Personally, I'm less bullish on FB/Meta now. Half of me believes if someone can turn it around it would be Zuck, and the other half believes that FB's culture has optimized the wrong the thing for the past 5 years.
Consider this, and call me out if I'm wrong, for the past 5 years we were led to believe by FB/YouTube that algorithmically generated could only have negative consequences as it moved people to more and more reactionary content as it was the only way to optimize time on site. The only way FB could grow was by pushing content that got people riled up. Then TikTok came along and it's kind of disproven that? I started using TikTok as a joke and it's by far my most use social app now, and none of the algorithmically generated content is as polarizing as what I would find on the other apps; and clearly they are growing fast. There was another way but the local-maxima prevented FB from seeing it and as a result they have lost major brand cachet.
I don't know what is different about TikTok but the way I see it is Meta's problem will be avoiding their user base dying off and the USG will likely prevent any future acquisitions. Their standalone apps (M, Rooms, Riff, Gaming, Dating, Collab) haven't been major successes (although given the size of Facebook some of these have 10s of millions of users); and I'm not confident a VR platform will have major penetration outside of "Ready Player One" fanboys.
That said, FB is a trillion dollar company and betting against a company with such a huge war chest is like trying to catch a falling knife.
> Then TikTok came along and it's kind of disproven that? ... none of the algorithmically generated content is as polarizing as what I would find on the other apps.
I don't think this is fully accurate. The big differentiator for Tik Tok's algorithmic feed from FB's or Youtube's (in my mind) is not its accuracy or lack of polarization, it's actually that it draws much firmer and harder to cross lines between the parts of its userbase with an (IMO intentionally) nerfed search capability, so it's very difficult to break out of the demographic/interest bubble it decides you are in for feed purposes. So you, personally, probably receive literally no polarizing, political, etc content that you aren't happy to see. But that doesn't mean it's not there!
Here's an example: a researcher set up a new account, interacted with transphobic content, and was very quickly (in a few hours of viewing) seeing far-right conspiracy theory, antisemitic, white supremacy (and so on) content, some of which was endorsing violence. https://twitter.com/abbieasr/status/1445888305997000705
> betting against a company with such a huge war chest is like trying to catch a falling knife.
Indeed. My biggest fear is that succeed.
I happen to prefer PCs (and there is no reason to argue for or against that). Apple has been incredibly successful at capturing market share and their devices are now mandatory at my new job. I might not like it, but it's not the end of the world: Apple behaves ethically.
Now imagine your [otherwise] dream job demands that you strap a Quest on and feed Zuck's data fetish.
> Then TikTok came along and it's kind of disproven that?
TikTok is the epitome of content augmentation through engagement. They literally will push more and more of what you're engaging with. Their algorithm is highly optimized to put you into very deep rabbit holes of content.
During the BLM protests you could see two very different feeds depending what content were you liking and engaging with. After a few minutes of browsing it would literally feed you only pro-BLM or anti-BLM. No middle grounds.
> The only way FB could grow was by pushing content that got people riled up.
Not sure if I've ever believe it was the only way for them to grow. I hate Facebook (product) for what it has become but it is an excellent tool for its original use, which is keeping in touch with friends/family/communities.
I think part of it is demographics. Facebook's userbase is and continues to trend older especially for Facebook/WhatsApp and slightly for Instagram as well compared to TikTok/Snap. I'm not saying Facebook has abandoned the younger demo but wants to continue to cater to the earning and older demo. We're not going to live in Wall-E's world but when the older generation no longer wants to or can engage in IRL experiences that require being full mobile and healthy, AR and moreso VR will allow them to immerse themselves and "preserve" youth well longer than we thought possible. We are at an interesting time in history where wealth inequality is growing and the wealth transfer from rich to poor and more significantly from old to young may not happen as quickly as society needs it to. If the older demographic can and wants to hold on a decade or 2 longer compounded with healthcare advances giving them longer life expectancy and their existing investments/savings growing well, who knows what and when the future will look like?
