I think what is sorely missing from the entire debate, is a clear definition of what a metaverse actually is. This article here seems to believe that the metaverse is nothing but "internet VR". The talk by Carmack for the most part equates the metaverse with MMVR - massively multiuser virtual reality. But according to the explanation that Raph Koster (the mind behing metaplace - the only prior attempt at ever buildin…
Instead of clearly defining what these things mean, I think it's better for clarity if we just focus on implications. That's what we care about anyway. We care that "The internet will be the metaverse" inasmuch as this statement has implications.
"VR Internet" implies, IMO, decentralisation standard protocols. Zuckerverse implies centralisation.
The WWW didn't grow because with one or two companies controlling it. It grew out of a mass of individual webmasters.