,
| right?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > we're working on making it so you can log into Quest with an
| account other than your personal Facebook account
|
| How much work does that take?
|
| > I've come to believe that the lack of choice and high fees
| are stifling innovation, stopping people from building new
| things
|
| A shot at competitors' app stores.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Does facebook still have a real-name policy? interacting with
| people in the metaverse with my real name is the last thing I
| want (we all saw ready player one, no? does zuck understand the
| importance of anonymity?)
| warning26 wrote:
| I assume this just means that they'll require a "Meta" account
| instead of a Facebook account, and it will come with all the
| same problems as creating a Facebook account.
|
| Also, their "support" for sideloading, while better than
| nothing, requires a valid phone number or credit card number to
| sideload anything.
| JohnFen wrote:
| This. Whether it's linked with your other social media or not
| isn't the issue. And whether it's a "Facebook" account,
| "Meta" account, an "Oculus" account, or whatever, it's all
| still an account with Facebook and can be expected to have
| all of the baggage that comes with an account with Facebook.
| twinge wrote:
| We'll continue supporting sideloading and linking to PCs
|
| I see this as a tacit approval of the thriving network of
| pirate games, something like the Adobe Photoshop model of
| proliferating and becoming the de facto platform.
| zzixp wrote:
| This is actually pretty big for me. I got a Rift a while back
| but it's been in a drawer ever since I needed to connect my FB
| account.
| tobiasSoftware wrote:
| You actually don't need to connect it to FB for now as it's
| only the new systems such as Quest 2 that are forced to link
| it to FB. However, they have threatened to change that in a
| year or so even for the Quest 1 and Rift.
| gillytech wrote:
| This is highly frightening.
|
| Run.
|
| Don't let your kids get sucked into this. If they are already,
| rescue them. If your parents have been captured by Zuck and his
| minions, get them out. Go outside and look at a tree. Reality is
| fine as it is.
| jacktheturtle wrote:
| FAANG sounds better than MAANG though
| easton wrote:
| It wasn't changed for Alphabet either. The future is MAAAN.
| gsich wrote:
| Netflix has no place in this acronym.
| adamqureshi wrote:
| I wonder who they paid to come with that one. Now they'll further
| push into making humans slave to the machine. More ads, More AI.
| More human mining. More content pollution. It's just a big ass ad
| factory. Its very easy to control sentiment using content bots /
| farms and convince people to drink the koolaid under the false
| pretense of bringing them together when in reality all they want
| todo is serve you more ads and sell your views to the marketing
| companies who target you everywhere. 2-cent.
| rdxm wrote:
| LOL....what a bunch of ass-hats. Like this is going to white-wash
| over the fact they are a cancer on the species and the culture...
| joshruby16 wrote:
| facebookrebrand.com is available. ;-)
|
| shleiby @ gmail
| cranesnakecode wrote:
| This is going to be the Futurama metaverse where you have to
| fight ads everywhere to go.
| rcpt wrote:
| Can't wait to talk to all you guys in VR
| swayvil wrote:
| When your reputation gets really bad, change your name. I guess
| that works well enough to make it worth doing.
|
| I recall several scummy companies doing that over the recent
| decades.
| georgewsinger wrote:
| Not part of the metaverse: https://simulavr.com
| riffic wrote:
| this is the Alphabet thing all over again.
|
| doesn't change anything.
| Dowwie wrote:
| Often, Hacker News sentiment winds up terribly wrong. With that
| in consideration, Metaverse will probably be huge and is worth
| considering.
|
| Is it going to be a walled garden? To what extent will it be
| open?
| aserdf wrote:
| i wonder, if one declines to participate in the "metaverse", will
| their shadow profile be randomly inserted, and
| vandalized/ridiculed by other versians?
|
| sidenote - if i am understanding correctly, its conceptually
| similar to modus operandi from back in the 90s? just in VR?
| Program_Install wrote:
| This is just some dystopian sounding shit, innit? Meta(verse,
| data, etc.), humans have just sold themselves out.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| See also: Philip Morris rebranding itself Altria.
| bingohbangoh wrote:
| Wow, did they pick the last four letter word that wasn't a
| startup name?
| Agathos wrote:
| Whatever happened to Transmeta, anyway?
| mikestew wrote:
| So will they be keeping the same domain names, or am I going to
| have to redo my Pi-Hole setup? I guess I'll add a wildcard entry
| for "meta.com" just to get ahead of things.
| [deleted]
| petersonh wrote:
| LOL trying to watch the keynote but keep getting asked to login
| to Facebook and then since I don't have an account, I get the
| boot. I think that about sums it up.
| arduinomancer wrote:
| The presentation talks a lot about the metaverse being built on
| open standards and protocols but it still seems extremely vague
|
| Have they actually detailed this anywhere?
|
| For example a most basic question: what 3D engine is this going
| to run on?
|
| Is that engine open source?
|
| What are the formats for assets/models/materials?
|
| What blockchain is hosting the NFT assets?
| babyshake wrote:
| If Meta really does a good job of separating the open standards
| from their close products then this could actually be an
| exciting development, as unfashionable as it may be right now
| to be excited about anything Facebook is doing.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >what 3D engine is this going to run on?
|
| >Is that engine open source?
|
| That would be up to the implementers similar to how there are
| different browser engines.
| stcredzero wrote:
| Well, shucks! Years ago, I had an unpublished iOS app named
| _Meta_! Oh well!
| iblaine wrote:
| Reminds me of MySpace renaming itself to My_____.
| philk10 wrote:
| oh, you wanted the metadata and not the Meta data says Zuck on
| his next congressional grilling
| minimaxir wrote:
| The rebrand was introduced as a "One More Thing" during the event
| keynote.
|
| A 2007 "One More Thing" was the announcement of the iPhone and
| the future of mobile computing. Now a 2021 "One More Thing" is
| the announcement of a company rebrand to avoid government
| regulation.
| danso wrote:
| For better or worse, it does seem Zuckerberg is as invested in
| making the "metaverse" the new future of Facebook as Jobs was
| with Apple and the iPhone
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > For better or worse, it does seem Zuckerberg is as invested
| in making the "metaverse" the new future of Facebook as Jobs
| was with Apple and the iPhone
|
| I don't think we should take that at face value; Zuckerberg
| of course has strong motivations to appear completely
| committed, including a desire to motivate employees,
| partners, etc., and a desire to distract from FB's current
| bad news (which might explain the timing - why now?). If we
| take it at face value, we are part of the messaging.
|
| For one thing, FB's metaverse is an over-the-horizon
| technology and product, very much vapor at this point and one
| that may never happen. The iPhone went on sale months after
| Jobs' announcement (IIRC).
|
| More interesting is that FB possibly has lost so much
| confidence in its brand that it's de-emphasizing it, which
| seems like an overreaction to me.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > The iPhone went on sale months after Jobs' announcement
| (IIRC).
|
| yes, but thats a different CEO who was about presenting
| themselves as perfect. Zuckerberg for his legion of faults
| has never done this. He is far more comfortable saying what
| he wants to deliver _first_
|
| > don't think we should take that at face value
|
| We don't need to, they've handily split out the amount of
| money they are pouring into this in the public accounts.
|
| > More interesting is that FB possibly has lost so much
| confidence in its brand that it's de-emphasizing it, which
| seems like an overreaction to me.
|
| It was fucking stupid to try and link them so closely in
| the first place. Instagram was a cool brand. Instagram by
| facebook is deffo not.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| I look forward to that, since maybe I will then know what the
| hell the metaverse is supposed to be.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Zuckerberg is as invested in making the "metaverse" the
| new future of Facebook as Jobs was with Apple and the iPhone_
|
| The obvious distinction being Jobs, with his "one more
| thing," announced an actual product.
| schmorptron wrote:
| In this case, worse. Definitely worse.
| troyvit wrote:
| Meta-worse
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Seems like "metaverse" means walled internet.
|
| _" You've got mail!"_ LOL
| creshal wrote:
| The iPhone turned out to be the most walled garden
| smartphone as well (even compared to _older_ designs that
| relied on Java ME), and it didn 't exactly hurt them.
|
| The more relevant question is, can Facebook in 2022 excite
| people as much as Apple did when riding on the height of
| the iPod/iTunes craze in 2007?
| sverhagen wrote:
| LOL? You mean AOL?
| zenmaster10665 wrote:
| You are misunderstanding or wilfully ignoring the details.
| They talk about interoperability as a key part of how this
| will become reality, and the fact that no single company
| can realise this vision...
| 5faulker wrote:
| Still a faceless corporation though.
| akudha wrote:
| Having watched the downfall of MySpace, Orkut etc, I thought
| (hoped) same thing might happen to FaceBook. But now it feels
| like they are going to be around, for a long, long time. I
| don't know if anyone is even trying to take on them, Google
| seems to have given up on their social products. FB might not
| be fashionable anymore, people might even curse them, but
| they'll continue to use them at some level :( And they have
| enough money to keep buying other companies and stay at least
| somewhat relevant
|
| It feels like only regulators can take on them, but that too
| is unlikely to happen, except some feeble attempts in Europe
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Well, Facebook in some demographics is above ity peak. The
| company however was able to acquire Instagram and keep
| Snapshot in a niche. Will be interesting how much TikTok
| will takeover in attention time. But for now they have a
| money printing machine and a good foundation.
|
| Europe unfortunately is too weak unless they convince the
| U.S.
| dudeman13 wrote:
| I mean, I associate the book of faces with Lizard Zuckerberg.
|
| It might as well act like a faceless corporation, but it is
| far from "faceless"... I think. Consider f.e. Tesla's face,
| or Amazon's face.
| nerbert wrote:
| Colombo invented the "one more thing". Give credit where credit
| is due ;)
| agumonkey wrote:
| Colombo was also more valuable that this announcement it
| seems.
| lostcolony wrote:
| Columbo was solving crimes. FB is committing them.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| "Good artists copy, great artists steal"
|
| -Steve Jobs (who stole this from Pablo Picasso, and there is
| a debate about whether or not Picaso even came up with the
| quote originally)
| jareklupinski wrote:
| - Colombo
| mrzool wrote:
| This brought back memories, thank you :')
| edgriebel wrote:
| > rebrand to avoid government regulation
|
| Aww, kids are so cute when they're having a temper tantrum
| nabla9 wrote:
| I think you remember wrong. iPhone was not one more thing
| announcement. In 2007 One more thing was Safari for Windows.
|
| Here is list: https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/one-more-
| thing-3793072/
| jb1991 wrote:
| > announcement of a company rebrand to avoid government
| regulation
|
| how does FB changing their name affect their chances at
| regulation?
| mohanmcgeek wrote:
| Just guessing: now Meta is a holding company of various
| social media "companies" so it'll be a bit harder to make a
| case that one company has a monopoly on the internet social
| media advertising.
|
| They can even list Instagram on the market selling maybe a 5%
| equity.
| aflag wrote:
| I think the holding already existed. But it was called
| Facebook and now it's called meta
| KaiserPro wrote:
| very much this. Facebook is made up of lots and lots of
| subsidiaries
| [deleted]
| regularjack wrote:
| It wasn't enough for them to ruin the world, they had to ruin the
| word meta too.
| 4oo4 wrote:
| I'm going to keep calling them Facebook out of spite, since this
| doesn't distract me in the slightest for how toxic the company
| continues to be.
|
| Instead of Metaverse, I'm going to call it Virtual Hell(tm).
| simonh wrote:
| Presumably Sharkleap was taken.
|
| Suck always struck me as slightly disconnected from real life,
| but this is him floating off into fantasy land, and not just
| metaphorically. If you think the Metaverse is the next big thing,
| I've got an NFT of some valuable real estate in Second Life I'd
| like to sell you.
