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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#991

Post by oarabbus_ »

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…

>Given their investment and research, I wonder if they should open it all up

Did you bother to watch the Keynote? That's what they said they are doing.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#992

Post by gubatron »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #991
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…

>Given their investment and research, I wonder if they should open it all up Did you bother to watch the Keynote? That's what they said they are doing.

nobody watched it.

He even mentioned blockchain and NFTs and how it sucks to buy digital items and having them locked into a single platform.

Zuckerberg most likely is suffering an existential crisis, he's said before he doesn't know if he'll ever top what he achieved with a project like FB. He knows he's not very liked and he's looking for historic legacy.

However, the way the metaverse is developed cannot come only from them, there needs to be a consortium of institutions to debate on open apis, it has worked out so far for the web with W3C.

I wonder if there are already any efforts for standard open Metaverse protocols.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#993

Post by gubatron »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #498
Tepix wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is investing 10 billion dollars into the metaverse this year alone and will increase this amount in the future. They can probably make the Metaverse an open standard like the web and still end up with one of the most popular hubs. If people who value their privacy can setup their own hubs, i'm pretty much OK with Facebook speeding up the advancement of AR/VR technology for the next several years using their…

>They can probably make the Metaverse an open standard like the web Thanks I needed the laugh.

you need to watch the keynote. Zuckerberg wants to leave behind a better legacy.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#994

Post by n1ghtmare_ »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #455
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…

If what they're doing now is any indication, I don't think they'll succeed with it anyway. They've got almost zero credibility with anyone under 30. Their existing prototypes are outrageously embarrassing. I'm the kind of person that has a hard time watching The Office because I feel second-hand embarrassment, and I can barely make it a minute in to any of their VR demos. They're so uncanny, awkward, and embarrassing…

I feel exactly the same way about Memojis, yet people use them and apparently don’t find them as cringy as I do.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#995

Post by seanw444 »

Zucc tries to make this technology a product. I don't think the successful iteration of a "Metaverse" will be any one company's product, but rather a community-standardized protocol.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#996

Post by bduerst »

Darmody wrote: post #979
bduerst wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MMORPGs are not really persistent worlds though. They're an environment crafted to scratch a dopamine itch by providing instant gratification for work, with a social layer attached on top. I write this as someone who used to play MUDs back before MMORPGs even became a thing. Unless Facebook is planning on releasing their own WoW branded as the metaverse, I don't see how they're the same.

They will create some sort of gamification. That's something engaging if it's well done and then, on top of it, their monetization.

Facebook does this already, and they're not an MMORPG.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#997

Post by Axsuul »

cblconfederate wrote: post #899
oedmarap wrote: post #310

I imagine when the branding is complete we'll get the following gem: Joking aside, in my view the branding (and branding ability) of the name change to Meta is impressive given their long term vision. However, I do get the feeling that Meta will aim to eventually become a household proprietary name and thereby water-down what can be considered one of the broadest, most abstract terms we're all familiar with.

there are already multiple companies named meta

and basketball players

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#998

Post by rdrey »

dropnerd wrote: post #736
rdrey wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you flesh out the "federation doesn't scale" argument a bit?

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…

That was interesting, great read, thanks. Following the article's argument the best thing Meta can do is build "metaverse hosting" but open-source the server/client code.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#999

Post by jimkleiber »

deelowe wrote: post #720
jimkleiber wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know very little about VR so maybe this will be very off. My guess is they want to address that isolation aspect by making it feel better to interact with others, bringing more people together in the VR space. But this is me interpreting your "the isolation it brings with it" as people just exploring VR by themselves. Did you mean something else?

I mean the isolation of basically wearing a helmet for hours. It's exhausting to have your vision and hearing constrained to the digital world in this way for long periods of time. To me, VR is like a roller coaster. It's super fun but only in small doses.

Ah, thank you for clarifying that. While I haven't used VR much, that actually is one of the things I worry about the most: being so disconnected from my physical environment. But I'm also a person who doesn't like walking down the street with earbuds in, preferring to hear what's going on. I wonder how much people will vary in their willingness to dive into VR (and disconnect from their physical surroundings).
Post reply on HN