FB has so much money they could try literally hundreds of thousands of ideas, have all of them fail, and still have money for hundreds of thousands more. Eventually they will find the next big thing and execute perfectly.
I don't think I've gotten an actual misinformation / hate speech / etc. recommendation from Youtube, Facebook, or Tiktok.
On Facebook, I see potentially divisive posts from friends with very different political views. The difference with TikTok is that those friends don't post content.
I think if you explicitly seek out problematic content you can end in a rabbit hole on any large algorithmic app.
I think Snap or TikTok should rebrand to Antimeta, or at least build a subsidiary with that name to show how ridiculous this is. Facebook, or however the want to call themselves, is still the same company with its unethical leadership.
Unless leadership changes, nothing good will be in store for society at large.
3-5 years ago, the prevailing narrative about Facebook and other social media was that of the 'filter bubble', where you would only see things you agreed with. More recently, it's been a 180 to decrying Facebook force-feeding users content they disagree with. TikTok is basically the old model, the one that was blamed for things like Trump being elected.
My opinion is a name change is just that. You can also put a Ferrari body kit for a Pinto, but it’s still a pinto. Name change is just them trying to dodge their own brand’s untrustworthiness.
Knives may be snapped mid air by the appropriate adversary.
The tide is correctly turning against the manifest abuses of this organization, regardless of what it asks to be called; with any luck it will be systematically dismantled and defanged.
The pathology and amorality inherent in its DNA goes back to Zuckerberg; the fish has rotted from the head from the start. That pathology leads to market valuation is not a surprise but it's also not conducive to survival.
As much as I am not a FB fan, I give Zucc credit for dedicating an entire keynote to his vision of the future. What are all the other tech companies' visions for the future? Who knows! They never talk about the future. Apple almost never talks about anything more than a month away. Their vision of the future? Looks like it's probably: a brand new phone, similar to and released precisely one year after the previous one... forever and ever. What's Amazon's vision of the future? Continue N% YoY growth for online shopping and cloud...forever. Google's? Ads on moar surfaces...forever?
Zucc said this is our future vision for end users, here's what and why. Whether or not you like the idea or company, at least he stuck his neck out and articulated it.
> Apple almost never talks about anything more than a month away. Their vision of the future? Looks like it's probably: a brand new phone, similar to and released precisely one year after the previous one... forever and ever.
This is just because Apple never talks about future things, but they certainly have a picture internally. Plenty of reporting supports the existence of AI/VR glasses of some sort and a car of some sort being designed within Apple.
> "Apple almost never talks about anything more than a month away. Their vision of the future? Looks like it's probably: a brand new phone, similar to and released precisely one year after the previous one... forever and ever. "
This is a very narrow way to look at Apple's future products and innovation. A lot of things Apple has done over the years such as introducing Macs with M1 chips, focusing on fitness (ex: ECG monitoring) and privacy based features, widespread adoption of contactless payments through services like Apple Pay are all great innovations in their own rights.
Amazon and Apple referring to customers, customers don't care about the vision, they care about the products, on the other hand Facebook has a different relationship,There is a Founder that is leading a company that refers to users although sometimes dangerously they call them "our people". A company with a leader of 3 billions people, sorry users. I wouldn't give credit to that.
He’s too early on this. Whatever expansive ideas he and his people are imagining won’t come true soon, but maybe it pays to say “new me!” when everyone is hating on you.
Agreed, but just like with Tesla (Elon Musk) is it more for marketing purposes? I get the actual intent with Tesla (Elon Musk). Not so with Zucc.
Is Zucc playing a game that he is not showing us?
This is an investor's view and the subtext seems to be "We're making a lot of money out of this, and I expect we'll make a lot more."
The problem is that it's only an investor's view. It's quite dismissive of Facebook's very real political problems, and doesn't acknowledge that for many people - especially, but not exclusively younger users - Facebook is a terminal combination of boring, evil, and cringe.
But more than that, Facebook isn't in a unique position to own the metaverse. The rest of MANGA will be converging on similar space. If there's any possibility at all of open hardware - or at least of an open standard - it's likely the real competition will come from an unexpected direction.