| liminal wrote:
| Facebook is working on brain-computer interfaces... because we
| completely trust them to have that level of access to our minds.
| quartz wrote:
| https://meta.com is live as well.
|
| ...I can't tell if it's intentional that the page loads initially
| with the "facebook" brand in the uppper left and then quickly
| overwrites it with meta.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| The keynote video redirecting to a Facebook login screen is
| hilarious.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| Why? The keynote video is on Facebook, that's why it would be
| redirecting you to a login screen.
| quartz wrote:
| I guess at least partially because part of the rebrand was
| supposed to be that you won't need a facebook account
| anymore to do meta things so gating the video is a little
| off-brand now.
| dstick wrote:
| Someone got to add "Advanced JS" to their resume!
| dang wrote:
| Please don't do this here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| distrill wrote:
| It's definitely intentional
| babyshake wrote:
| It is strange that it doesn't use any type of animated
| transition so it does look like a typical FOUC issue even
| though it probably isn't.
| Jensson wrote:
| It is good design, now it looks like a mistake so people
| react and talk about it rather than just ignore it.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| It's definitely _not_ intentional. If it was intentional it
| would be animated, and there 's no indication in the HTML
| that it's anything more than a FOUC.
| blsapologist42 wrote:
| If it was intentional shouldn't it have some kind of fade
| animation?
| specialp wrote:
| Meta has been live for a while as a Chan-Zuckerberg foundation
| project in open publishing. It is crazy they hijacked it for
| the corporation!
| ButterWashed wrote:
| I'd say it's intentional, it highlights the transitional
| journey from one brand to another.
| nazgulnarsil wrote:
| It disabled my fucking back button. What a perfect
| encapsulation of what they are about.
| lewisj489 wrote:
| You sure this isn't from FireFox Facebook container?
| Oddskar wrote:
| There can be no going backwards. Only forward!
| Unai wrote:
| >Our Actions: Promoting Safety and Expression, Protecting
| Privacy and Security, Preparing for Elections, Responding to
| COVID-19
|
| What a joke. Is there a more bluntly obvious PR than inverting
| everything you're being criticized for?
| [deleted]
| jcomis wrote:
| the old comcast maneuver. if everyone hates you, change your
| name!
| racl101 wrote:
| Ron Artest literally changed his name to 'Meta World Peace'
| cause his popularity sunk to an all time low after the Pistons
| and Pacers brawl.
| Cadwhisker wrote:
| Finally, someone found a way to get everybody off "Facebook".
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| The thing I don't understand about the Metaverse is, if it was
| going to be any good, we would have it now with mouse, keyboard,
| and a nice big 4k monitor. _What you do_ in the metaverse doesn't
| really have anything to do with goggles you strap on your face.
| The goggles are just supposed to improve the immersion.
|
| If Facebook wants to make this work they need to get into the
| business of making multiplayer games for everyday people. They
| need a huge catalog of virtual experiences with as much variety
| and content as Netflix's catalog.
|
| I have no doubt that for $15 a month a huge amount of people
| would switch over from watching TV in the evening to hanging out
| in virtual worlds doing interesting stuff.
|
| Then once everybody is playing these games on their playstation,
| xbox, or pc, they can upsell them on a VR rig.
| Uhhrrr wrote:
| Maybe they can just buy Roblox.
| djbusby wrote:
| Holy crap! I drunkenly guessed that lame-ass name. Somebody just
| got $1 richer!
| nescioquid wrote:
| In case you're still drunk, what will the new acronym be?
|
| MAANG? MAGNA? AANGM?
| notacoward wrote:
| If Google hadn't become Alphabet, we could have had MANGA.
| babyshake wrote:
| Remove Netflix and we've got MAGA.
| [deleted]
| djbusby wrote:
| I'm hoping for some other rebrand and it can become MEGAMAN
| haaserd wrote:
| Does this remind anyone else of that time that Comcast renamed
| themselves Xfiniti to distract from their terrible customer
| service, rather than fixing their horrible customer service?
| hwers wrote:
| All this talk _about_ the future is getting kinda boring at this
| point. I feel like it 's been a good 7 years of talking about
| what will come in the near future and other than that near
| stagnation on most other fronts. (Autonomous cars, VR, etc.) I'll
| care when it's here I guess.
| blhack wrote:
| Some of you guys seriously need to get out of your bubble.
| Facebook is an extremely popular service. Many, many people use
| it every single day, and love it.
|
| This is not a rebrand to avoid regulations, or make people like
| it again or whatever. Facebook has been signaling this as the
| direction they wanted to go for quite a long time now.
| popey wrote:
| I certainly get "use it every day", for sure. Clubs,
| celebrities, enthusiast groups.
|
| "love it" though?
|
| Feels to me that it's a necessary evil, like car insurance.
| wheretogonext wrote:
| The keynote feels like I'm watching an episode of black mirror.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| In the metaverse, Facebook's crypto will become the legal tender.
| They may get away with rolling out Libra/Diem over there.
|
| A VR world controlled by Facebook, with Diem as currency, that
| can only be accessed by Oculus... what can go wrong?
|
| My kids will never use that crap I assure you.
| haolez wrote:
| The common word "metaverse" is now under attack and will be
| relentlessly copyrighted and protected :) maybe this was the
| strategy all along!
| Dumblydorr wrote:
| Can anyone here convince me AR/VR isn't a fad? If FB is headed
| towards a metaverse where our insane uncles can embed themselves
| further in a false reality, how is it that the rest of us sane
| individuals want to join their conspiratorial matrix?
|
| Even taking out the crazy uncles, VR makes me insanely nauseous.
| What's more, it's very expensive to get solid VR that doesn't,
| nevermind it still looks terrible even if you have a high powered
| rig.
