I don't think that it's gonna be a straight rebrand. If it does happens, it will be more of a restructuring in line with Google, with a new parent company being created.
Facebook is way too large and does too many things today to be called just Facebook
It will 100% be an Alphabet-like move. Facebook will continue to be one of the products in their portfolio, and Instagram/WhatsApp/Oculus/others will get more prominence moving forward. They will also probably move their branding and advertising away from the "Facebook" name.
Do these rebrands even work? I see a couple of examples in other comments, like Comcast -> Xfinity, Philip Morris -> Altria, but this is the first time I see the name Altria. Even earlier this month when I was reading an article about tobacco, it used the name Philip Morris.
Google's rebranding to Alphabet also feels semi-successful. Technically Fitbit is a Google's sister company under the Alphabet umbrella, but all the news I've seen reported it as "Google acquires Fitbit". I only see the Alphabet name when I read about earnings reports and their stock value, and even then it's always introduced as "Alphabet, the Google parent company"
The notorious military contractor Blackwater rebranded to 'Xe Services' in 2009. They were coming off a lot of heat 2007 incident where their employees killed a number of Iraqi citizens. I remember hearing that the name change was meant to obfuscate the company as searching for Xe didn't yield many results in search or documents. And Blackwater sounds dangerous. Newspapers continued to use "the company formerly known as Blackwater". Even wikipedia has it under Blackwater.
In 2011, they went a step further and changed their name again to 'Academi', which is pretty funny.
Anecdotally, a notorious real estate developer named Blackstone where I lived got into a lot of heat, and afterwards rebranded to a local-language version of "DearCity". Now everyone seems to have forgotten their ruthless practices. To be fair, they went from a hilarious villain-like name to an almost cartoonishly cute one. But jokes on the public, because it works. They're largely off the hook in the publics eye now
It always feels like a shark-jump when somebody's marketing department needs a bonus and has nothing better to do than "rebrand".
It's also insulting your customers when communicating that (a) there's more value after a rebrand when there's obviously none; and (b) customer is dumb or shallow enough to be swayed by messaging and not the product.
In Google's case the intention wasn't to use Alphabet as a brand. They don't even own the domain name, Twitter handle etc. for it. They didn't change their stock ticker name either. Google is way too successful and positive a brand to give it up.
Despite how loathed Facebook is, if an Alphabet-like parent company launches a metaverse that _does not_ integrate with the social graph / is not monetized through advertising, it has a real shot.
I have felt FB has needed to offer a privacy focused social network for some time. Apple is quietly proving people are willing to pay for privacy-enabled social features.
My question is whether they will collaborate with Epic / Fortnite on this. I suspect they will need to in order to take on whatever ends up dominating the App Store Apple's eventual hardware platform.
Facebook is going to buy Epic Games, mark my words. It would be north of a $60B acquisition even if they purchase them at twice their current valuation. It would be poetic justice because Epic and FB both have a common enemy - Apple.
Facebook does not have a game engine and it is not currently a 3D-first company, and it makes sense that it will need one to underpin all of the content that will need to be made for the metaverse, by creators.
Comcast still has a terrible reputation despite their best efforts to call themselves Xfinity wherever they legally can. Doubt it will work for Facebook, so long as they aren't allowed to continue buying up and coming competitors.
12 days ago there was as "Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28786250 ), so maybe it's some kind of "better change before it gets worse"
The lack of focus at Facebook is reminding me of Yahoo and AOL and their gradual refusal to evolve their core product, instead expanding into a multitude of side-products, and slowly moving out of relevance.
This alarmism (or optimism) hardly ever pays off, but I wonder what the social media landscape and accompanying 'metaverse' will look like ten years from now, and how Facebook will fit into it, if at all.
Just out of sheer practicality, it's hard to understand the appeal of 3D (social) spaces. The web/text/document medium of the "classic" web is easily displayable from watch displays to 80" TVs. You can stack text, video, music conveniently and perceptually obviously on 2D planar spaces. You can just glance away to have a context of the real world - as such, comparable and fitting to other physical activities.
I get some aspects of VR, like gaming or the increasing trend to use virtual displays for productivity (stacking 2D windows). But accessing this space seems to be complicated even years ahead - the only way is to wear large, vision-blocking eyewear, or at least display a full-screen application that takes the user out of context. You can add in cameras and virtual 2D desktops to help, but it's an all-encompassing experience where getting in and out is a major, reorienting move. This is appealing for an ad company (100% eyeball control must be immensely valuable) or maybe for some mental needs ("escape reality") but I see this problematic and hard to integrate into society and the human experience.
I would browse it and find a fair number of people meeting up and playing games.
But, I also found a lot of people just hanging out too. Shopping, occupying spaces and talking about stuff. The stay home spouse talking shit about their partner to a friend was pretty common too.
The VR bit you wrote resonates with me. I have similar questions. But the idea of a 3D space itself works for plenty of people.
he is a cartoon character trying to pull us into his world. ok that's mean but, maybe i am getting old or something but the idea really doesn't appeal to me that much. i kinda wanna stop using computers and electronic devices. anyone realize how fast time goes by when you are glued to your monitor?
