https://meta.com is live as well. ...I can't tell if it's intentional that the page loads initially with the "facebook" brand in the uppper left and then quickly overwrites it with meta.
Doesn't even load properly for me, page is unresponsive
Facebook Renames to Meta
821–830 of 1001 posts
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#822Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 metavers…
FB is already in those markets. FB and Instagram are every bit as much fantasy land as Second Life. I agree with you that the social dynamics are different.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#823Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right. Pride comes before a fall, and Zuck thinks he is better than Cook, Musk, Bezos, by building the multiverse he will restore his place as the greatest technologist of our time
Do you not get sick of this being repeated constantly? Every year someone repeats that Facebooks doom is imminent, and every year their revenue and user base gets larger and larger When does this opinion just become pasé?
Probably never, doomsday prophecy in various forms has been extremely popular probably for as long as humans have been able to communicate
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#824The 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.
Imagine thinking FB execs are so stupid that this was the impetus for the decision:
> "One More Thing" is the announcement of a company rebrand to avoid government regulation.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#825Earlier 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…
> 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?"
The trouble I have is that the cost for using the system is the same as if you try to buy your own Facebook-free headset. The advertisers still demand all your info and demand to be able to sell to you.
I feel like we’re all hoping that there will be a VR version of the early web, free and open, and mostly just neat things to connect with or about. I worry there is increasingly no chance of that.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#826Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#827Earlier 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?"
The trouble I have is that the cost for using the system is the same as if you try to buy your own Facebook-free headset. The advertisers still demand all your info and demand to be able to sell to you. I feel like we’re all hoping that there will be a VR version of the early web, free and open, and mostly just neat things to connect with or about. I worry there is increasingly no chance of that.
Isn’t that what the state of VR has been for the past decade? I used an Oculus for the first time in 2013 and it was exactly that feeling of exploration and joy
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#828Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
[deleted]
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#829Earlier 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?"
No, that question is wrong, because that answer rounds up to 100%. Maybe a vocal minority like us HN-folk, but I don't think that by ourselves we really matter in terms of numbers.
My wife put on an Oculus Quest and threw up within 5 minutes from simulator sickness. In this case, I think the average HN-Folk is _more_ likely to be interested in VR than the average person
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#830Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the "maximize profit" meme is VERY fit in the evolutionary world of memes. Those organizations and people that adopt the meme become more powerful and choke out all those entities that don't. You can't just choose not to pursue profits at any cost if there are ANY competing entities out there that choose to do so.
I dont buy that. Lots of other factors beat out efficiency and execution. Sure, it’ll give you a statistically better shot at doing well, but you won’t die without it.
Our current ecosystem is such that you either get big enough to gobble up all real competitors, or you're consigned to irrelevance.
Why that is is where the fundamental disagreement is. One of the proposed reasons is too much regulation, the other is too little. It's (in my opinion) probably both - too much poorly applied, and not enough where it's needed.