Live data from Hacker News

Why Facebook is spending billions on the metaverse

johncoogan.com

111–120 of 133 posts

Re: Why Facebook is spending billions on the metaverse

#111

Nearly every single modern technology that exists, I have been trying to get away from for years. In fact, most technologies aside from the ones that maintain our houses (which are mostly only necessary because of the bizarre way we build houses) are detrimental to the environment and to our very health. Even health care technologies can be detrimental to us. We do live longer from the advancement of science, but tec…

> Nearly every single modern technology that exists, I have been trying to get away from for years

Since you state that online it looks like you're not succeeding :)

Re: Why Facebook is spending billions on the metaverse

#112
post #7

> The metaverse will have unprecedented interoperability. > This means being able to bring a Fortnite skin into Minecraft and vice versa For the life of me, I can't understand why this is important. Nobody cares about this. I don't want to move skins around. Besides, if there's a digital marketplace, people will create their own duplicates of any 3D asset. Just look at VRChat. Zero value. > The metaverse will have a…

It also isn't actually happening! I have yet to see anybody give a technical explanation of how the "metaverse" enables this.

You can read between the lines here, and then the value proposition becomes much more clear for Facebook. For this to work, they'd basically need to provide a common engine for everything using the Metaverse. Rather than Second Life, people should be thinking Roblox as the closest existing technical implementation.

So, what's the value proposition in killing all existing 3D engines and completely replacing them? Obviously high if you can pull it off.

But this "metaverse" thing is really easy to write whitepapers and even fiction about it when you don't have to actually implement it, but gets a lot trickier in the implementation. For instance, right now, 3D engines are undergoing some pretty major changes in every release. This is not generally the time someone can swoop in and stabilize everyone on a particular engine for long periods of time, because while the "metaverse" is being written on this gen, Unreal Engine is advancing to the next level, and stuff written on that engine is going to be easier to write and look a lot better than the "meta" engine. There's actually some deep and fundamental reasons Roblox looks and plays the way it does.

There's other issues too; the "metaverse" envisions all this cross-platform avatar stuff, but are you going to play Call of Duty and its gritty "realistic" gameplay with 24 cartoony dufuses? No. Is Disney going to just happily license all of its characters to go into Call of Duty and get shot and bloodied? No. Are you going to be able to take your trademarked character everywhere with you? Exactly as well as you can stream whatever content you want from any content streamer today.

Building the technical platform is already a multi-billion dollar problem. There's a good chance it won't work well when it's done, but even if they overcome that, then they've got abundant legal barriers to overcome, in an environment where other companies are going to have every incentive to sue for their chunks of flesh.

I can also virtually guarantee that we're going to see very targeted demos, where the demos that Facebook puts out works well, because they were written in conjunction with the engine team, so the engine has exactly the features necessary to make the demo work, and nothing else. When EA goes to port Call of Duty into the metaverse, it's going to be a nightmare bug fest that looks like garbage compared to the real release.

When you think about the tech necessary to accomplish their goals, and then consider the social and industry implications of that tech, it's hard to see how to reach their lofty goals. The metaverse simply implies a level of cooperation and voluntary power ceding and a lowest-common-denominator environment that can't hold up the fictional portrayals driving the hype.

(I think ultimately it's a category error I've seen a lot. Fiction can be good at pointing the general direction the future may be, but taking fiction as a technical blueprint never works out well that I can see.)

Re: Why Facebook is spending billions on the metaverse

#113
post #9

As I was watching their 'keynote' I couldn't help but wonder about the many companies that took a similar approach and then died. Spending a ton of money on something doesn't make it automatically successful. [1] In fact, history has shown the opposite to be true. Take Facebook itself for example, it succeeded, not because it poured Billions into building its social network. Mark built something small, for a small ma…

> Google, Apple, Airbnb, Stripe, none became the giants they are because they spent billions on a grand vision. Google set out to catalog the entire internet on day one. If that's not a grand vision that they spent billions on, what is? AirBNB set out to disrupt the entire vacation rental market. Stripe set out to disrupt the entire POS payment market. Apple is the only one who fits your narrative: they set out to ma…

> Not sure what you are smoking, but can I have some?

Why would you feel this is necessary?

