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

Metabook

metabook.fyi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: Metabook

#91

Post by MikusR »

dafoex wrote: post #89
MikusR wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oculus was making a dumb tethered headset. Go and Quest was after Facebook.

Go was based entirely on Google's Daydream efforts. Hell, the Quest 2 still throws very Android ANR errors when a game crashes. Oculus's innovation into cordless and standalone is copied at best and outright plagiarism at worst. On top of this, the hardware itself it heavy on the head because they try to put it all in the visette. Sure, it might be aesthetically pleasing to just have one pair of goggles, but as a use…

Go had absolutely nothing to do with Daydream. It was based on their collaboration with Samsung.

Re: Metabook

#92

Post by bserge »

girvo wrote: post #56
josephwegner wrote: post #45

Funny story about my Metaverse experience... I assume this will be an unusual opinion, but I'm actually very excited about Metaverse. I probably would not have chosen Facebook as the stewards of the first big VR-world, but I've been waiting a long time for some big co to make an investment in this direction. I think a (little m) metaverse is the obvious evolution for VR and could become ubiquitous. I left Facebook ab…

I wonder how that would play with strong consumer protection laws. Not being able to use the device you paid for immediately is beyond the pale IMO.

You pay for the service, the device is "free".

Re: Metabook

#93

Post by fho »

josephwegner wrote: post #87
dafoex wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that Facebook are not the stewards of the first big VR world, Linden Labs are. Second Life has been a thing for a long time and, while not exactly the decentralised dream of an open metaverse we would want, its a hell of a lot more open and unregulated than whatever Zuckaberg's boffins could cook up in a month for the keynote scripted demo. Now, I could sing the praises of Second Life (and parallel effo…

Full agree here. Even before VR, Second Life is/was the biggest example of a metaverse. But, that's not a high bar - I don't know a single person that is active in Second Life. The small group of people I know that have even heard of Second Life at best gave it a try for a couple weeks. Second Life just never got momentum. The thing Facebook brings, regardless of what you think of their technical prowess, is a networ…

I was on Second Life for a while around 2005(-ish) and back then it was a very colorful world striving with potential ... no idea what went wrong there, but back then it felt like "everything" is possible on there. From people who "worked" there for Linden Dollars, over not that bad arcade flight sims, relaxing Japanese Gardens to disturbing fetish outlets ...

Re: Metabook

#94

Post by iasondemiros »

josephwegner wrote: post #87
dafoex wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that Facebook are not the stewards of the first big VR world, Linden Labs are. Second Life has been a thing for a long time and, while not exactly the decentralised dream of an open metaverse we would want, its a hell of a lot more open and unregulated than whatever Zuckaberg's boffins could cook up in a month for the keynote scripted demo. Now, I could sing the praises of Second Life (and parallel effo…

Full agree here. Even before VR, Second Life is/was the biggest example of a metaverse. But, that's not a high bar - I don't know a single person that is active in Second Life. The small group of people I know that have even heard of Second Life at best gave it a try for a couple weeks. Second Life just never got momentum. The thing Facebook brings, regardless of what you think of their technical prowess, is a networ…

I have read this a few years ago and found it very interesting and very touching: https://www.wired.com/2017/02/first-they-got-sick-then-they-...

Re: Metabook

#95

Post by pron »

zdyn5 wrote: post #84
pron wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not building a metaverse any more than anyone who's building VR apps or developing 3D games. It's possible that Zuckerberg wishes they were, and is trying to make himself believe that they are, but a company that is yet to master text communication has no idea how to build a metaverse. What they're doing is working on some VR meeting/chat apps.

Except they’re building the most popular consumer VR headsets by far? (Without going into any of the software/platform stuff that’s being developed). Also see ASIC part of comment for AR (they've been on a hiring spree for silicon)… The hardware is probably the most serious technical bottleneck because the sensory experience is kinda janky and isn't super-compelling, so that’s where innovation has to happen first.

IBM and Commodore sold many PCs in the 80s. That doesn't mean they built the internet.

