Who wants to bet Zuckerberg is the ONLY one within the company that wants this and other employees are rolling their eyes?
Facebook Renames to Meta
681–690 of 1001 posts
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#682Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the market has repeatedly shown there isn't much demand for persistent virtual worlds I don't know if you have a more narrow view of this idea or specifically mean VR/AR, but that just sounds like what massively multiplayer online (MMO) games such as Ultima Online, Everquest, and World of Warcraft are. I think Roblox is even a broader use case, though I am fairly unfamiliar with that. MMOs have been very viable fro…
> MMOs have been very viable from both a business Really? Everything that's not named World of Warcraft seems to die out, usually in less than a year. It's a genre that's been a notorious recipe for failure for most companies not named Blizzard.
I don't know what the situation is now that Blizzard is no longer really Blizzard, but back in the early years of WoW this was - in large part - because almost every other MMO that launched just plain sucked.
Blizzard was to the gaming industry what people often believe Apple is to the hardware industry. They were the only ones that invested in polished UI, coherent UX, etc. and it was so incredibly noticeable.
I'm sure a lot of this was pressure to get something out quickly to make a "WoW killer", which is what gaming media branded basically every MMO that launched after WoW.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#683I was trying to understand when the metaverse concept started coming into more "popular" discussion.
Here's an interesting thread from June 10: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27723460
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#684The video they put out is extremely cringe. The whole “metaverse” thing is cringe. It makes me believe Zuckerberg is completely surrounded by yes-men who never challenge him and only tell him what he likes to hear. He is truly detached from us normal people and our human experience.
> It makes me believe Zuckerberg is completely surrounded by yes-men I feel like the opposite. Zuck is the only one to believe in the metaverse and as a result people who worked on the communication did it badly without a lot of conviction. He is in a pretty comfortable position, one of the richest people on earth doing 20% of growth every year. And still he wants to make a big risky bet like this one. I'm not really…
Zuckerberg no longer experiences risk except for in the most abstract of ways. Not in the way that the vast majority of people think about risk.
I would also suggest lack of conviction and lack of ability to complete the job look very similar, and you are likely to end up with the latter of you are surrounded by yes-men.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#685Presumably Sharkleap was taken.
Suck always struck me as slightly disconnected from real life, but this is him floating off into fantasy land, and not just metaphorically. If you think the Metaverse is the next big thing, I’ve got an NFT of some valuable real estate in Second Life I’d like to sell you.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#686Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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
It's especially dubious in Facebook's case because Mark Zuckerberg controls the majority of voting shares. If he wanted to run the company straight into the ground I doubt anyone could stop him.
Mark Zuckerberg could not make his salary $800 billion, or donate the entire company to charity. That’s what that means, nothing about business decisions
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#687Earlier 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?"
Counterpoint: the HTC First (aka the Facebook Phone) was >$1 USD less than a month after it debuted, and still was a gigantic flop. Facebook Portal has sold ~1 million units. Oculus has sold ~8 million units or so (all numbers based on quick googling, might be wrong). So people reject Facebook hardware all the time, and they don't actually have that much in the way of hits in the HW space.
It was $1 on a two-year contract. It was also a bad phone. That really doesn’t say much
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#688Earlier 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%
I would highly doubt 100% of Facebook users would want to use virtual reality. Out of those who would tho, it would be pretty high, I doubt many Facebook users would buy HP Reverbs after that. Not worth the absurd cost tho
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#689Earlier 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…
At this point I'm confident I don't want there to be "a metaverse" at all, because under our current social and cultural systems, I am confident it will be very very bad no matter who owns it.
The internet exists under our current systems and, although there are parts of it that suck, it’s dope
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#690Earlier quoted context omitted.
> announcement of a company rebrand to avoid government regulation how does FB changing their name affect their chances at regulation?
Just guessing: now Meta is a holding company of various social media "companies" so it'll be a bit harder to make a case that one company has a monopoly on the internet social media advertising. They can even list Instagram on the market selling maybe a 5% equity.
I think the holding already existed. But it was called Facebook and now it’s called meta