(edit: I see you edited it away, but I still feel like it’s worth calling out.)

Re: Why Facebook is spending billions on the metaverse

#114
post #6

Isn't this simply Second Life writ somewhat larger?

I've seen it described as "Second Life for boomer aunts".

Well, I suppose I'm a "boomer uncle", but I can't see myself going for it. Particularly if it supports that git with his stupid haircut.

Re: Why Facebook is spending billions on the metaverse

#115

Because Facebook is now a social network used mostly by people from 40 to 70. They aren't trendy anymore, and most of the Facebook-related press headlines in the past 5 years have been about privacy or advertisement scandals. They are in desperate need for some good PR if they want to restore their brand name.

You say that it like it's a bad thing. It's relatively easy to become the latest fad among the teenagers. It's hard to become a sticky product loved by all the people who have disposable incomes. The people with disposable incomes are the 40 to 70 year olds.

Facebook being a social network mostly used by 40 to 70 somethings is a big credit to them, not a negative.

Re: Why Facebook is spending billions on the metaverse

#116

I am so turned off by the metaverse hype. The idea clearly aims at dominating our lives in order to squeeze money out of us. I despise that kind of dependency. It's just an awful idea. On the flipside, Facebook should burn some billions on this idea and finally fail at the complexity of realizing it.

The idea transcends walled gardens though. If it was a good idea, pluralistic and open variations on same would be possible.

I doubt it will break walled gardens. Why should Meta/Facebook create the only Metaverse and why should they care about interoperability (probably not feasible anyway)? My fear is bigger walled gardens (metaverses) and services / devices that you cannot use anymore without being connected to them. Fans of decentralized things should worry.

Re: Why Facebook is spending billions on the metaverse

#117

Gross. If anything, the more I have become ensconced in the internet the more I have begun to appreciate the physical world. My mental health must be wired to require actual trees, sunshine, birds, walks in the neighborhood.... Like a library, I want my internet to be there when I want it, but I don't want to live in it.

The older I get, the more I realize this. The simple things in life are what bring me happiness.

Re: Why Facebook is spending billions on the metaverse

#118
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did so with Instagram and Whatsapp and those are arguably their most successful product today.

I'm not sure what good acquisitions by FB has to do with this conversation. The point was MS wasted billions of dollars.

A decade ago, but they spent it on something that overlaps with their userbase, which was the point about hololens and comparing to FB.

Re: Why Facebook is spending billions on the metaverse

#119

Gross. If anything, the more I have become ensconced in the internet the more I have begun to appreciate the physical world. My mental health must be wired to require actual trees, sunshine, birds, walks in the neighborhood.... Like a library, I want my internet to be there when I want it, but I don't want to live in it.

Absolutely. The whole thing of "living in the internet" sounds absurd when you apply it to any other technologies. Imagine: "I want to live in the telephone." "I want to live in the electric." "I want to live in my car..." oh, wait...

To be fair, isn't "the internet" (meaning its current but also future state) qualitatively different from those other technologies? "The telephone" and "the electric" are important foundations of the internet, for example.

Re: Why Facebook is spending billions on the metaverse

#120
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you haven't seen it yet, you might appreciate this slide deck about how organizations are like slime mold. Slide 57 main image "0.60=0.95^10", text "And thanks to that non-linearity, even a small decline in individual likelihood [of success] leads to a much lower overall decline in the likelihood of success." https://komoroske.com/slime-mold/

I disagree that slime-ball force is inescapable. I think our industry has a huge "boulder" - we often work on useless software that is far too removed from real world applications, which causes us to lose our passion. When you have 50 engineers maintaining a boring piece of crap software which can be maintained by 5 engineers, you will start noticing the productivity going down. Engineers who used to be very producti…

> 50 engineers maintaining a boring piece of crap software which can be maintained by 5 engineers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

"If thats the Bradley, then what's this? [...] How did they get to that from this?"

General: "This all well and good Col. Smith. But with this gorilla in production I don't supposed there's going to be anything left in the budget for my scouts. . . . This is a speedy vehicle, why can't it be both? . . . We'll just stick a turret on top with lots of opticals. . . . We aught to get the biggest bang we can up there [in the turret]."

Other general: "Add on some firepower!"

Post reply on HN