Before you use your laptop or phone, write down exactly what it is that you want to achieve. Then, time how long it takes, and recall exactly what it was you did end up doing.
As you say, the results are surprising. I have worked very hard to remove tech from my personal and social life as much as possible.
Edit: youtube is the worst for this. I know perfectly well that 99% of youtube videos could be summarised in a few sentences, yet still find myself watching endless rubbish.
They should rebrand to Faceboot - "“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever.” George Orwell
edit: I see a bright future for Oculus if it's marketed and shaped as a faceboot. /s
it would look something like this: https://i.imgflip.com/2y3xdw.jpg
[+] [-] rishav_sharan|4 years ago|reply
Facebook is way too large and does too many things today to be called just Facebook
[+] [-] paxys|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staticautomatic|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arnvald|4 years ago|reply
Google's rebranding to Alphabet also feels semi-successful. Technically Fitbit is a Google's sister company under the Alphabet umbrella, but all the news I've seen reported it as "Google acquires Fitbit". I only see the Alphabet name when I read about earnings reports and their stock value, and even then it's always introduced as "Alphabet, the Google parent company"
[+] [-] bko|4 years ago|reply
In 2011, they went a step further and changed their name again to 'Academi', which is pretty funny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(company)
[+] [-] AdamHede|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imglorp|4 years ago|reply
It's also insulting your customers when communicating that (a) there's more value after a rebrand when there's obviously none; and (b) customer is dumb or shallow enough to be swayed by messaging and not the product.
[+] [-] paxys|4 years ago|reply
Alphabet is a holding company, nothing more.
[+] [-] rvz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djbebs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rusticpenn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bredren|4 years ago|reply
I have felt FB has needed to offer a privacy focused social network for some time. Apple is quietly proving people are willing to pay for privacy-enabled social features.
My question is whether they will collaborate with Epic / Fortnite on this. I suspect they will need to in order to take on whatever ends up dominating the App Store Apple's eventual hardware platform.
[+] [-] rognjen|4 years ago|reply
They're doing it *so that* it integrates with social graph AND is another advertising channel.
[+] [-] astlouis44|4 years ago|reply
Facebook does not have a game engine and it is not currently a 3D-first company, and it makes sense that it will need one to underpin all of the content that will need to be made for the metaverse, by creators.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Larrikin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tuyuri|4 years ago|reply
Edit: fix typo
[+] [-] musicale|4 years ago|reply
Or as an homage to Orwell: Faceboot.
They could always go back to their Facemash roots.
Or acquire the rights to Skynet.
[+] [-] dr_kiszonka|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmykhajliw|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tragictrash|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abrichr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spcebar|4 years ago|reply
The lack of focus at Facebook is reminding me of Yahoo and AOL and their gradual refusal to evolve their core product, instead expanding into a multitude of side-products, and slowly moving out of relevance.
This alarmism (or optimism) hardly ever pays off, but I wonder what the social media landscape and accompanying 'metaverse' will look like ten years from now, and how Facebook will fit into it, if at all.
[+] [-] poisonborz|4 years ago|reply
I get some aspects of VR, like gaming or the increasing trend to use virtual displays for productivity (stacking 2D windows). But accessing this space seems to be complicated even years ahead - the only way is to wear large, vision-blocking eyewear, or at least display a full-screen application that takes the user out of context. You can add in cameras and virtual 2D desktops to help, but it's an all-encompassing experience where getting in and out is a major, reorienting move. This is appealing for an ad company (100% eyeball control must be immensely valuable) or maybe for some mental needs ("escape reality") but I see this problematic and hard to integrate into society and the human experience.
[+] [-] ddingus|4 years ago|reply
I would browse it and find a fair number of people meeting up and playing games.
But, I also found a lot of people just hanging out too. Shopping, occupying spaces and talking about stuff. The stay home spouse talking shit about their partner to a friend was pretty common too.
The VR bit you wrote resonates with me. I have similar questions. But the idea of a 3D space itself works for plenty of people.
[+] [-] reaperducer|4 years ago|reply
See also: Comcast → Xfinity
[+] [-] MandieD|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sasaf5|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sasaf5|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mountain_Skies|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] user3939382|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggrelet|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hypertele-Xii|4 years ago|reply
Cosmic rays routinely flip bits in browsers' memories at the moment of request, causing the URL to change by one symbol.
To defend against this, big companies typically register a bunch of domains that are slight mutations of their primary business (redirecting to it).
[+] [-] crucifiction|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adminscoffee|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfklsdfjsdf|4 years ago|reply
As you say, the results are surprising. I have worked very hard to remove tech from my personal and social life as much as possible.
Edit: youtube is the worst for this. I know perfectly well that 99% of youtube videos could be summarised in a few sentences, yet still find myself watching endless rubbish.
[+] [-] minimaxir|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yellowapple|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soong|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] type0|4 years ago|reply
edit: I see a bright future for Oculus if it's marketed and shaped as a faceboot. /s it would look something like this: https://i.imgflip.com/2y3xdw.jpg
[+] [-] sul_tasto|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daseinfiasco|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iratewizard|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gigama|4 years ago|reply