|
| I could see solid VR occurring in the distant future, but it has
| so many ethical and technological downsides currently. I view it
| mainly as a fad to inflate stock prices, a fun toy for tech
| enthusiasts, but not a serious game changer.
| molsongolden wrote:
| More fluid collaborative remote work environments.
|
| I haven't kept up with or tried any of the AR/VR products but I
| could see huge usage if someone can nail the remote work VR
| experience.
|
| Assume there will be reasonably priced hardware with good
| performance when thinking about the space. This bit is
| inevitable if the demand exists.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| It's an accessibility lawsuit waiting to happen, as a large
| portion of the general population gets motion sickness
| wearing goggles.
|
| AI audio descriptors may come in handy, but really I'm more
| concerned with excluding people based on cost of hardware and
| access to high speed internet.
|
| (I'm designing a metaverse platform which supports multiple
| interaction modes so as not to exclude people, AMA)
| psyc wrote:
| VR the implementation is prone to false starts. I still don't
| know whether this current wave will stick.
|
| But VR the concept is universal and inevitable. The idea of
| feeding artificial input to the biological senses, in order to
| place our consciousness elsewhere, is a genie that can't be put
| back in the bottle. No way does humanity leave that option on
| the table once it's technologically feasible.
| marknutter wrote:
| Why would anyone want to be totally immersed in a realistic
| virtual world? It boggles the mind.
| MikusR wrote:
| Quest 2 is 300$ and completely standalone
| zemo wrote:
| > Can anyone here convince me [position]
|
| generally no, because this framing starts the conversation from
| a standpoint that you have a position, and it's the other
| person's responsibility to change your position, instead of
| your own responsibility.
|
| > What's more, it's very expensive to get solid VR that
| doesn't, nevermind it still looks terrible even if you have a
| high powered rig.
|
| have you used a Quest
| oehpr wrote:
| Some VR looks pretty good, I think The Walking Dead: Saints and
| Sinners looks great!
|
| But of course, good proper unjank VR seemingly requires a 5x
| GPU power increase. You need 90+ FPS, two screens, high rez,
| and responsive. It's a pretty hard ask, so games need to take a
| big step down in quality in the name of performance. Even
| worse, a persons situational awareness and scale take a big
| leap up when compared to a flat screen, you notice flaws way
| easier.
|
| Personally I was pretty lucky, VR doesn't seem to make me sick.
| And I use it frequently for lunch break exercise, I get to play
| games and get some physical activity in, which is a big win for
| a desk jockey. On that reason alone I don't think VR is going
| away. That's amazingly valuable.
| jschulenklopper wrote:
| "Meta" is a four-letter word.
|
| Or less ambiguous, "meta" is a word of four letters.
| brap wrote:
| The video they put out is _extremely_ cringe. The whole
| "metaverse" thing is cringe.
|
| It makes me believe Zuckerberg is completely surrounded by yes-
| men who never challenge him and only tell him what he likes to
| hear. He is truly detached from us normal people and our human
| experience.
| throwoutway wrote:
| Or that he just watched/read "Ready Player One" and was like
| "yes. that. now"
| TameAntelope wrote:
| That "cringe" your feeling _could_ be how people felt about the
| Internet in the 80s. Just keep that in mind.
| brap wrote:
| Maybe. But the internet grew organically, over decades. It
| was not shoved down our throats by a corporation telling us
| "this is cool, this is what everyone wants now, and this is
| the future". I'm sure VR/AR will be big too, but it's going
| to take a while, many technological breakthroughs, and it's
| not going to look like _that_.
| xtat wrote:
| So much this.
| filoleg wrote:
| To be fair, that's the exact same sentiment I remember reading
| about Zuck on HN around the time Instagram and WhatsApp
| acquisitions happened. People were saying it was one of the
| dumbest business decisions, that Zuck is just desperate and
| without any brain trying to spend his FB money on acquisitions
| before FB inevitably dies of irrelevancy, etc.
|
| Look at today, and I think most people would agree that
| acquiring whatsapp and instagram back then was a great business
| decision on his end.
|
| And, in my eyes, the whole Meta thing makes way more sense to
| begin with than those acquisitions did.
| wpietri wrote:
| They were great acquisitions because Facebook failed to
| compete in those markets. Facebook continues to fail to
| compete in the youth market. I don't think failing to
| innovate and then buying your way out of the hole is a sign
| of particular acumen.
|
| And they're still failing to innovate. Facebook now will be
| "retooling" toward "serving young adults the north star,
| rather than optimizing for older people."
| https://twitter.com/sarafischer/status/1452744573084708869
|
| In practice what this means is that they have the same
| problem they did before, but antitrust scrutiny means they
| can't buy their way out of it this time.
| tubby12345 wrote:
| >I don't think failing to innovate and then buying your way
| out of the hole is a sign of particular acumen.
|
| I mean this is classic moving of goals posts - the only
| measure of acumen the CEO of a publically traded company is
| that little number called the share price. whether he buoys
| that number by brain-genius innovations or by brain-genius
| acquisitions, he's still demonstrating brain-genius
| business acumen (the proof of this seemingly tautological
| claim is that there are plenty of other companies that have
| failed to acquire their way out of irrelevance).
| wpietri wrote:
| Not at all.
|
| I consider this in particular deeply incorrect: "only
| measure of acumen the CEO of a publicly traded company is
| that little number called the share price". And I'm
| hardly alone here. Indeed, the whole reason Facebook is
| in public doghouse right now is Zuckerberg's focus on
| dominance and profit without regard to little
| externalities like genocide. So you may have different
| goalposts for him, but that doesn't mean I've moved
| anything.
|
| If I'm trying to understand somebody's acumen, I want to
| see what they can do on their own. As someone else
| pointed out, Zuckerberg didn't even really have the one
| idea that he successfully exploited. He's rich, sure,
| but, "He's so rich that he must be a genius" is pretty
| far from my criteria for genius.
| tubby12345 wrote:
| >And I'm hardly alone here. Indeed, the whole reason
| Facebook is in public doghouse right now is Zuckerberg's
| focus on dominance and profit without regard to little
| externalities like genocide. So you may have different
| goalposts for him, but that doesn't mean I've moved
| anything.
|
| you are moving goalposts you just don't see it. We're
| talking about _business_ acumen, not scientific acument
| or mathematical acumen or ethics acumen. That FB is in
| the "public doghouse" is about as meaningful an
| observation as "the post office loses money every year"
| or "NASA can't afford to pay its engineers as much as
| FAANG" or "the ACLU has never successfully tried a
| personal injury case". The only public that matters here
| are the public markets and they think zuckerberg is a
| genius (this recent blip not withstanding).
|
| >I want to see what they can do on their own.
|
| I mean that's your definition and you're welcome to it
| but for the rest of the world there is M&A.
|
| >"He's so rich that he must be a genius" is pretty far
| from my criteria for genius.
|
| to which i leave you with a quote
|
| >Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final
| table of the World Series of Poker every year? What, are
| they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?
| prewett wrote:
| Not that I _want_ to compliment Zuckerberg, but "buy what
| you can't build", "know what you can't build", and
| "reasonably estimate the value of a young company" all seem
| like business savvy to me. Warren Buffet could be accused
| of simply buying his way into a huge conglomerate, but
| instead he's celebrated as a wise investor...
| rvz wrote:
| > I don't think failing to innovate and then buying your
| way out of the hole is a sign of particular acumen.
|
| I guess Apple failed to compete and innovate when they
| acquired NeXT and Beats. Or Microsoft failed to innovate as
| soon as they acquired GitHub and Xamarin. /s
|
| Very senseless acquisitions that have no long term strategy
| or reason behind it to sustain the future of the business
| or to compete in the market. /s
| noncoml wrote:
| > the exact same sentiment I remember reading about Zuck on
| HN around the time Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions
| happened
|
| Don't want to downplay it, but having access to all the info
| users give to FB is like insider-trading. They know very well
| what is trending, what is growing and what is going nowhere.
|
| The main difference is that Metaverse is something the want
| to build from scratch, not something that already exists like
| Insta and WhatsApp, so they don't have that insider-trading
| info.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >To be fair, that's the exact same sentiment I remember
| reading about Zuck on HN around the time Instagram and
| WhatsApp acquisitions happened. People were saying it was one
| of the dumbest business decisions, that Zuck is just
| desperate and without any brain trying to spend his FB money
| on acquisitions before FB inevitably dies of irrelevancy,
| etc. Look at today, and I think most people would agree that
| acquiring whatsapp and instagram back then was a great
| business decision on his end.
|
| >And, in my eyes, the whole Meta thing makes way more sense
| to begin with than those acquisitions did.
|
| That's a fallacy. It doesn't matter if Zuck had 2 consecutive
| successful predictions because his 3rd can be unsuccessful.
| Each event(situation) is specific and different.
| lovecg wrote:
| Also reminds me of all the skepticism surrounding the iPhone
| launch. I remember those joke ad spoofs making fun of the
| actual phone feature. Yet here we are and who uses actual
| voice calls anymore?
| koonsolo wrote:
| I agree that Facebook and Zuch can't be that stupid.
|
| But for me, I can't see this working. There is no VR game
| that really killed it. I also don't see which generation
| would actually be into this.
|
| So it's not a "idiots!", but more of a "what am I missing
| here?".
|
| Will be interesting to see this play out
| rblatz wrote:
| I've got a group of 6 of us that play Echo Arena on the
| Quest 2 about 3 hours every week. Beat saber is also a fun
| game, but does get a bit stale for most people after a
| couple weeks.
|
| None of these are VR's Halo, but it seems that VR is
| getting out of the tech demo/hobbyist space and into a
| broader market appeal. If facebook keeps iterating and
| pushing out quality improvements at the current price point
| it's just a matter of time.
| T-A wrote:
| > I also don't see which generation would actually be into
| this.
|
| Roblox has more than 200 million daily active users; 67% of
| them are under 16 [1]. Where will they go when hormones hit
| and blocky avatars no longer seem all that compelling?
|
| [1] https://backlinko.com/roblox-users
| brap wrote:
| IG and WA were already wildly popular on a global scale when
| they were bought, though. People clearly wanted those. Is
| anyone on board with this "metaverse" thing outside of SV? To
| me this seems less like the IG and WA acquisitions, and more
| like the much hyped Facebook Phone and Facebook Home projects
| (RIP).
| [deleted]
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I think it's even worse... does anyone outside of
| _Facebook_ and the press take their Metaverse demos
| seriously?
|
| Everyone I know and work with universally thinks they're a
| joke. They've spent how much money on this janky uncanny
| nonsense? You'd think they'd at least stumble into one
| redeeming quality, but it escapes them.
| Grakel wrote:
| I think a version of the meta verse will arise
| eventually, but when have you ever known a major
| innovation to come from a tech company that is already
| huge in a relatively unrelated area? They just get bogged
| down and start eating themselves.
| delecti wrote:
| I don't think this is that unrelated. There are certainly
| plenty of examples of things about this related to a
| company's primary focus. There are several Amazon
| products that are pretty huge since they started as just
| "books" (Echo, Kindle, AWS), Netflix streaming after
| DVDs, the entire ecosystem of iOS devices after starting
| with Macs.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > when have you ever known a major innovation to come
| from a tech company that is already huge in a relatively
| unrelated area?
|
| Xerox (modern computer), AT&T (Unix), Sony (PlayStation),
| Google (Maps, GMail), Apple (iPhone), Amazon (AWS)
| vmception wrote:
| Zuck and The Book have a lot of dumb, cringeworthy, failed
| initiatives that have nothing to do with those surprisingly
| high valued acquisitions a decade ago.
| spsful wrote:
| This is what I don't understand about their plan. Who on earth
| is planning to adopt this? We've seen a push from all sides of
| the tech industry to open up the AR/VR space, and it never took
| off.
|
| Remember the Snapchat Spectacles? They still sell them but I
| don't think they were ever popular. Google glass? Popular, but
| discontinued. Apple's ARKit? Definitely much less adoption than
| their commercials would have led you to expect.
|
| It seems like this is an experiment bound to fail, so good luck
| to the execs at facebook meta who have to clean this up in the
| end.
| c0d4h wrote:
| I can't speak for VR, but AR definitively has a future.
|
| You already see practical use of this technology with HUD-
| tech (Heads up display) in cars, but beyond that you'll find
| great applications for it within medicine/operations,
| transportation (directions), marketing (product information,
| authenticity verification), and the list goes on and on...
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Yes, AR has some potential as an industrial or otherwise
| specialized technology. It won't be revolutionary or change
| the world in any way, but it will probably improve several
| kinds of processes, a background tech.
|
| VR is much more likely to either become the new TV or to
| die an obscure death, like 3D movies.
| pb060 wrote:
| 3D movies will come back and die again. And again,
| forever
| kazen44 wrote:
| VR becoming the new TV is highly unlikely because many
| people multitask while watching TV. this is very
| difficult to do with VR.
| pintxo wrote:
| You could multitask in VR, without even anyone noticing?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| How can you wash dishes while your entire view field is
| covered by some movie?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I was thinking more of TV in the way it captured
| audiences in the 50s, 60s, 70s. You're probably right
| though that AR has a bigger chance of capturing something
| like the way TV is interacted with today (a background
| activity).
| brap wrote:
| Exactly, this whole things screams "we don't know what people
| want". The video looks like a very well made parody.
| MikusR wrote:
| Both Glass and Spectacles were sold only to the "chosen
| ones".
| bink wrote:
| Remember this AR Demo from Apple way back with the iPhone 8?
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/12/16272904/apple-arkit-
| demo...
|
| And what commercial applications of this have we seen in the
| last 4 years?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Unifi has an AR app for working with their switches[1] that
| shows some HUD info for each port. I've never used it on my
| switches personally and judging by that video it's more
| trouble than it's worth. But it exists. I suppose in a
| large data centre this _might_ be useful, but the
| technology still seems pretty immature.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dlB-UAhTyw
| fl0wenol wrote:
| Related tech that got traction is BLE in servers with
| corresponding apps, like Dell Quick Sync. Lets you flash
| the ID light of a server from your phone, among lots of
| other things.
| gaogao wrote:
| Pokemon Go?
| 7373737373 wrote:
| I wish he'd just present as his awkward true self, instead of
| this prerecorded, fake cringefest, something Musk doesn't shy
| away from
| EpicEng wrote:
| Yeah but his "true self" isn't exactly something 99.99% of
| people enjoy. He's a robotic tool. Looks to me like he signed
| up for a "how to appear more human 101" course and now
| gesticulates with his hands non-stop.
| 7373737373 wrote:
| Musk isn't a great rhetorician, and many people don't like
| his personality either. But some like him nonetheless, they
| empathize with him and see beyond that, because they see
| some of the drives and desires behind the unusual facade.
| I'm sure Zuckerberg signed up for such courses, but I don't
| think it's comfortable for him, or his audience either.
| Ignorance is bliss, forcing oneself to be hyperaware of
| ones own appearance, gestures and statements to please
| others seems wrong. Who enjoys such a lie?
| ritchiea wrote:
| He's certainly determined whatever his true self is, it's not
| good for business.
| brap wrote:
| It's amazing how no one can be frank with him. "Look mark,
| the CEO doesn't have to be the presenter. I'm sorry but you
| just can't be the face of the company, it's bad for
| business. Please, move aside, and get a normal person
| haircut".
| 7373737373 wrote:
| I wouldn't rule out that he could even be _liked_ , if he
| didn't obviously pretend to be someone he is not
| junon wrote:
| I'm one degree away from Mark. I dated someone who was an
| early employee at Facebook for a little while - all I can
| really say without revealing who they are. I just know
| they know Zuck, Cook, and a few others personally.
|
| They told me that when Facebook's (or maybe it was
| Instagram's...) stories came out with video support, Zuck
| posted a super bizarre video introducing it, being the
| first one and all. And I guess it was just him awkwardly
| staring into the camera, not really saying anything.
| Almost like someone who thinks it's a photo but it's a
| video instead - though he was fully aware it was a video.
| His wife was in the background waving and stuff too.
|
| The person I was seeing I guess texted him and said
| something to the effect of "hey this is super awkward,
| maybe you should re-post it with you talking about it",
| which I guess Zuck did.
|
| So it's my impression that he's not exactly surrounded by
| yes-men, but instead that he's not really in touch with
| the social aspect of running one of the largest social
| networks on earth and how people really behave. I know a
| lot of people say it's autism but as far as I was told
| it's not - he's just strange.
|
| This is hearsay of course, but I'm pretty confident that
| I was told the truth given who it was that I talked to
| about all this.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Zuck posted a super bizarre video introducing it, being
| the first one and all. And I guess it was just him
| awkwardly staring into the camera, not really saying
| anything. Almost like someone who thinks it's a photo but
| it's a video instead - though he was fully aware it was a
| video. His wife was in the background waving and stuff
| too.
|
| Maybe that was the point. People scrolling think it's
| just a selfie but then you realize his wife is moving in
| the background!
| junon wrote:
| That's not how it was described - it wasn't anything
| clever.
| 7373737373 wrote:
| I think he is very perceptive when it comes to the logic
| and desires behind social interaction, like making
| personal attributes such as relationship status in
| Facebook explicitly public early on, and this because he
| could see and consider these things from the outside.
| He's different, but he should be proud of it, because
| without being different, he wouldn't have achieved what
| he did. The Trump network will show what happens when a
| different kind of personality has centralized control
| over a social network, in many a sense, it could be much
| worse.
| ritchiea wrote:
| He's lived a different life than nearly anyone else.
| Certainly so caught up in his responsibilities to
| Facebook that he's been unable to grow and change and
| branch out and fail, and be rejected and forced to
| reinvent or repurpose himself the way most people do.
| It's impossible to imagine what my life would be like or
| how my perspective would be different if I was caught in
| a bubble of a project I started in my late teens turning
| into a near trillion dollar success that only grew and
| grew from the moment I started on it.
| 7373737373 wrote:
| I think him being rejected by most people drove him to do
| what he does
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| I was involved in a startup project the first couple
| years of college. We didn't know anything about what we
| were doing so it languished in development hell and is
| still in it as far as I know, with a new crop of kids. I
| can't imagine being stuck in that mindset, there's a lot
| of maturing that happens when you have a boss and need to
| work with a team and he's always been the head of this
| college project that's worth a trillion dollars now.
| Doesn't sound healthy at all
| smilespray wrote:
| Add Peter Thiel to this couple and we have a good game of
| "fuck, marry, kill".
| polote wrote:
| > It makes me believe Zuckerberg is completely surrounded by
| yes-men
|
| I feel like the opposite. Zuck is the only one to believe in
| the metaverse and as a result people who worked on the
| communication did it badly without a lot of conviction. He is
| in a pretty comfortable position, one of the richest people on
| earth doing 20% of growth every year. And still he wants to
| make a big risky bet like this one. I'm not really in favor of
| the metaverse but history has shown us that Zuck is pretty
| successful at things he wants to do
| wpietri wrote:
| What things would those be? As far as I know his successes
| are a) 1 idea he had as a 19-year-old plus b) some other
| things that he bought with the money from that.
| carlosdp wrote:
| Say what you will about Mark, no informed person could
| claim with a straight face that he's not one of the
| savviest business-people in history.
| patentatt wrote:
| lol, people don't remember all of the stern talking-to's
| zuck had to have from his investors in the beginning. The
| investors made him go to business classes to learn how to
| 'business' and talk to people. The one thing I could give
| him was to retain the ownership stake that he did, but
| that even could be said to be largely due to sean
| parker's influence and his experience with VCs.
| wpietri wrote:
| Oh? Maybe give me a brief rundown of his business savvy?
| I'm especially interested in evidence that can't be
| attributed to the people he hired or the vast, vast
| wealth at his command. Not to mention a large PR
| department working hard to make him look like one of the
| savviest businesspeople in history.
| yupper32 wrote:
| > that can't be attributed to the people he hired
|
| Isn't hiring the right people an extremely large part of
| being "business savvy"?
| margalabargala wrote:
| Business savvy people hire the right people, but just
| because someone turned out to be the right person,
| doesn't mean the person who hired them was necessarily
| business savvy.
| motoxpro wrote:
| I mean, if it were that easy to build a trillion dollar
| company, everyone would, but it's not, so they don't.
|
| People complain that he has too much control but then
| also, like you, complain that he isn't behind and "real"
| decisions.
|
| He made that "vast vast wealth" by building Facebook. One
| had to come before the other.
| chriswarbo wrote:
| > I mean, if it were that easy to build a trillion dollar
| company, everyone would, but it's not, so they don't.
|
| It's not easy to win the lottery either, but that doesn't
| make a lottery winner "one of the savviest business-
| people in history".
| jumpman_miya wrote:
| Comparing the success of FB to winning the lottery is
| disingenuous. Cry moar.
| wpietri wrote:
| I'm not complaining, and I'm not claiming he is or isn't
| behind a given decision. I'm just trying to understand
| what people see as evidence of his savviness, as I don't
| see much besides a pile of money and an adequately-
| maintained natural monopoly that now looks to be in a
| fair bit of trouble both in the market (thus his recent
| announcement of a dramatic retooling) and in the public
| eye (e.g., the latest whistleblowers and the
| Congressional hearings).
|
| And it's perfectly possible that he is more responsible
| for the bad choices than he is for the good ones. I've
| dealt with execs like that. I'd bet many others have as
| well.
| marnett wrote:
| I dislike Zuckerberg as much as another fellow, but he is
| one of the few founder/CEOs who managed to not only
| maintain control of his company, but maintain complete,
| uncontested control over his company. There are so few
| businesspeople that can claim that, as it is typical that
| either fundraising or corporate politics (or both)
| eventually ousts the founding members or dilute their
| absolute power. To claim that he somehow accidentally
| negotiated and maintained complete control throughout the
| entire lifetime of Facebook is disingenuous at the very
| least. People do not accidentally maintain power. Any
| number of other ambitious people would have loved to
| become the power broker at Facebook by taking Mark down,
| and preventing that every step of the way is foundational
| to the definition of business savvy.
| fillipvt wrote:
| It's far too rare for a founder to maintain control in
| that way while also growing the company to the size of
| Facebook is. For example, Basecamp has managed to
| maintain control but it's nowhere near their size.
| majani wrote:
| His ability to hold on to pole position once he gets it
| is definitely unprecedented, especially in an industry
| that's known for it's volatility. But in terms of
| original creativity, he scores extremely low.
| mritchie712 wrote:
| * 1 idea he stole as a 19-year-old
|
| I'm not big on people complaining about "idea stealing",
| but zuck is in a league of his own with this shit, so worth
| pointing out that he didn't have the idea for FB.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| Honestly, HarvardConnection would have been just MySpace
| but solely for Harvard users. Forums have been around
| since what, the 1980s (as BBSs)?
| smoldesu wrote:
| _grumble grumble_ Good artists copy... _grumble grumble_
| wpietri wrote:
| Excellent point, and I totally agree. Thanks for the
| correction.
