[mjr00]

Interesting article. People really want Meta to fail because the "metaverse" is one of the dumbest pivots of an established company of all time. Since the pivot and rename happened a year ago, the metaverse has probably bombed -- and I say probably only because nobody can define exactly what it is, still, beyond people having VR meetings with odd pseudo-Mii avatars -- and the investors convinced that Zuckerberg was having a Jobs-esque visionary moment have realized, "Wait, maybe the critics were right and this is bullshit."

But as the article points out.. maybe none of this matters. Advertising spend is still going up, the recession may or may not be turning a corner, and there's enough cash buffer to walk things back and refocus on Meta's core advertising business and products that support that.

[miketery]

The metaverse is not bombing. It’s simply not tied to one platform.

Between TikTok, Roblox, Minecraft, call of duty (and other triple A multiplayer games), we’re already there.

Meta can’t win this one. Same way that no single game publisher can dominate video games.

Even the hardware, fine meta becomes the first “Nintendo”. So what? The PlayStations and Xbox’s will come. No one will let Meta have a monopoly.

[JeremyNT]

> Between TikTok, Roblox, Minecraft, call of duty (and other triple A multiplayer games), we’re already there.

I'm going to need a definition for "metaverse" here because that doesn't sound like what I would imagine. You have listed a social media site and some video games. Both social media and video games have been with us for a long time, and if Facebook had just said "we want to work on social media and video games" then nobody would bat an eye.

Of course, that's not what they said. They now call the company "Meta" and toss the "metaverse" label around. This implies that they at least view it as something different in some substantive way.

I guess, either way, it's a failure. If it's just a trick to seem innovative by slapping a new label on old things, then that's a failure, because people now seem to expect them to do something more. If they view it as something novel that's going to "eat the world," that's also a failure (at least so far), since it clearly hasn't.

[govg]

Fortnite, Roblox and Minecraft are arguably "metaverses" by any reasonable standard of the word. They started as video games but have evolved into mediums where people can interact with each other and spend time consuming other content. Especially so in the case of Fortnite with all their concerts and things happening in game, literally the only difference is that one is in VR and the other is in your screen.

[throwaheyy]

It appears you’re redefining the word “metaverse” to mean social media. That’s not the same metaverse that everyone else is talking about, which involves putting on VR goggles and zoning out from the real world.

VR and social media are absolutely not the same thing. One takes over your sensory inputs and 100% of your attention. The other you can do on your phone at the same time as other things.

[contextfree]

I always thought a metaverse was defined as a virtual 3D world that is composed or federated across multiple apps or servers from different sources (that's what the "meta" part signifies, right?), so the OS-like and/or protocol-like things that structure the composition or federation are the core of a metaverse. So under this definition it doesn't depend on AR or VR, it can just be rendered to 2D displays like regular video games.

[throwaheyy]

Sure, but that’s not the metaverse that Meta is trying to sell. They are trying to sell VR specifically.

[tkk23]

>The other you can do on your phone at the same time as other things.

So far!

If you work in VR, and meet in VR, why would you need a phone?

[madeofpalk]

> which involves putting on VR goggles and zoning out from the real world

Is that all Metaverse is? Minecraft but in VR?

[pessimizer]

If you're being nice. If you're not, it's Habbo Hotel but in VR.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

I'd agree that this idea seems rather vague but it's becoming increasingly common for social interactions to happen "over-the-wire", e.g. TikTok / Whatsapp / World of Warcraft. I believe that mentions of the "metaverse" are pointing to this trend.

I think the fact that it's so vague ultimately serves Meta when it allows their company initiatives to lack a certain definition (keeping shareholder trust that much higher despite the CEO whom they cannot rein in).

[dont__panic]

As far as I can tell, the metaverse is a medium. Much like web forums, social networks, different genres of video games (FPS, RTS, block-builders, etc), television, radio, and books.