Social and AR/VR are fundamentally different spaces and Zuckerberg's idea of what's supposed to happen in those spaces is fundamentally weird and very possibly ridiculous.
Between the absence of consumer-friendly hardware - nothing is going to happen until the tech fits into very wearable low-effort glasses - and Facebook's eccentric history, I would expect Meta to fail and the metaverse to happen elsewhere, leaving FB to carry on as a kind of AOL for an ever-decreasing userbase until it's sold off for far too much money to some other large corporation which should know better.
Has a huge company ever rebranded themselves like this to a dream that they're so far away from delivering on? The Metaverse isn't an unfamiliar or abstract thing, it's well represented in movies and TV, and it's a pretty dramatic territory to claim: full sensory immersion in an infinite, interactive world. No one has gotten even a fraction of those things "right" and a social media company is gonna bet the farm on it because they bought a company that made VR goggles?
>The fact that Facebook is uniquely held responsible for the societal problems engendered by the Internet does, I suspect, stem from the fact that Zuckerberg is an obvious target. How many people concerned about anti-vax rhetoric, for example, can even name the person in charge of YouTube, a far more potent vector?
This article makes a very cogent point: Zuckerberg has too much baggage with the general public and Meta would be much better off if he stepped out of the light.
Honestly, I am dismayed by the negative reactions. Even if facebook fails at this, they will produce huge technical innovation. This is an expensive space, you need a big player willing to spend 10-20 billion on it. You need the technical resources and data. The end result will be a ton of open source and new know how in AR/VR. What a blessing!
We used to call "reactionary" content sensationalism, and that type of content has always been predicated on fallacious arguments, but especially appeals to emotion.
Facebook's algorithms seems very good at dectecting and pushing content that makes users have an emotional response.
They now have developed a feature where is someone or a page posts a comment to a page or group that I am not subscribed to, Facebook will push that content on to my feed.
It is just about the most annoying thing ever. I am profoundly not interested in people who I follow on what they post on Ted Cruz's Facebook page. Why is Facebook pushing Ted Cruz on to my feed if I am not subscribed to him? I want to see my friends posts, but not their responses to Ted.
Facebook sucks ass now, and I am going to convert over to mastidon or something.
It’s sucked for a long time. I quit over 5 years ago. I can only imagine how bad it is now.
Algorithmic content is great when it shows us things we want to see, but by it’s very nature it can be exploited to show us that which we most despise in an attempt to increase engagement.
I’m willing to go so far as to say the Algos in question are actually just optimized for engagement, not necessarily nefarious, but because we’re human, most people have an innate desire to make the world better in whatever way they can. Many believe discourse can help, but that’s obviously turned out to be flawed in the context of online conversation, where others can distance themself behind an online facade.
As long as we are optimizing for engagement, I feel all social media is doomed to the same fate.
I see it as closer to the Amazon pivot from selling physical goods to selling digital goods (using digital as an umbrella encompassing AWS, Kindle, Prime (which essentially digitizes fulfillment and delivery), etc.).
FB sold users to advertisers. Very Web 2.0.
Well the potential decentralization of Web3 potentially destroys that business model and the Meta strategy seems like it reflects this potential change in the way Amazon saw the world going to digital?
This blog post seems to get some fundamentals wrong.
Alphabet is just a holding (that's also why the name is rather boring), Google didnt wanna damage it's on brand by rebranding everything. There is no need, its positive and people like it.
Facebook tries to distract from its negative press to give the company an entire Facelift.
Many people are already updating that they work at Meta and not Facebook anymore on LinkedIn - quite interesting to observe.
Most Googlers or people working at one of the Alphabet companies would proudly state they work at Google to this day.
I don’t get the hype around metaverse. It’s between Zuck and Jensen. Sure those two guys can push a lot of eyes and start something but the products simply do not exist. It’s as if they’re living in this fantasy world to create…Habbo Hotel for 2025.
The metaverse they have a vision for won't exist, but social VR is on the rise, even if it won't take over everyday life. VRChat consistently has 25k players these days and that's not including the amount of people playing it on Quest devices.
It's amazing how much bike-shedding there is here around the name and logo, and how little capacity most have for what these changes actually mean.
Meta is going full in on the metaverse... so that's going to be hitting some critical mass fairly soon (less than a decade). And that's nuts. We should take this time to enjoy living before that moment. Who knows what changes it will bring, but surely enough that there will be no going back.
Overall this new focus suggests to me that Facebook (Meta) sees limited potential future growth of their social media properties as such, and needs to look to new markets to sustain future growth.
However, it is very rare for companies -- especially large, established ones -- to succeed in pivoting themselves to deal with new market realities and ways of doing business. The entrenched interests and culture inside these organizations tend to resist significant change. There's an irony that the bigger the company, the less power a CEO actually has.
FTA: > “Meta”, on the other hand, is explicit: CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook is now a metaverse company
I'm not sure anyone (other than some geeks) really understands what the "metaverse" is... or cares.
The name/symbolism/demo were uninspiring and vague at best.
Not to mention Mark isn't the best salesman for this. It seems so egotistical of him to assume HE needed to be the front-man for this effort other than to say "all of this... it's about me".
A company like Facebook (ok Meta) focuses on what the person in charge is interested in. Can’t be helped - it will just pervade the whole company.
Zuck is interested in this Metaverse vision and not in fixing the issues with his existing properties. Announcing this now is two fingers to those affected by these problems. If he gets massive regulatory intervention now he’s brought it on himself and deserves it.
Article doesn't mention but Zuck wanted to acquire Unity because he thought Unity will be future VR/AR engine/platform and Facebook wants to own it and not be at the mercy of Apple and Google.
I don't know why he didn't pursue it if he is so sure in Metaverse VR/AR thing.
Fortnite seems to have the virtual event model working pretty well. Movies and concerts with friends and random annoying people jumping around.. but it does work,
This makes me think of Comcast rebranding to Xfinity (USA); though I didn't really grasp what the intended reach of the rebranding to Meta will be from the last post [1]. It seems like it's for the umbrella entity, no product renames. But it still seems like a play to distance their image from Facebook, only to be referenced in court. And if it's anything like the Comcast rebrand, it's like, everyone still knows who you are--and yes we're still stuck using your products--it's just pretentious, annoying, and you're just creating another bad name for yourself lmao.
Remember that the Facebook renaming was for a very good purpose. It became clear as the company aged and grew that the initial name choice was quite poor, unfortunately in a lot of areas around the globe that name has a very negative association that wasn't obvious to Mark when he chose the name. The problem is that the word Facebook just happens to have a historical association with companies that don't respect your privacy - thankfully changing the name to Meta will let this company stand on its own merit. It's so Meta.
> Zuckerberg made a similar mistake last year, forcing Oculus users to login with their Facebook account, which not only upset Oculus users but also handcuffed products like Horizon Workrooms, Facebook’s VR solution for business meetings.
IMO this point is just a single example of the pattern we've seen. Everything done at Facebook is to drive that network data even if it harms the individual component. That's why Meta is so different from Alphabet. Alphabet is legitimately a collection of pretty independent companies - some of them synergize but never unnecessarily[1]. I purchased a VR headset last year and I ended up getting an Index after being mightily tempted by the Oculus - it's my first headset and I wasn't sure how much I'd like VR so I was really hesitant to drop a grand on it but... the likely future where all my activity is forcefully broadcast to all my family and friends on Facebook is a price I'm not willing to pay.
Facebook's non-Facebook products suffer from the fact that they so habitually pipe data right back to Facebook.
1. Oh - I'll add a caveat here about google accounts and Youtube. Google did try to merge the two at one point, but they got a huge amount of negative PR and ended up stepping it back significantly with aliases and multi-account management tools.
This is truly an optimistic take. Mark's "maybe no one else would bother building this if I don't" ethos is inspiring. But, man, that can justify absolutely anything. It seems like an expensive hobby, like Rod Stewart's model trains. Impressive, amazing, had to be built by that one person or it never would have been made....but, it's gratifying to only that one person, too.
