111–120 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you replied to this message using open source code and an open protocol.
I used a locked down phone to do it. I can't even get root on this phone, and this is the more open platform, compared to the only other alternative.
It's impressive how comprehensively consumerism has persuaded people that you have to buy something.
I am completely guessing here, but I assume average device used to visit Facebook is an $150 Android phone. Metaverse would require multiple times more expensive equipment. Until the whole world gets a lot more prosperous, average user simply won’t be able to use the product. The product that relies on number of users.
I came to write exactly this. The app ecosystem grew due to the insane numbers of users having a >50$ smartphone everywhere in the world; and this is what made fb and the rest of companies what they are at the moment. The price barrier to enter the vr/ar world would be considerably higher and almost unreachable in the 3rd or developing world, which is fb’s main audience.
Maybe by volume, but where do they make their money?
The biggest difference is, that it ties together existing, living communities like fortnite, facebook and so on. It ist supposed to connect allthe communities you use instead of just creating a new one. So as long as people use any service that is part of the metaverse, the metaverse diesn't really need a hype of its' own. The metaverse is supposed to become the operating system of the internet owned by Mark Zuckerbe…
Only goofy asocial types think that you can actually replace actual human interactions with virtual reality. Would you rather actually meet your friends, or have your virtual avatars meet up in some fake VR world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its a powerplay. If he succeeds, he can solidify himself as a product genius, but in reality its just his money at play. Its easier to use money to take over something than to use money to invent something new.
How is that different from FB 1.0 or apple under jobs for that matter ?. Money is always needed, but money alone is not enough. Every funded startup has some money, many have raised a ton of money only to fail badly. Also it is not his money i.e. he is not selling/leveraging his FB stock to invest personally. FB is investing shareholder money of which he only owns 16.7% .
Two very different companies and scenarios. Jobs as famous for cutting down >10 products product offerings down to 1-2 to refocus the company. His skillset was very much product strategy. He used money mostly for marketing and design. Two things Apple is very much well known for.
Facebook is known for copy, acquire, kill. They offer tons of money to try to acquire competitors. If they say no, then they hire tons to engineers to clone your product, then they kill your product.
Money is required by both, but arguably how both companies spend money is vastly different. Facebook very much uses money as a powerplay than Apple under Jobs.
> Money is always needed, but money alone is not enough. Every funded startup has some money, many have raised a ton of money only to fail badly.
This is such a generalized statement. It's not even worth commenting. Water is wet and the sky is blue.
> FB is investing shareholder money of which he only owns 16.7%
No. Its company assets. Although he owns 16.7% equity, he has >50% of the voting power. Meaning he has absolute authority to dictate how that money is spent. The other 80% can only sell their equity and this doesn't mean they get to take away 80% of the company assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I came to write exactly this. The app ecosystem grew due to the insane numbers of users having a >50$ smartphone everywhere in the world; and this is what made fb and the rest of companies what they are at the moment. The price barrier to enter the vr/ar world would be considerably higher and almost unreachable in the 3rd or developing world, which is fb’s main audience.
3rd or developing world, which is fb’s main audience. Maybe by volume, but where do they make their money?
Zuckerberg's Metaverse: Lessons from Second Life https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59180273
Conceptually speaking, the difference with AR/VR is that you can have a truly immersive experience, which really does give you more possibilities than just Second Life, which was always just a 3D game world on a 2D screen. The pitch from Meta and with AR/VR is that with the ability to use 3D space, you can actually turn Second Life-style virtual worlds into something useful with actual tangible benefits. For example,…
My question with the metaverse concept is always, "Why? What's the point?" I can think of two parties that have their own answers: 1) A certain group of people who like computers and grew up reading sci-fi think it would be cool; some even tell themselves it's very important, but for vague reasons that they can't really articulate 2) Centers of capital are interested in it as yet another platform for consumption, att…