Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 210 posts

Re: Meta

#101

Post by [deleted] »

zamalek wrote: post #41
nemothekid wrote: post #28

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 mo…

> 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 imagin…

[deleted]

Re: Meta

#102

Post by tinyhouse »

hsnewman wrote: post #93

This is a very bad sign for facebook. They are betting on everyone walking around with 3D goggles talking in Zoom like meetings. I personally would rather go outside and see reality than virtually doing it. Only time will tell, but I'm betting on reality.

I think it's a bit naive to think it's either that or nothing. As long as they can develop new high quality VR experiences with high adoption, they would succeed. I don't think they even know what they will end up with in 5-10 years. It's a big and expensive experiment with non insignificant chance of success in my opinion.

Re: Meta

#103

Post by ycoculushaver »

zamalek wrote: post #41
nemothekid wrote: post #28

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 mo…

> 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 imagin…

Haha I work for a company that literally bought and distributed Quest 2s for an event and I had to create a Facebook account for it.. not much imagining needed for me!

Oh and it was my otherwise dream job at the time :)

Oh yeah, and it's a YC company.

Re: Meta

#104

Post by [deleted] »

lvl100 wrote: post #46

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.

[deleted]

Re: Meta

#105

Post by handrous »

shock-value wrote: post #79
handrous wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They all keep announcing AR features for their devices and operating systems, even though those are very niche except as a "gee isn't that nifty" demo on current hardware—anyone who's held a phone or tablet or Gameboy or whatever up to interact with these things can attest it's pretty terrible overall UX, even if it's really cool as a demo. Glasses fix that problem. I assume the reason companies are continuing development of those capabilities is that they're pretty sure AR glasses aren't too far off. Seems like a much more tractable problem than self-driving, anyway—mostly a waiting game for battery and display/input tech to hit just the right spot and for someone to package it just right, like smartphones were.

Re: Meta

#106

Post by 0000011111 »

Meta put simply is a digital version of human culture and society. There is good and evil.

I am not sure they can keep the evil from spreading. How can they contains it without blocking large amounts of users.

I see the platform as a dark forest where there is no path toward profit unless they allow evil content to be spread widely and therefore allow more adds to be seen by more people.

Re: Meta

#107

Post by whimsicalism »

apozem wrote: post #44
lsjvjn wrote: post #6

>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 Met…

The author of this piece pointed out on his podcast that Zuckerberg, despite his baggage, is a founder and thus the only person who can sell such a huge change to employees and investors. If building a metaverse is a good idea, and that is a large if, then it will have been good for him to stay.

Founder loyalty is much larger among employees than it is among investors (in general, don't know about FB).

Re: Meta

#108

Post by me_me_mu_mu »

Steltek wrote: post #35

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 i…

I hope society improves to the point that we are comfortable just being around each other IRL, instead of needing to escape to a simulated world in our _sonas.

Re: Meta

#109

Post by nseggs »

darknavi wrote: post #40
nemothekid wrote: post #28

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 mo…

> 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.

Right. Easiest maybe, certainly not only.

Re: Meta

#110

Post by hsnewman »

tinyhouse wrote: post #102
hsnewman wrote: post #93

This is a very bad sign for facebook. They are betting on everyone walking around with 3D goggles talking in Zoom like meetings. I personally would rather go outside and see reality than virtually doing it. Only time will tell, but I'm betting on reality.

I think it's a bit naive to think it's either that or nothing. As long as they can develop new high quality VR experiences with high adoption, they would succeed. I don't think they even know what they will end up with in 5-10 years. It's a big and expensive experiment with non insignificant chance of success in my opinion.

They have changed their company name and the focus. It's a very big gamble. I for one won't be investing in vaporware.
Post reply on HN