Re: Metabook

#96

Post by taylodl »

zdyn5 wrote: post #84
pron wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not building a metaverse any more than anyone who's building VR apps or developing 3D games. It's possible that Zuckerberg wishes they were, and is trying to make himself believe that they are, but a company that is yet to master text communication has no idea how to build a metaverse. What they're doing is working on some VR meeting/chat apps.

Except they’re building the most popular consumer VR headsets by far? (Without going into any of the software/platform stuff that’s being developed). Also see ASIC part of comment for AR (they've been on a hiring spree for silicon)… The hardware is probably the most serious technical bottleneck because the sensory experience is kinda janky and isn't super-compelling, so that’s where innovation has to happen first.

> "Except they're building the most popular consumer VR headsets by far?"

While that statement may be true, its significance isn't as much as one may think. Remember the Blackberry? They owned the smartphone market - back when the market was extremely tiny and was primarily comprised of business executives. What made smartphones go mainstream? The iPhone.

The same may be true for VR headsets. Is the Oculus the most popular VR headset? I'll take your word that it is. However, I only know a handful of people who have a VR headset at all, and they're all über geeks. Like the Blackberry, the market is comprised of a non-representative sample of the population. Should VR headsets go mainstream it probably won't be the Oculus doing it - otherwise it probably already would have.

Will Metaverse make VR mainstream? I doubt it. The public doesn't simply trust Facebook enough for that and the public hasn't been very receptive to VR. I don't see the metaverse going anywhere.

Re: Metabook

#97

Post by majewsky »

arketyp wrote: post #83
NoGravitas wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of viable competitors in the field of remote meeting and groupware tools, but most people aren't in a position to choose which ones to use and which ones to avoid — they're generally required to use a particular one by work or school.

Sure, and there can be conflicting preferences within a person's society of mind as well. Workplaces and schools sounds like a decent scale of granularity for free market effects though. I'm not saying network effects don't exist of course.

They promised me that, while my class may not have political influence, at least I would have consumer power on the free market. Apparently that was wrong as well.

Re: Metabook

#98

Post by nabla9 »

throwaway744678 wrote: post #28
nabla9 wrote: post #20

Of all big tech companies Fb is - the least innovative, - has the worst corporate governance, - purest advertising company, - The CEO is not good but has dominant share of votes. Facebook is relevant only because they spend their way out of trouble and buy competition. The US and EU regulators are going to remove that tactics. Good luck getting EU approval for any new Whatsapp, Instagram acquisition. There is no clea…

Is the EU allowed to have a say when a US company buys another US company?

Yes. Alternative it to exit EU markets.

If a company wants to be international, they must do what regulators in their main markets say.

Re: Metabook

#99

Post by acoard »

Smithalicious wrote: post #38

This undifferentiated torrent of anger is diluting the message. I am not naive so I also expect the zuckerverse to be a laughingstock at best and very sinister at worst, but let them actually build it first . By being so critical before it even exist you are only sending the message "we will hate it irrespective of what it actually is because we hold a grudge". Furthermore I think the "metaberg is a nefarious spy" me…

>but let them actually build it first. By being so critical before it even exist you are only sending the message "we will hate it irrespective of what it actually is because we hold a grudge".

Facebook has already put out positive messaging around what they're building. Is your point that positive messaging, promises, etc. are acceptable to be made but not criticism? That sounds like it'd unfairly skew the conversation to me.

If Facebook had to similarly "stay quiet" until they launched, then sure that's fair. But if your point is that Zuccerberg should be able to talk about how the Metaverse will redefine our connections and usher in a new digital life without criticism, then I strongly disagree.

Re: Metabook

#100

Post by [deleted] »

taylodl wrote: post #96
zdyn5 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they’re building the most popular consumer VR headsets by far? (Without going into any of the software/platform stuff that’s being developed). Also see ASIC part of comment for AR (they've been on a hiring spree for silicon)… The hardware is probably the most serious technical bottleneck because the sensory experience is kinda janky and isn't super-compelling, so that’s where innovation has to happen first.

> "Except they're building the most popular consumer VR headsets by far?" While that statement may be true, its significance isn't as much as one may think. Remember the Blackberry? They owned the smartphone market - back when the market was extremely tiny and was primarily comprised of business executives. What made smartphones go mainstream? The iPhone. The same may be true for VR headsets. Is the Oculus the most p…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN