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

Facebook Renames to Meta

about.facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#411

Post by Dumblydorr »

Can anyone here convince me AR/VR isn't a fad? If FB is headed towards a metaverse where our insane uncles can embed themselves further in a false reality, how is it that the rest of us sane individuals want to join their conspiratorial matrix?

Even taking out the crazy uncles, VR makes me insanely nauseous. What's more, it's very expensive to get solid VR that doesn't, nevermind it still looks terrible even if you have a high powered rig.

I could see solid VR occurring in the distant future, but it has so many ethical and technological downsides currently. I view it mainly as a fad to inflate stock prices, a fun toy for tech enthusiasts, but not a serious game changer.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#412

Post by spideymans »

eli wrote: post #274
joshenberg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I wonder. Early VR adopters/technologists hate what happened to Oculus and there aren't a lot of newcomers to that market. I don't think cheaper headsets are going to fix that in the near future so I don't know whom they're targeting. Seems risky to lean into something where the experts already think you screwed up.

Oculus sold 2 of every 3 VR headsets last quarter. If there's a lesson here, it's that you can't extrapolate mass market appeal from what early adopters think.

VR and AR is still in its early adoption phase. It's too early to make any predictions about which VR/AR platforms or products will ultimately have mass market appeal. As an analogy, none of the biggest smartphone manufactures in 2004 really ended up mattering in the long run.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#413

Post by throwawaycuriou »

uuddlrlr wrote: post #344
carbonguy wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there is going to be a metaverse, I'm not sure I want Facebook to own it. It's like a bad sci-fi pulp story. I'm confident I don't want them to own it - or for it to be owned by a single party of any kind, for that matter. > Given their investment and research, I wonder if they should open it all up (even if contradictory to short-term gains in ad revenue) so it has a chance to grow? I mean, that would be nice f…

>I don't think Facebook is constitutionally able to give up ad revenue gains This "fiduciary duty" meme really needs to die. Seriously the idea of fiduciary duty [to maximixe profit] is dystopian, corporations don't fuck us over because they have to they do it because they can. Edit: clarify

I also blinked at that. But then took it to mean constitutionally in a pure sense - whether they can keep a strength of belief enough to follow through. Unrelated to 'The Constitution' from a US citizen's point of view. Although now I'm pondering just how misplaced and powerful our reverence of that cobbled together document is.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#416

Post by powerset »

Glad to hear they're at least claiming their contribution to the metaverse will be built on open standards and protocols, I hope they follow through on that. Pretty sure nobody would want a walled meta-garden.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#417

Post by wyre »

uuddlrlr wrote: post #344
carbonguy wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there is going to be a metaverse, I'm not sure I want Facebook to own it. It's like a bad sci-fi pulp story. I'm confident I don't want them to own it - or for it to be owned by a single party of any kind, for that matter. > Given their investment and research, I wonder if they should open it all up (even if contradictory to short-term gains in ad revenue) so it has a chance to grow? I mean, that would be nice f…

>I don't think Facebook is constitutionally able to give up ad revenue gains This "fiduciary duty" meme really needs to die. Seriously the idea of fiduciary duty [to maximixe profit] is dystopian, corporations don't fuck us over because they have to they do it because they can. Edit: clarify

They have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder profits. See Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#418

Post by neom »

I keep a pretty sharp eye on the apple job postings to see what type of people they're hiring. I think they've been working on something similar since about 2014. Around then I noticed they posted for, then hire a lot of optical engineers, (I'd look to find the hire on linkedin a while after the posting was gone) but people with odd skills for apple, contact lenses mostly, lasers, and then a bunch of people who had done PhDs around putting gas/liquid between plastic that can react with projected light.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#420

Post by 3pt14159 »

Fun story, I once tried to convince a new friend of mine that his startup that I'd landed a small consulting gig with should focus on how it could make the world better, not just go after profits, because I could clearly see that what they had was just so useful and adaptable and that pharmaceutical companies would easily want to scoop them up.

Back then they were in the midst of rebranding, but they ultimately changed their domain to meta.com and were acquired by the Chan Zuck initiative. I was happy. It seemed like one of the most pro-social uses of their software.

It's kinda funny to see Facebook rebrand to what was a fledgling startup out of Toronto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_(academic_company)

Post reply on HN