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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#941

Post by giantrobot »

charcircuit wrote: post #888
dropnerd wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ > So while it’s nice that I’m able to host my own email, that’s also the reason why my email isn’t end-to-end encrypted, and probably never will be. By contrast, WhatsApp was able to introduce end-to-end encryption to over a billion users with a single software update. So long as federation means stasis while centralization means movement, federated protocols are going…

If Google required end to end encryption else people's messages go to spam, email administrators would go and update their systems.

That's not how E2E encryption works. It's not just e-mail administrators updating their systems. Every client would need to support whatever E2E encryption scheme chosen. That's hundreds of individual client applications (potentially thousands counting various versions) that would need to be updated.

Contrast with WhatsApp where they control the entire stack from client to network to server. They can push a single set of updates and everyone has the new hotness.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#942

Post by theelous3 »

daviding wrote: post #36

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. 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? Federate it a bit more than they are comfortable with, to at least give it a chance. I could see this flubbing out hard otherwise. I'm personally…

> not sure

I am absolutely certain that nobody should own it.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#943

Post by c7DJTLrn »

Facebook, Meta, whatever it's called, I won't touch it with a ten foot pole. I'm a major VR enthusiast and a developer but I dumped my Rift as Facebook's tentacles took hold of Oculus.

I can't say I want them to fail because VR is exciting, but I do hope other companies can catch up and do R&D of their own.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#944

Post by y4mi »

sytelus wrote: post #919
y4mi wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got one. My honest opinion is that it's potential is immense, but I wouldn't suggest anyone to get one atm. Professional headsets will likely become more widespread over the coming years and I fully expect that most desk jobs will replace their displays with a headset... But that's still at least 10 yrs off, likely longer. A prerequisite would be that it's not as stuffy/heavy to wear, but that's already happening a…

Do you have headaches wearing it? How long can you go on wearing it?

That's hard to answer, because i can only say it depends to both questions.

let me repeat what i said earlier: i don't think that the current generation of consumer headsets is ready for prime time, all of the reasons are however solvable. that's why i used the cop-out of "at least 10 years off".

theoretically i can use it indefinitely without getting a headache. It however always feels like a slap in the face if even the smallest hiccup or framedrop happens. Another thing thats hard to stomach is movement done by controller. Its (for me) doable while sitting down, but if i stand up while moving with the controller... lets just say i usually stop within 5 minutes if i'm forced to do that.

the low pixel density on consumer headsets make it hard to consider them for anything but casual gaming usage, even though I think that VR-Headset gaming will always be a pipe-dream. It would be a different story if fantasy-style VR Capsule ever become a thing, letting the player also have touch etc, but the First Person View that current games try use is in my experience just too lacking with a purely visual headset, especially with the poor input quality like we have today.

The potential I see in VR Headsets is really in productivity while sitting in front of a desk using a regular mouse and keyboard. 8k displays would be a minimum for that and once you target that market new designs become viable again, as few people would want to wear such a headset directly on their face. Letting in your surroundings will be less of an issue if it's not aiming for complete isolation/immersion and onboard graphics will likely be less of an issue if the device doesn't have to render a complex video game scene.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#945

Post by giantrobot »

tlrobinson wrote: post #221
daviding wrote: post #36

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. 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? Federate it a bit more than they are comfortable with, to at least give it a chance. I could see this flubbing out hard otherwise. I'm personally…

> I'm not sure I want Facebook to own it. I know I don't. It's a dystopian nightmare for an advertising company to be building "the metaverse". I hope all the other players in this space band together and form an open, federated metaverse. It's one use-case I can kind of see benefiting from blockchain protocols: enforcing digital scarcity in a federated metaverse, by recording transfers of avatars and assets between…

> enforcing digital scarcity in a federated metaverse

Why in the hell would I want to enforce digital scarcity in a metaverse? Do we really need to make sure people in the metaverse are poor just like in the real world? If someone is going to shell out money for VR kit (and Internet access, etc) why should they have to pay more money for their avatar to have a particular set of clothes or accessory?

One of the great things about digital worlds/goods is they exist in microscopic (nanoscopic now) electrical circuits. They use practically no resources and can be duplicated for next to nothing. They also take up very little physical space to store. They're free from or at least resistant to most natural phenomena that create scarcity.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#946

Post by Mindwipe »

The rebrand doesn't really matter.

What was interesting was the idea of a Meta account and that splitting out the various Facebook properties because enforcing one set of terms across all of them has become impossible. That's quite the about turn and has a lot of implications.

Unfortunately, it was also an almost detail free announcement, and felt like the company had only come to this conclusion a few days ago.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#947

Post by ehnto »

It's wild seeing the CEO of a company on the forefront of technology end up pitching a customizable 3D world for VR. It took me way back to when I was a teen playing with "3D desktop" apps for Windows. It also feels weird because I feel like he's messing around in what has so far been a hobbyist arena, where there is zero money to be made and people do it just for fun. VR play spaces get released all the time by nobodies for free. It was like watching Elon Musk try and pitch the idea of a model plane, like yeah Elon we have those already, don't you make spaceships?

Anyway, I am just being snarky. I get that this idea is much bigger than the Horizon Home demo. I guess I shouldn't be dismissive, since objectively, they also made one of the biggest most impactful companies in the world out of a PHP blog site.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#948

Post by tim333 »

thebean11 wrote: post #262
gitfan86 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least at that place everyone is in on the scam. Facebook execs have to smile and say good idea to Mark, when all they want to do is tell him that is stupid

Sounds like a pretty naive take, given how successful the company has been under Mark..

Yeah apparently a lot of staff quit Facebook after he turned down a $1bn offer from Yahoo. They've done ok since then.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#949

Post by dbbk »

silisili wrote: post #854
yurishimo wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did 3D TVs ever get to sub $1k? I think remember my dad bought one almost a decade ago and I’m sure he paid way more than that for a Sony 3D tv. I don’t know that we can outright dismiss anything based on 3D TVs not taking off. I’m certainly no fan of Facebook attempting to own this space, but to outright dismiss the whole concept because of the poor sales for 3D TVs seems naïve IMO.

Price has never been a limiting factor in TVs. People will throw down thousands each year for the big new 8k. Or projectors. 3D tvs just weren't popular because people didn't like them. It was the first 'major' TV advancement I ever watched fall on its face, and get swept under the rug like it never existed. I'm not sure the general public at large will like VR, either. It's disorienting. And if strip mall Lasik wasn…

The reasons 3D TVs failed were the same reasons VR will fail. It's not a question of price, in my opinion, it's a question of friction. People do not want to put things on their head, which requires their full attention and doesn't allow them to look away.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#950

Post by raindropm »

So it begins...the first few minutes of any dystopian movie. Glorious future of humanity introduce by "visionary" billionaire.

We knows what this will lead to....

Also, goodbye to all the little fragment of free "me" time people still have(if they still have any left) Without alone time to reflect on self, how can one grow, how can one think about something deeply?

The future is grim, unlike what Mark and his investors said while hoarding even more fortune.

Post reply on HN