In the social network space, Facebook created a monopoly by buying up their competition until they became inescapable in most countries via the network effect. As a result, Facebook effectively holds a monopoly on social media to this day. They squat on that monopoly and extract value through ads, keeping anyone else from meaningfully competing, like some kind of medieval bridge troll.

In the metaverse space, Facebook wants to create the first viable product so they can extend their trolling and rent seeking to that medium as well. If they can absorb competitors, I think they have a chance. If the US government meaningfully enforces anti-trust law, I don't see any way that such a soulless, awful company that routinely churns out unpleasant products can possibly attract enough users to establish and maintain a monopoly. It seems that Zuck is betting that they can build the tech first, patent the shit out of it, and the users will have no choice but to play in his walled metaverse garden. I suspect folks will opt out before they do that.

[sofixa]

> Between TikTok, Roblox, Minecraft, call of duty (and other triple A multiplayer games), we’re already there.

How are those "metaverse"?

[JeremyReimer]

The confusion and disconnect comes from the fact that the Metaverse, by definition, cannot ever exist. Zuckerberg is chasing a fantasy.

I wrote in more detail about it here [1], but the basic gist is:

1. A real "Metaverse" that isn't just another video game would require every tech company to agree on a single standard for a MMO world, and

2. There are zero financial reasons why any other company would agree to a) wait for a standard to be agreed upon and b) cede the majority of their profits to the owner of this singular Metaverse.

Therefore, a real Metaverse can never happen. Which makes it even sillier that Mark Zuckerberg continues to go all-in on this vision.

[1] https://jeremyreimer.com/rockets-item.lsp?p=287

[traverseda]

Doesn't that same logic apply to the web and html? Are you saying that an open standard like the web couldn't arise in the current political/economic climate?

[JeremyReimer]

I think it would be very unlikely for the web and html to arise in the current political climate, yes. It only came to be in the first place because of a massive amount of government investment that was an artifact of the space race in the late 1960s and early 70s. For a time, all the major tech companies were trying to build their own walled garden alternatives to the Internet (Microsoft with MSN, Apple with eWorld, AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve, etc.) and they only failed because the Internet grew faster than any one of them could.

[madeofpalk]

Well, that goes to the question of "what is does 'metaverse' mean anyway?"

I haven't seen a description of what 'metaverse' means that doesn't just describe Minecraft (which I love).

[pempem]

these folks, fwiw, claim there's a $5T opportunity by 2030: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-s...

tldr: all the $$ still comes from commoditizing community building by subjecting them to ads and counting conversion.

Conversion is always a tricky beast to count, even in our intense tracking of individuals and attempt/successes at tracking users across time, applications, sessions and devices and I'm just honestly not sure how much more humans can handle being advertised to or even spend as things get tighter and tighter. At some point cool new [insert object here] doesn't matter when you are calculating the gas needed to warm your home and thinking about using your hot bathwater to do so.

[madeofpalk]

> mckinsey

Yeah, right. They're consultants - this is what they do. Better hire them so you can figure out how to get your slice of $5T!

[optimuspaul]

> How are those "metaverse"?

Good question. My guess is because those things are all 3D virtual worlds (to some extent) and/or a platform that is focused on social connection. Obviously they all need some connective tissue and evolution before they are a legit meta verse.

[namelessoracle]

They are digital spaces that people now live a significant portion of their life in. (its what they do when they aren't working, or even when they are supposed to be working, most of their social interactions come from it, its a significant part of their identity)

[mjr00]

This is exactly what I mean when I say "nobody can define exactly what [the metaverse] is." The metaverse is simultaneously VR-based business collaboration software, but also decade-old sandbox video games. Web3 and NFTs often pop up in explanations, too.

[miketery]

Oxford, Metaverse: a virtual-reality space in which users can interact with a computer-generated environment and other users.

[r00fus]

Zuckerberg fancies Meta is "IOI" from Ready Player One. Let's leave alone the fact that the state of the art is simply not capable with our technology.

What is the Minecraft/Roblox economy as opposed to the rest of the economy? Like .05%? Growth given the lack of actual capabilities is likely flatline.

Metaverse was obviously a BS pivot. Question is what Zuckerberg is covering up before they pivot back.

[jacobr1]

Not IOI - he wants to be Gregarious Simulation Systems

[namelessoracle]

But his company is IOI. At best he is hoping he creates enough groundswell that he can buy GSS if it comes about.

[paxys]

The defining quality of a hypothetical Metaverse is its immersiveness. The existence of multiplayer games, social media apps and the internet in general does not by itself qualify until it moves beyond flat screens and mouse clicks and successfully incorporates AR/VR/mixed reality and a slew of other emerging tech in the area.

[atom_arranger]

I think the best case scenario here is something like the iPhone, yes the Androids did come, but they took a long time to catch up (some would say they still haven't), and owning the platform is very lucrative.

It's about being the first one to reach mass market, and holding onto that position as long as possible.

[nemothekid]

>People really want Meta to fail because the "metaverse" is one of the dumbest pivots of an established company of all time

I believe people want Meta to fail because the spent the better part of last 5 years completely eviscerating their reputation and goodwill. While Facebook, at its prepandemic peak was hemorrhaging young users and becoming known as the platform for misinformation and arguments due to the chase for engagements at all costs, Zuckerberg was bust cosplaying as presidential candidate. People want Facebook to fail and I think that's a consequence of how terrible their reputation has become.

[dont__panic]

Exactly. I also want Meta to fail because the company has proven itself to be immoral and a poor steward of meaningful social contact over the internet, but my biggest beef is with the rotting Facebook platform that has turned into something awful over the past 10 years.

That being said, I want Meta's involvement in a "metaverse" to fail too, because I can't imagine living in a world where Zuck sinks his dark pattern and advertising fangs into an even more immersive version of today's manipulative social media. They've done enough damage as is.

[endofreach]

Lets just stop calling them meta. They are still the evil facebook.

[giantrobot]

I don't think it's a question of can Meta walk things back but whether Zuckerberg has the humility to do so. It certainly doesn't seem like Zuckerberg possesses that ability so it's more likely they'll just double down on "the metaverse".

[JustSomeNobody]

Well, his avatar does have legs now...

But, yeah, he's too desperate to be/have the next great (hardware) platform. He wants the "metaverse" to be what Apple and Google have with their hardware and app stores. There's no way he walks it back.

[Spivak]

I don’t think they actually have to walk anything back. Facebook seems like it’s going to still be successful even if the metaverse loses money forever.

[colinmhayes]

The only real question that meta has is Mark. As far as I can tell there is no reason for mark to ever listen to investors and scrap his passion projects in order to increase profitability. Sure he'll crank up the ads to keep them happy, but in the end he has unlimited money and can't be fired, and that's not changing even if meta literally loses money for the next decade. It seems that with the metaverse he's embraced that which is why he effectively told wall st. to fuck off on the earnings call last week.

[TwoNineA]

> People really want Meta to fail because the "metaverse" is one of the dumbest pivots of an established company of all time.

No, people want Meta/Facebook to fail because frankly, they are evil.

- Instagram is toxic to young girls: https://childmind.org/blog/instagram-is-harmful-to-teenage-s...

- Misinformation: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=facebook+misinformation

- How many people died because of Covid conspiracy theories they read on Facebook?

[colinmhayes]

Meta literally facilitated genocide in Myanmar as well as sex slavery by failing to properly screen ads and in some cases didn't even have anybody who could read the language they were in.

[jimlongton]

Also psychologically experimenting on their users intentionally making them unhappy [1], knowingly facilitating terrorism [2] and enabling race based advertising which blocked black people accessing housing [3].

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/07/10/facebook...

[2] https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/a-look-at-bo...

[3] https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-racial-ad-targeting-multic...

[stephc_int13]

Bullshit.

A healthy cashflow is obviously vital for any big corporation, but tech is not about cashflow, it is mainly about innovation.