[Patrol8394]

I am super bearish on Meta:

- why would anyone trust Meta/FB on anything they say or trust them with your data

- FB became popular because it was easy to use, it was just about uploading and commenting on photos. I don't see any of my family members buying a VR device and connect in metaverse ... there is no way ..

- I don't think people will ever use VR devices for the sole purpose of having meeting, video works just fine

The metaverse does not make sense, what it makes sense is AR, and Apple will be the one dominating the space.

[impulser_]

- why would anyone trust Meta/FB on anything they say or trust them with your data

Because people don't care about what is done with their data, because it doesn't affect them. This is why FB is still the most used social media site in the world despite all the negativity. People just want a good product and that's what FB gives. That why Instagram and WhatsApp are also extremely popular despite being owned by FB. People just don't give a fuck. Google is still by far the most popular search engine despite many people trying to create search engine that don't track you. All of them failed to take any market share from Google because Google gives people a good product compared to the rest and that's all what people care about.

People just want a good product, they don't care how you do it.

[Patrol8394]

People don’t care because they don’t understand all the implications of them being tracked. And that’s why I think it’s important that Apple is looking out for the average joe making sure their privacy is protected. Regulation is catching up, slowly but it’s finally taking a stand against companies tracking users and selling their data.

In 10 years from now people will be more privacy aware. See how much impact has had the “ask app not to track”. Things will only get worse for companies like FB.

Unless they find a better way to monetize their users, things will only get worse for companies like FB/Meta.

No metaverse will save them.

[corrral]

Concur. AR's gonna be the next smartphone, as soon as someone launches successful AR glasses. I'm convinced that several major tech companies are seeing enough progress in their R&D departments (or in others'...) that they believe it's not far off. Dunno why else they'd all keep spending so much on AR features & tech when it's obviously a dead-end outside niche applications, so long as you have to hold a device up to use it. All I can figure is they consider it so beneficial to be ready to go when the hardware finally is, and are so sure that day will come in the not-to-distant-future, that they're willing to burn a lot of cash on it now to make sure they're not left behind.

VR's not gonna be mainstream until after AR is. When decent and non-hideous AR glasses can double as VR devices , that is when it might take off, as a secondary use for those. The current bulky power-sucking ones that look dorky, block your sight, and require a whole lot of open space if you want to use them for much—those are never gonna be mainstream.

[dntrkv]

> why would anyone trust Meta/FB on anything they say or trust them with your data

You should probably ask the ~4B people that use their services.

[Patrol8394]

sure, if FB was such an amazing brand trusted by the billions why would the CEO ditch it and go for a full company re-brand?

Clearly the FB brand is damaged beyond any hope, and this whole metaverse is just a desperate attempt to stay relevant for the next decade. But it is a very long shot.

[dieselgate]

I agree with you.

Had an extensive conversation with my SO this past weekend about the use of VR tech in education. This was spurred by meeting an individual who was promoting VR for k-12 (I’m in USA) education and that “in 5-10 years kids will all go to school virtually with VR”.

Idk the whole thought of VR as a replacement for the “education system” gives me chills. I acknowledge the use of VR tech can be correctly implemented as a “tool” but IMO not a sole replacement for “real world” things.

VR to me just seems like tech searching for a use case rather than actually solving a problem - I personally argue this to be similar to crypto currencies.

[Patrol8394]

> I personally argue this to be similar to crypto currencies.

Yes, tech in desperate need of a purpose. Today there is none.

[sahila]

10 years ago, did you see all your family members keeping a computer with a constant internet connection in their pocket? I think our predictive abilities of the future are often lacking.

[spywaregorilla]

Always amused at people citing our inability to predict the future as evidence that their view of the future is inevitable.

[Patrol8394]

No, but wearing a VR set or glasses with cameras and what not is too invasive. And for what? Meeting in the metaverse? Video works great, I don't need an "immersive" experience.

Also, most of my family members have a pretty basic usage of smart phones.

But hey, I know nothing, this is just my opinion. Who knows, people are unpredictable.

[closedloop129]

There was no need for instant messaging and yet people don't use mail exclusively.

VR will work for the next generation when children grow up on VR playgrounds because parents can pretend that they don't watch tv all day.

You don't need a phone anymore. An LTE watch and a VR headset are enough for your online activities because the majority of time is spent in VR. If you have to decide between a cheap phone and a cheap VR set or a good VR set because you already have the watch, you will choose the VR set. You won't chose the expensive phone alone, because you need a VR set to interact with your friends.

Once the market accepts VR, regular flats become too expensive and everybody will live in small, windowless apartment that are only bearable when you spent all your time in VR. And since you spent all your time in VR, it's perfectly acceptable to rent a small, windowless apartment.

