Meta is as anodyne as Altria.
Facebook Renames to Meta
501–510 of 1001 posts
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#502My god, if you get it, you get it. They are going all in on metaverse / have decided that the future of oculus is the primary long term bet, not facebook itself. And they have the money to make it so. This is incredibly scary, and probably a good investment.
Is this bet on VR making the goggles a hardware requirement? So this new world will only be available to those who can afford gaming hardware and a high speed internet connection?
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a chance. I've been wrong about a lot of things tech, probably even most things, but this isn't something I think most people want. Metaverses have always been niche. Most people don't like things attached to their head. Remember 3D TVs? But, perhaps you and they are right. For the first time in my life, I honestly feel like 'if this is the future, I want no part in it.' Please don't take this as like, suicidal o…
A common argument for why humanity has never encountered extra-terrestrial life is that any hyper advanced civilization likely moved into a virtual world. Do you believe this is unlikely and humanity is not headed in this direction?
I'd never heard that, but off the top of my head, it seems exceedingly unlikely.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t like Facebook one bit, but Zuck is almost always spot on with his bets. So yes, incredibly scary as it has a high likelihood of succeeding.
>Don’t like Facebook one bit, but Zuck is almost always spot on with his bets. So yes, incredibly scary as it has a high likelihood of succeeding. Instagram was growing like crazy, even faster than Facebook in its early days so acquisition was no-brainer. Instagram used Facebook's social graph so acquisition made even more sense. On the other hand WhatsApp had hundreds millions users at the time of acquisition and La…
What?!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7266618
Unless you're an extremely successful businessman yourself, calling those acquisitions no-brainers is just completely dishonest.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How much would it cost to just send every one of them an Oculus headset for free? That's the wrong question. The right question is "how many FB users would accept a free headset that advertisers paid for in exchange for access to your data and exclusive rights to place ads in front of you?"
We can answer this by looking at how many facebook users are okay (implicitly) with using facebook in exchange for access to their data and exclusive rights to place ads right in front of them. The answer is 100%
There's a world of difference between sharing cat/dinner/vacation photos with friends and family and living in some kind of fantasy animated cartoon world.
The social dynamics are completely different. Second Life showed that very clearly.
The three biggest things in Second Life were fantasy consumerism, fantasy entrepreneurship, and fantasy sex.
Unless FB is getting into those markets it's going to find the metaverse a tough sell.
Not least because the whole point of fantasy is that it's not really you. So that immediately conflicts with FB's only-real-identities dogma.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its people that are the problem, they are just using Facebook as a scapegoat. No matter what they do, they(FB) will get attacked by 50% of the country ... Remove GOP voices spreading crazy shit .. They are suddenly suppressing political voices(censorship). Leave the content up and suddenly Facebook is responsible for domestic terrorist attacks. Honestly Facebook has literally been begging congress to regulate them. T…
As a European, I look at FB in a global context, i.e. less U.S.-centric, and am shocked and disgusted for their "profits yes, responsibility no thanks" approach in, say, non-English speaking countries around the World.
Here in Russia our local social networks are more popular than FB but I'd say they're way more toxic than FB. Some years ago it was very easy to find child porn with a few clicks. At least there's some conversation in the US going on the harmful effects of social networks; here no one cares. People in countries where FB is the only option simply don't have anything to compare it to; they can't know it's a pretty decent social network, compared to some.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#507The rebrand was introduced as a "One More Thing" during the event keynote. A 2007 "One More Thing" was the announcement of the iPhone and the future of mobile computing. Now a 2021 "One More Thing" is the announcement of a company rebrand to avoid government regulation.
Colombo invented the "one more thing". Give credit where credit is due ;)
This brought back memories, thank you :')
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I think this is less scary than having Facebook acting as a "public square". A meta-verse has a higher bar of entry than a website - including specialized hardware - and it's less likely that governments and businesses will distribute information exclusively in some meta-verse vs. it just being another channel for content distribution.
Websites once required "specialized hardware". And if you've got today's top end VR rigs, it's sorta obvious that the world is going to go this way - it's too good, and productivity is enhanced on the level of "bicycle for the mind". Plus it'll get way cheaper in the future. Note that I'm not talking about entertainment usecases, which are also good - I'm saying metaverse is clearly the future of work, with massive r…
I don't know if I agree. Most of my job is typing text into various boxes - web-apps, text-editors, terminals. Fundamentally, long-term productivity in this task is about ergonomics. Wearing something on my head for 8+ hours is like anti-ergonomics, and the benefits are dubious. I could have a bunch of virtual displays in a meta-space, or I could just area bunch of real monitors. And the latter solution is generally simpler.
But even if using a VR rig to simulate a bunch of displays would be more efficient, that's not a "metaverse". It's just a VR display. To me a metaverse implies virtual interaction with other people - otherwise what's the point? I find I'm more effective when I have uninterrupted quiet time to work so why would I want to work in a meta-verse where I can be interrupted at any time in a more invasive way than Slack or email can manage? It's like an open-office from hell. Saying it's the future of work is extremely premature.
Edit:
On the topic of this:
> it's too good, and productivity is enhanced on the level of "bicycle for the mind"
If that's true, Facebook will never crack it. Facebook's products are the opposite of "a bicycle for the mind" - they push experiences and content on you instead of putting you in control. I have serious doubts they could develop something that requires giving the user power over their own experience - the condescending attitude of "we know what's best for you" is too ingrained.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely intentional
It is strange that it doesn't use any type of animated transition so it does look like a typical FOUC issue even though it probably isn't.
It is good design, now it looks like a mistake so people react and talk about it rather than just ignore it.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for VR, but AR definitively has a future. You already see practical use of this technology with HUD-tech (Heads up display) in cars, but beyond that you'll find great applications for it within medicine/operations, transportation (directions), marketing (product information, authenticity verification), and the list goes on and on...
Yes, AR has some potential as an industrial or otherwise specialized technology. It won't be revolutionary or change the world in any way, but it will probably improve several kinds of processes, a background tech. VR is much more likely to either become the new TV or to die an obscure death, like 3D movies.
VR becoming the new TV is highly unlikely because many people multitask while watching TV. this is very difficult to do with VR.