What surprised me was how pathetic the move looks (as does the logo, that looks like the brainchild of an actual child; infinity symbol? srsly?). Not only has Facebook proven unable or unwilling to make even less immersive wide-scale online interaction pleasant and beneficial that they claim it's time to be looking for the next challenge (oh, and did they forget about their digital currency?), but they don't even have the technology to start. If this had come at the same time they unveiled some impressive skunkworks project, or even after they emerged from their "trial by fire" as the article calls it, it might have been a different story, but as it is, it appears like a weak act of desperation. Is Facebook feeling that threatened?
Regardless of how this turns out, $10 Billion per year is a lot for an early/R&D level product (unless you consider the Horizons stuff closer to the endgame).
Sometimes major upfront investments can create situations where its own size and expectations cannibalize their own potential.
[+] [-] nemothekid|4 years ago|reply
Consider this, and call me out if I'm wrong, for the past 5 years we were led to believe by FB/YouTube that algorithmically generated could only have negative consequences as it moved people to more and more reactionary content as it was the only way to optimize time on site. The only way FB could grow was by pushing content that got people riled up. Then TikTok came along and it's kind of disproven that? I started using TikTok as a joke and it's by far my most use social app now, and none of the algorithmically generated content is as polarizing as what I would find on the other apps; and clearly they are growing fast. There was another way but the local-maxima prevented FB from seeing it and as a result they have lost major brand cachet.
I don't know what is different about TikTok but the way I see it is Meta's problem will be avoiding their user base dying off and the USG will likely prevent any future acquisitions. Their standalone apps (M, Rooms, Riff, Gaming, Dating, Collab) haven't been major successes (although given the size of Facebook some of these have 10s of millions of users); and I'm not confident a VR platform will have major penetration outside of "Ready Player One" fanboys.
That said, FB is a trillion dollar company and betting against a company with such a huge war chest is like trying to catch a falling knife.
[+] [-] twright0|4 years ago|reply
I don't think this is fully accurate. The big differentiator for Tik Tok's algorithmic feed from FB's or Youtube's (in my mind) is not its accuracy or lack of polarization, it's actually that it draws much firmer and harder to cross lines between the parts of its userbase with an (IMO intentionally) nerfed search capability, so it's very difficult to break out of the demographic/interest bubble it decides you are in for feed purposes. So you, personally, probably receive literally no polarizing, political, etc content that you aren't happy to see. But that doesn't mean it's not there!
Here's an example: a researcher set up a new account, interacted with transphobic content, and was very quickly (in a few hours of viewing) seeing far-right conspiracy theory, antisemitic, white supremacy (and so on) content, some of which was endorsing violence. https://twitter.com/abbieasr/status/1445888305997000705
[+] [-] zamalek|4 years ago|reply
Indeed. My biggest fear is that succeed.
I happen to prefer PCs (and there is no reason to argue for or against that). Apple has been incredibly successful at capturing market share and their devices are now mandatory at my new job. I might not like it, but it's not the end of the world: Apple behaves ethically.
Now imagine your [otherwise] dream job demands that you strap a Quest on and feed Zuck's data fetish.
[+] [-] whoisjuan|4 years ago|reply
TikTok is the epitome of content augmentation through engagement. They literally will push more and more of what you're engaging with. Their algorithm is highly optimized to put you into very deep rabbit holes of content.
During the BLM protests you could see two very different feeds depending what content were you liking and engaging with. After a few minutes of browsing it would literally feed you only pro-BLM or anti-BLM. No middle grounds.
[+] [-] darknavi|4 years ago|reply
Not sure if I've ever believe it was the only way for them to grow. I hate Facebook (product) for what it has become but it is an excellent tool for its original use, which is keeping in touch with friends/family/communities.
[+] [-] bink|4 years ago|reply
Maybe. But if money could buy product adoption we'd all be using Microsoft phones right now.