[spywaregorilla]

The problem is that VR sucks and there's no way around that with the current trajectory of tech.

Take this cringey "demo" from meta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAL2JZxpoGY

It's not possible. It's just not possible with the tech we have or will have any time soon. Start with 35 seconds in. Person on the right is floating legs out. This is impossible. It's possible to render that, but it's impossible to feel like you're floating in that position. We can ignore the presumed motion sickness. The video heavily implies that is her reality. But it's not. We cannot achieve the kind of presence you see in this or other popular things like ready player one. What is she really doing in the real world. Sitting down? Standing up?

Mark says "Whoa, we're floating in space", which is, for the record, so incredibly unimpressive for a digital world but whatever. He is not floating. He will not feel like he's floating. He will need either shitty physics or stupid controllers to move around. Which is fine for a game, but it's not going to set up the scene they're showing here.

They're also nimbly dealing cards with their hands. Good luck building that network replicated physics engine and hand inputs.

Black girl does a backflip. Sure, we can do backflips in games. But she also clearly has a lot of fun doing it. This person really feels like they're doing a backflip. Impossible.

And lastly, looking at abstract shitty visuals is not that interesting!

People can't spend the majority of their time in VR if they're not at home. Everyone can always look at their phone they aren't immediately preoccupied.

[dieselgate]

I agree with you and your argument.

My one counter point is from playing Ocarina of Time on my N64: when Link jumps off a high object, my body and brain also experience the sensation of “falling” or the “sensation of expecting the full force of gravity in air”. It’s weird to describe in words but maybe it translates. Im curious to what objects/entities our minds can ascribe a “physical self” to, particularly in VR space.

Im aware of fields of study that encapsulate “phantom limb” type stuff and have experienced the sensation second hand (no pun intended my mom was an amputee). But am very curious how our brains process VR - yet I’ve never worn a headset and have very little desire to do so..

[spywaregorilla]

Jumping off things in VR is very unpleasant. You expect to feel things physically but do not. It's one of the more nauseating things to try and do. The worst part is the landing of course. You have an intuitive understanding of how landing works in real life. But video game characters tend to just stop on straight legs, especially in VR.

The landing animations you might see in some games don't work in VR. It's very awkward.

[closedloop129]

Cartoons don't look real and yet they are a useful medium. VR doesn't have to be real. VR just has to be better than regular phones.

>People can't spend the majority of their time in VR if they're not at home.

Why would people leave home? With VR, there is no need for transport or additional real estate. The market will make sure that the average person won't be able to afford leaving their home.

[spywaregorilla]

> Why would people leave home? With VR, there is no need for transport or additional real estate. The market will make sure that the average person won't be able to afford leaving their home.

Poor people tend to handle last mile in person service jobs. That's not going anywhere.

> Cartoons don't look real and yet they are a useful medium. VR doesn't have to be real. VR just has to be better than regular phones.

Meta is selling it as something that feels real. They're not selling it as better phones. And you're claiming its going to comprise 100% of people's lives such that they never go outside anymore. Nonsense.

[Patrol8394]

I already limit screen time for my kids at max 1h a day. You can image how can I feel as parent, seeing my kids spending hours in the freaking metaverse with screens and headphones pretty much embedded in their face. Not gonna happen.

[closedloop129]

Good for you and your children. When it comes to VR set market penetration, do you think your family represents the majority or are you an outlier?

[jonny_eh]

When I saw the first presentation for the iPhone I absolutely saw it as the future. And that was 15 years ago.

[soxla]

Ten years ago I remember being in Best Buy and looking at this stupid 3D TV that was so obviously going to fail because it was a bad idea.

I was also at a party a few months ago that the topic of the metaverse came up and someone was talking about how it was the next big thing but had never used an Oculus. Then the host mentioned how they have an Oculus if anyone wanted to try it. You know how many people tried it that day even though most had never tried VR? ZERO. No one wanted to bother with this headset. Even the guy who was going on and on about how it was the future wasn't interested in actually trying the very product he was talking about.

It is only interesting in conversation as the next big thing in the abstract.

[dieselgate]

Interesting point - I commented above on something and mentioned my nonexistent desire to try a headset. Do you think the host/headset owner didn’t want to try it because it’s a hassle or something? It seems like the biggest drawback of VR is that in wearing one you’re removed from your physical environment (unlike a computer, phone, or physical book).

Edit: yeah you’ve described it quite well in saying it’s only interesting to talk about

[jonathankoren]

The reason to be bearish isn't because of privacy, it's because their existing social networks are declining, and Zuck has hitched his cart to a niche gaming setup.