261–270 of 619 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They will continue making billions from ads for decades even if the metaverse play goes nowhere. and no competitors outperform them, or advertising paradigm shift occurs?
hard to imagine tbh, they own three of the world's five largest communication platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook was always doomed for failure, just like every social platform that came before it. The pivot should've happened years ago with a focus on Instagram and content creation (their shot at streaming was at least in the right direction). At this point, Facebook has simply waited entirely too long, and the likelihood of any pivot working for a company of their size is basically nonexistent.
Facebook is going down? I don't think they are. They own Instagram which is generating lots of money and then they own WhatsApp which is not even monetized yet. FB might not exist in a decade but Meta isn't going anywhere.
I increasingly believe that Facebook’s pivot to Meta will end up going down as one of the biggest misses in the history of business. The metaverse is a real idea yes - but strapping a phone to your face and walking through your coffee table isn’t it. Especially not with a mediocre centralized FB owned “virtual world” where they inflict heavy taxes and content moderation. Facebook has neglected its core businesses for…
I feel compelled to say that your second sentence is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on HN. It resonates very strongly with my belief that VR/Metaverse will continue to under deliver. What people want is an escape from reality. "Just like" Ready Player One or anything from a wide choice of science fiction novels. The problem is that these systems require a fundamental disconnect from reality. Not only do w…
What are the secrets to how they made 3 billion people so happy to be users of Facebook (Meta)? Or, how the heck, 14 years ago, or 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago, could anyone have predicted the 3 billion people? Astounding. Any ideas how to understand that?
The time for an online people-directory was ripe. There can only be one such (for normal people), and Facebook made some fortuitous strategic decisions early on (minimize ads, real name policy, target university students, and more). Once Facebook achieved critical mass then they just had to avoid silly mistakes in order to succeed.
I increasingly believe that Facebook’s pivot to Meta will end up going down as one of the biggest misses in the history of business. The metaverse is a real idea yes - but strapping a phone to your face and walking through your coffee table isn’t it. Especially not with a mediocre centralized FB owned “virtual world” where they inflict heavy taxes and content moderation. Facebook has neglected its core businesses for…
Maybe that has changed, but at that time they made the other big companies look like they were way behind.
I increasingly believe that Facebook’s pivot to Meta will end up going down as one of the biggest misses in the history of business. The metaverse is a real idea yes - but strapping a phone to your face and walking through your coffee table isn’t it. Especially not with a mediocre centralized FB owned “virtual world” where they inflict heavy taxes and content moderation. Facebook has neglected its core businesses for…
If you think the name change means they're focusing on the metaverse, that's just convenient. The fact is, Facebook is a toxic brand and Meta is just a silly looking brand. Post name change, they can do acquisitions and brand them as X by Meta without associating to the toxic brand. (Plus, maybe they can get the Mennen ad team to add 'by Meta' to the end of all their ads with audio)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The first week I had the Quest I thought it was the most game changing device of my entire life. Did you own a Quest or Quest 2? Quest 2 is noticeably better. > That wore off less than a month later. A major use case for me is cardio exercise. Imo the Quest 2 is better than a Peleton for the variety of workouts. Many games are low key fitness apps. This is what keeps me coming back. I’ve lost 20 lbs so far with the…
> 1. Meta is still a toxic brand. Slightly less toxic than FB, but it still prevents a lot of early adopters from even trying it If Facebook wasn't behind it I would probably own a Quest 2 (even though I'll buy Apple's VR headset at release) but as-is I won't touch that with a 10' pole.
I am always deeply saddened by the fact that so much of our digital social infrastructure was built by a company with little humanity. How many interactions have been enhanced, as opposed to monetized, by Facebook technology? My understanding is Sheryl was a supporter of this numbers based approach to the business, and maybe this will be a change for the better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What people want is an escape from reality. I still don't understand what's the difference between MMOs and Metaverse. Like it's on mobile? That's all? Peak WoW _was_ a social network something Zuck is dreaming about (and that's while you also have to pay a monthly sub). I've read around and some people say that the difference people can _create content_ in Metaverse but... sandbox MMOs are also a thing for a long t…
The difference is that you play with your whole body, not just your fingers. You can duck for cover, or run, or kick and punch someone, or construct an item with your hands. It’s immersive and it could take gaming to a whole other level. This is what AR and games are all about. Not necessarily what Meta wants to build.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I 100% believe in VR/XR/AR just not one driven by Meta. Edit: To be clear, IMO most disruptive technologies are not driven by established mega-corporations.
Gmail? iPhone? Facebook Mobile? (And earlier, Bell/IBM/Oracle)
Facebook Mobile is... I'd have to think hard about what it actually is, so I'm not sure that qualifies as disruptive.
Now the iPhone was disruptive. But although you'd fairly classify Apple today as an "established mega-corporation", it's a lot harder to do so when the iPhone came out. To the extent that Apple can use its market share to wield a powerful bludgeon against those who dare cross it--which is what I associate the phrase with--that market share doesn't exist until the phenomenal success of the iPhone. It certainly couldn't do that on the basis of its OS or computers (indeed, you can argue that it still can't do that today). The iPod, or more accurately iTunes, may have given it that power against the music industry, but that's the closest to any sort of tyrannical power it might have held at the time.