[+] [-] orky56|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xwdv|4 years ago|reply
It is inevitable.
[+] [-] georgeglue1|4 years ago|reply
On Facebook, I see potentially divisive posts from friends with very different political views. The difference with TikTok is that those friends don't post content.
I think if you explicitly seek out problematic content you can end in a rabbit hole on any large algorithmic app.
[+] [-] kerng|4 years ago|reply
Unless leadership changes, nothing good will be in store for society at large.
[+] [-] tyrfing|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unstatusthequo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taylorportman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaroninsf|4 years ago|reply
The tide is correctly turning against the manifest abuses of this organization, regardless of what it asks to be called; with any luck it will be systematically dismantled and defanged.
The pathology and amorality inherent in its DNA goes back to Zuckerberg; the fish has rotted from the head from the start. That pathology leads to market valuation is not a surprise but it's also not conducive to survival.
[+] [-] ryandrake|4 years ago|reply
Zucc said this is our future vision for end users, here's what and why. Whether or not you like the idea or company, at least he stuck his neck out and articulated it.
[+] [-] dangoor|4 years ago|reply
This is just because Apple never talks about future things, but they certainly have a picture internally. Plenty of reporting supports the existence of AI/VR glasses of some sort and a car of some sort being designed within Apple.
[+] [-] heavyset_go|4 years ago|reply
I can't say that I care at all about what trillion dollar companies' visions of the future are.
[+] [-] gordon_freeman|4 years ago|reply
This is a very narrow way to look at Apple's future products and innovation. A lot of things Apple has done over the years such as introducing Macs with M1 chips, focusing on fitness (ex: ECG monitoring) and privacy based features, widespread adoption of contactless payments through services like Apple Pay are all great innovations in their own rights.
[+] [-] christoz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] germinalphrase|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donclark|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheOtherHobbes|4 years ago|reply
The problem is that it's only an investor's view. It's quite dismissive of Facebook's very real political problems, and doesn't acknowledge that for many people - especially, but not exclusively younger users - Facebook is a terminal combination of boring, evil, and cringe.
But more than that, Facebook isn't in a unique position to own the metaverse. The rest of MANGA will be converging on similar space. If there's any possibility at all of open hardware - or at least of an open standard - it's likely the real competition will come from an unexpected direction.
Social and AR/VR are fundamentally different spaces and Zuckerberg's idea of what's supposed to happen in those spaces is fundamentally weird and very possibly ridiculous.
Between the absence of consumer-friendly hardware - nothing is going to happen until the tech fits into very wearable low-effort glasses - and Facebook's eccentric history, I would expect Meta to fail and the metaverse to happen elsewhere, leaving FB to carry on as a kind of AOL for an ever-decreasing userbase until it's sold off for far too much money to some other large corporation which should know better.
[+] [-] Steltek|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lsjvjn|4 years ago|reply
This article makes a very cogent point: Zuckerberg has too much baggage with the general public and Meta would be much better off if he stepped out of the light.
[+] [-] fdgsdfogijq|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackbinary|4 years ago|reply
Facebook's algorithms seems very good at dectecting and pushing content that makes users have an emotional response.
They now have developed a feature where is someone or a page posts a comment to a page or group that I am not subscribed to, Facebook will push that content on to my feed.
It is just about the most annoying thing ever. I am profoundly not interested in people who I follow on what they post on Ted Cruz's Facebook page. Why is Facebook pushing Ted Cruz on to my feed if I am not subscribed to him? I want to see my friends posts, but not their responses to Ted.
Facebook sucks ass now, and I am going to convert over to mastidon or something.
[+] [-] yurishimo|4 years ago|reply
Algorithmic content is great when it shows us things we want to see, but by it’s very nature it can be exploited to show us that which we most despise in an attempt to increase engagement.
I’m willing to go so far as to say the Algos in question are actually just optimized for engagement, not necessarily nefarious, but because we’re human, most people have an innate desire to make the world better in whatever way they can. Many believe discourse can help, but that’s obviously turned out to be flawed in the context of online conversation, where others can distance themself behind an online facade.
