[FullStackAda]

And yet you're reading HN?

It's not an anti-capitalism stance to call Metaverse idea for what it is - trying to sell an elephant. Capitalism is not about going all in on the craziest ideas ever.

What is their bet anyway? What users' need are they trying to address or create?

Is this a new and better video game platform? Even if they are successful, VG are still very niche, especially compared to their social network user base.

Is this a new way to consume content? Sounds a bit fussy to me to have an extra device or two just so you cannot turn away when they run ads. People still are not that eager to put on 3D glasses to watch a movie. Are they betting that in the nearest future the reality is going to suck so bad that people would want to escape it? That's just bleak. What else? Realistic porn? Virtual learning? That's peanuts.

Is this going to be augmented reality instead? Some kind of wearable device? We already played with google glass, did not catch on. Plus regulation in many countries already caught up, so you cannot just wear video recording device whenever for example.

Who are the end users? Who has hours of time to consume uninterruptedly whatever content they can provide in their Metaverse? Certainly not the people who has money to spend.

In the end it's an adversarial design to capture all users' attention for prolonged periods of time, the pay off for the user has to be astronomical.

[rsynnott]

> What users' need are they trying to address or create?

They're essentially trying to _create_ a new need in the minds of consumers, I think.

The trouble for them is, this rarely works. This is quite different to, say, the iPhone; when the iPhone showed up, the market was already inclined to think "it would be nice if there was a good phone that could do more stuff than my Nokia"; it wasn't specifically demanding an iPhone, but an iPhone was a good solution for what it was demanding. It's not clear that anyone is demanding a 'metaverse'.

[deltree7]

I'm reading HN because of the top 5%ile original thought leaders and ideas that I still get out from them.

The FB discussion isn't about anti-capitalism. It is the general theme of HN.

Like most HNers you are lacking imagination in what VR will do. Just like everyone who poo-poo'ed what is possible from Computers, Internet, Mobile Phones.

Yeah before iPhones, we already played with Palm Pilots and Microsoft CE hand held devices.

End users are all of humanity (minus some stubborn Luddites. But you never invest / build strategy around luddites)

If VR helps you master skills better, help firms to be more productive, that in itself is a good enough use case for everyone to use VR

The fact that VR systems can provide experiences closer to reality means the applications are boundless.

[giantrobot]

> Like most HNers you are lacking imagination in what VR will do. Just like everyone who poo-poo'ed what is possible from Computers, Internet, Mobile Phones.

You seem to make a lot of these sweeping statements. They're full of stupid assumptions and generalities. It's a boring shtick and I'm not really seeing you back it up with your dizzying intellect.

Besides being casually insulting to a huge group of people you don't know, it's also a profoundly stupid assertion.

There's no subset of people on HN that at any point poo-pooed computers, the Internet, or mobile phones. A significant population here have been involved in building those things. You're trying to assert that because someone isn't fawning over wide eyed promises of some technology they're some sort of backwards Luddite.

History is littered with technologies that did not revolutionize the world. There's little guarantee VR isn't going to end up in that heap. It's had a lot of promise for decades. It's got fundamental technological, ergonomic, and physiological problems to overcome before it's going to be attractive to anyone but enthusiasts. Even then there's no guarantee that it will take off in a significant way. Even if VR takes off there's no guarantee and little indication that Facebook's vision of VR will take off.

[deltree7]

I've observed users of Usenet, Slashdot, HN -- a self selected group of smart people.

I was there when engineers of the 80s/90s poo, poo'ed commercial success of the internet.

I was there when engineers of the 90s poo, poo'ed iPhones (it's just a drive with a phone jack that can make calls)

I was there when engineers of the 00s poo, poo'ed Twitter, Instagram

Yes, I have sufficient data to safely conclude that smart people close their mind pretty early in their life (A curse of intelligence). There is in fact plenty of research around this. That's why you end with Grammar Nazi's, Language Nazi's, Social Media Nazis.

Very few escape the curse of intelligence (why would they? They pretty much get a cushy job and can lead a comfortable life with their blinders on).

[giantrobot]

> I was there when engineers of the 80s/90s poo, poo'ed commercial success of the internet.

> I was there when engineers of the 90s poo, poo'ed iPhones (it's just a drive with a phone jack that can make calls)

>I was there when engineers of the 00s poo, poo'ed Twitter, Instagram

A good portion of HN was also part of all those conversations, I know I was. Suggesting the zeitgeist of any of those fora was poopooing new technologies is ridiculous. The fact those fora were enabled by those technologies should tell you that your position is absurd.

You've created a strawman out of a fantasy cohort of technology enthusiasts ignorantly poopooing technologies. Because you can easily beat up your strawman you seem to have convinced yourself of your own superiority.

Maybe you should take your passive voice casual insults to some other forum. Go wow them with your Brobdingnagian intellect. Your valuable insights will be sorely missed but you're wasting your time here.

[deltree7]

No, I'll stay here. I've always made the best investment when I bet against usenet, slashdot and HN 'popular' opinions.

One day HN will be irrelevant, as the true value creators will move on to something else. As a superior prognosticator, I'll know when and I'll leave ship.

[UncleMeat]

I'm not on board with VR, but I think that the sales pitch is very clear and you are missing it.

It is Roblox. It is a collaborative building environment where the content that people create and share for one another is the interactive world rather than text, photos, or videos, done through VR rather than traditional computing.

[FullStackAda]

I guess I am missing it.

This is the first time I am hearing about Roblox, looks video games adjacent to me. Meta would not be able to convert their billions of users to a similar platform.

They have to convince users to give up the time they spend now elsewhere on this experience. I suppose it has to be insanely addictive and rewarding, and also it has to have no barriers of entry.

I am just not seeing it in the Metaverse. I mean people gave up the horizontal video format in order to easier consume media, and Meta is trying to convince everybody that people would wear or implant (?!) a devices to have better fidelity video experience? The entertainment value is just not in the resolution and collaborative content creation is already possible without Metaverse and is niche.

At this point I consider the Metaverse idea just smoke and mirrors to convince investors that they have the next best thing with 30% year to year revenue growth. I don't think Meta would go anywhere soon, they're just hitting the ceiling of easy money they were making and now it's getting harder to have such margins.