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!
Meta
71–80 of 210 posts
Re: Meta
#72> 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 Me…
> stepping it back significantly with aliases and multi-account management tools PdM: "Oh, users don't want one account? OK, let them make aliases they think are different, and log in that way. They won't realize it's all still one account, even when we show them their picture and list all these ~~aliases~~, er, "different accounts" they can log in as ..." Users: "Yay, different accounts!" Analytics: "Yay, one accoun…
For content producers it has a very real effect - that behind the scenes linking doesn't threaten to expose your real identity to creepy people on the internet. It does expose it to YouTube people, but I think that's reasonable given that there's money involved. It also (so long as you aren't receiving a check) doesn't actually require any connection to your real name anymore.
Re: Meta
#73I 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…
The Amazon comparison is apt, but I think Apple shifting revenue from hardware to services is a better one. Apple was able to catch the paradigm shift of us starting to use our phones for everything, and make loads of money by offering services to a captive audience and sharecropping opportunities to app developers. Facebook tried to become a platform during the last paradigm shift and failed. Selling users to advert…
Apple is nice comparison.
Apple leveraged the power of its brand in that transition (and created a flywheel of sorts to strengthen its brand), whereas the current FB brand wouldn't likely extend as well.
So helps show one reason why FB likely saw the need to change naming and start building a new brand (whereas Apple (and Amazon) went the other way).
Re: Meta
#74Regardless 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.
Re: Meta
#75Regardless 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.
Think Nucleus!
Re: Meta
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple behaves ethically with those file scanners on your devices? Iphone parts that show errors when replaced with the same parts from another phone? Lobbying against the right to repair? Blocking access to 3rd party app stores? lol. It's just marketing, nothing more.
Apple has certainly displayed some anti-consumer behavior. No one will argue with that. But not all sins are equal. Let's not say that blocking access to repair stores is the same thing as knowingly aiding and abetting genocide.
Good thing you bring that up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u...
Re: Meta
#77Personally, 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 mo…
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.
Your experience is anecdotal. What "you think" isn't what others have found through actual testing, there are actual papers written about this. Also, I don't think TikTok is different because they are more ethical or anything; I think the framework they operate in (China) has forced them to take a heavier hand on emotionally extreme content.
Re: Meta
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
The demo is for geeks and investors, so I’m not sure it matters.
So pray tell, what do investors see in it? As a geek I see a hobby horse.
What does Apple see in it ?
They are investing heavily in AR/VR and they have a proven track record in new product categories e.g. smartphone, tablet, headphones, watch.
Once the technologies improve such that the glasses/headsets are light and small enough then it's going to be something you can bring and use everywhere. And then the popularity will increase which in turn will attract developers. Repeat this cycle a few times and you have another $100+ billion App Store business on your hands.
Re: Meta
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think VR/AR Metaverse will happen but it is decades away.
Most major tech companies seem to be betting that non-shit AR glasses aren't far off, and are prepping to be ready for that day 1. Big VR bets makes less sense to me. AR is the next smartphone. VR is the next... TV or workstation monitor, and even then, only for some use cases. Just seems like a much smaller opportunity.
Are you implying that their interest suggests that non-shit AR glasses will actually happen in the relatively short term? Big tech companies were and ostensibly are interested in self-driving too, and that seems to be taking much longer than they expected.
Re: Meta
#80What 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?