As long as we are optimizing for engagement, I feel all social media is doomed to the same fate.
[+] [-] gz5|4 years ago|reply
FB sold users to advertisers. Very Web 2.0.
Well the potential decentralization of Web3 potentially destroys that business model and the Meta strategy seems like it reflects this potential change in the way Amazon saw the world going to digital?
[+] [-] kerng|4 years ago|reply
Alphabet is just a holding (that's also why the name is rather boring), Google didnt wanna damage it's on brand by rebranding everything. There is no need, its positive and people like it.
Facebook tries to distract from its negative press to give the company an entire Facelift.
Many people are already updating that they work at Meta and not Facebook anymore on LinkedIn - quite interesting to observe.
Most Googlers or people working at one of the Alphabet companies would proudly state they work at Google to this day.
[+] [-] lvl100|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] judge2020|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] seph-reed|4 years ago|reply
It's amazing how much bike-shedding there is here around the name and logo, and how little capacity most have for what these changes actually mean.
Meta is going full in on the metaverse... so that's going to be hitting some critical mass fairly soon (less than a decade). And that's nuts. We should take this time to enjoy living before that moment. Who knows what changes it will bring, but surely enough that there will be no going back.
[+] [-] otterley|4 years ago|reply
However, it is very rare for companies -- especially large, established ones -- to succeed in pivoting themselves to deal with new market realities and ways of doing business. The entrenched interests and culture inside these organizations tend to resist significant change. There's an irony that the bigger the company, the less power a CEO actually has.
Time will tell if they succeed.
[+] [-] 908B64B197|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r00fus|4 years ago|reply
I'm not sure anyone (other than some geeks) really understands what the "metaverse" is... or cares.
The name/symbolism/demo were uninspiring and vague at best.
Not to mention Mark isn't the best salesman for this. It seems so egotistical of him to assume HE needed to be the front-man for this effort other than to say "all of this... it's about me".
[+] [-] klelatti|4 years ago|reply
Zuck is interested in this Metaverse vision and not in fixing the issues with his existing properties. Announcing this now is two fingers to those affected by these problems. If he gets massive regulatory intervention now he’s brought it on himself and deserves it.
[+] [-] mrkramer|4 years ago|reply
I don't know why he didn't pursue it if he is so sure in Metaverse VR/AR thing.
[+] [-] astlouis44|4 years ago|reply
Not to mention all that sweet, sweet game developer data and owning one of the most popular social multiplayer games out there today.
[+] [-] acomjean|4 years ago|reply
Fortnite seems to have the virtual event model working pretty well. Movies and concerts with friends and random annoying people jumping around.. but it does work,
[+] [-] munro|4 years ago|reply
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29029317
[+] [-] munk-a|4 years ago|reply
(Also, /s)
[+] [-] nobody9999|4 years ago|reply
"Yes, we know who you are."[0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOrbrjBQf7Y
[+] [-] munk-a|4 years ago|reply
IMO this point is just a single example of the pattern we've seen. Everything done at Facebook is to drive that network data even if it harms the individual component. That's why Meta is so different from Alphabet. Alphabet is legitimately a collection of pretty independent companies - some of them synergize but never unnecessarily[1]. I purchased a VR headset last year and I ended up getting an Index after being mightily tempted by the Oculus - it's my first headset and I wasn't sure how much I'd like VR so I was really hesitant to drop a grand on it but... the likely future where all my activity is forcefully broadcast to all my family and friends on Facebook is a price I'm not willing to pay.
Facebook's non-Facebook products suffer from the fact that they so habitually pipe data right back to Facebook.
1. Oh - I'll add a caveat here about google accounts and Youtube. Google did try to merge the two at one point, but they got a huge amount of negative PR and ended up stepping it back significantly with aliases and multi-account management tools.
[+] [-] rdw|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pron|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmix|4 years ago|reply
Sometimes major upfront investments can create situations where its own size and expectations cannibalize their own potential.
[+] [-] sithlord|4 years ago|reply