| patentatt wrote:
| Stole or just copied, the 'idea' of a social network
| wasn't novel by the time fb came around. Credit where
| it's due, it was executed well in the early stages and
| had the unique twist of being college-only at the
| beginning. People don't remember that when fb started
| gaining traction, friendster was already very much a
| thing but was stumbling hard on execution. I remember the
| friendster site being just dog slow. Myspace and Hi5 were
| also in the mix before or right at the same time as fb.
| Really just the PR/marketing angle and the not screwing
| up on execution are fb's claim to fame.
| aflag wrote:
| Orkut was also out there and it was wildly more popular
| than Facebook in some parts of the world.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| Well, he sure knows what to buy.
|
| Remember when he bought Instagram for a billion dollars?
| That amount seemed unreasonable high back then. Looking
| back though ... I'd wish I could spend money as well as
| Zuckerberg.
| ethanyu94 wrote:
| How about building one of the largest companies in the
| world? Would others be able to do that if they had that
| idea as a 19-year-old? Let's not reduce all his
| accomplishments to a single idea. Ideas don't matter,
| execution matters.
| wpietri wrote:
| That would still be one success. And I'm pretty sure
| other people had something to do with that. So I'd like a
| little more evidence, thanks.
| roberto wrote:
| You really think building one of the biggest companies in
| the world, with billions of users, is just one success?
|
| Building a company with 1000 users is a success. A
| million is another success. A billion is hundreds of
| successes.
| zenmaster10665 wrote:
| Lol...you want him to have built more than one of the
| most successful businesses in history? It isn't one idea
| that got him here.. Everyone's a critic.
| ethanyu94 wrote:
| If building Facebook isn't enough evidence of success for
| you, I don't know what is. Pretty sure most people with
| the same idea could not have turned it into what Facebook
| is today. Also, Facebook isn't just one idea - it's many
| ideas.
| wpietri wrote:
| It's enough evidence of _one_ success. But "Zuck is
| pretty successful at things he wants to do" sounds like
| he has more than one success. I'm just asking what those
| other things are.
| zenmaster10665 wrote:
| You are exposing your lack of knowledge on what it means
| to run a multinational corporation. It isn't one lucky
| choice, it is strategy and execution over the long term.
| This is the same for any successful company.
| int_19h wrote:
| Facebook hasn't been around long enough to talk about its
| "long term".
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| This is just coming across as completely ridiculous.
| tw04 wrote:
| a) 1 idea that he stole
|
| b) having absolutely 0 moral compass
| moosey wrote:
| Zuckerberg no longer experiences risk except for in the most
| abstract of ways. Not in the way that the vast majority of
| people think about risk.
|
| I would also suggest lack of conviction and lack of ability
| to complete the job look very similar, and you are likely to
| end up with the latter of you are surrounded by yes-men.
| paganel wrote:
| > Zuckerberg is completely surrounded by yes-men
|
| That's what I think happens, yes. They should have learned
| something from the failure of Google+, after all they were
| directly involved in that, apparently they haven't.
| dmix wrote:
| The video also showed Zuckerberg really pixelated green-screen
| effect and low-framerate:
|
| https://i.imgur.com/AGklzd2.png
|
| Using a low quality virtual background might have been a poor
| choice when it's fundamental to the idea.
| wpietri wrote:
| There's a concept I find really useful: Acquired Situational
| Narcissism. If somebody spends enough time in an environment
| where everything is about them, they can easily come to believe
| everything is about them.
|
| Another thing I think is at play is people confusing luck with
| genius. Zuckerberg is clearly smart, but Facebook was also a
| right-time, right-place thing. As FaceMash and Facebook showed,
| he understood his audience because he was his audience. But
| now, nearly 20 years later, Zuckerberg-the-billionaire has very
| little in common with the audience he needs if he is going to
| make the metaverse happen.
|
| I mean, I too read and like Snow Crash, so I get the emotional
| appeal. But a middle-aged guy's favorite dystopian novel from
| 30 years ago may not be a useful blueprint today.
| Permit wrote:
| I'm trying to word this kindly, but I think you should
| instead look at the concept of "Parasocial Relationships" if
| you think it's appropriate to diagnose Mark Zuckerberg with
| Acquired Situational Narcissism.
|
| You do not know him, you have not met him and it does not
| make sense to try to diagnose a public figure based on what
| you've been presented by either his own press releases or
| media coverage of him. You and the person you have replied to
| have bought into the idea that no one at Facebook challenges
| him despite having not worked at Facebook or personally
| witnessing this.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Dude, we're all just shootin' the shit on a random tech
| forum site. Saying "Damn, Zuckerberg must be a total
| narcissist to have come up with this shit" is not exactly
| like I'm writing "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" in his
| medical chart or something.
|
| It's more an expression that "I think this idea is so bat
| shitty that I don't _want_ to know jack about how someone
| came up with it, just seems like a narcissistic idea to me.
| "
| AndyMcConachie wrote:
| It would have been so much less cringe if they had just hired
| an actor that people liked to deliver the message. No one likes
| Mark Zuckerberg, so why is he the talking head. He's a terrible
| actor and presenter. They really needed to pay a famous person
| to do it.
| twofornone wrote:
| >He is truly detached from us normal people and our human
| experience.
|
| From watching his mannerisms and facial expressions, I get the
| feeling that he is high functioning but very much on the
| autistic spectrum, and emulates many subtle movements/behaviors
| during communication that come naturally to "normies". That's
| why he comes off as a robot deep in the uncanny valley.
|
| I like to think of it as partly emulating with software some of
| the communication hardware that neurotypical people have
| innately. Which is why social interactions can be taxing for
| those with Asperger's, the extra cycles are draining and
| distracting, in addition to the necessary self consciousness
| which also costs some amount of compute.
| bredren wrote:
| This seems like a video for investors, not users.
| yurlungur wrote:
| Although I do feel the same I think given the world we are in
| today, I wouldn't necessarily bet big on its failure. That
| would probably make too much sense.
| throw7 wrote:
| Can't watch without logging into facebook. That's all you need to
| know.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-28 23:01 UTC)