Zuckerberg Says Meta and Apple Are In 'Very Deep, Philosophical Competition' To Build the Metaverse (theverge.com) 132
Mark Zuckerberg believes that Apple and his company are in a "very deep, philosophical competition" to build the metaverse, suggesting the two tech giants are ready to butt heads in selling hardware for augmented and virtual reality. The Verge reports: The Meta CEO told employees earlier this month that they were competing with Apple to determine "what direction the internet should go in," according to a recording of his comments during an internal all-hands meeting obtained by The Verge. He said that Meta would position itself as the more open, cheaper alternative to Apple, which is expected to announce its first AR headset as soon as later this year. "This is a competition of philosophies and ideas, where they believe that by doing everything themselves and tightly integrating that they build a better consumer experience," Zuckerberg said of the brooding rivalry. "And we believe that there is a lot to be done in specialization across different companies, and [that] will allow a much larger ecosystem to exist."
Since rebranding Facebook's company name to Meta, Zuckerberg has been pushing for the concept of interoperability for the metaverse, or what he sees as the next major chapter of computing after mobile phones. Meta recently helped stand up the Metaverse Open Standards Group with Microsoft, Epic Games, and others. The idea is to spur the creation of open protocols that will let people easily move through future immersive, 3D worlds with their virtual goods. Apple is absent from the group, which Zuckerberg called out as not surprising in his comments to employees. He explained how Apple's approach of building hardware and software it tightly controls had worked well with the iPhone, but that for the metaverse, "it's not really clear upfront whether an open or closed ecosystem is going to be better."
[...] If VR and AR do take off like Zuckerberg hopes, it seems he wants to position Meta as the Android to Apple's iOS. There is a parallel to draw already: Meta's Quest headset already allows the side loading of apps that are not approved by Meta's VR app store, similar to how Google's Android allows for sideloading. And even though it just increased the price of the Quest by $100, Meta's hardware is still mostly sold at a loss or breakeven. [...] Zuckerberg's remarks suggest that even as he tries to invent his way out of being under Apple's thumb on mobile, the two tech giants are going to be battling for years to come.
Since rebranding Facebook's company name to Meta, Zuckerberg has been pushing for the concept of interoperability for the metaverse, or what he sees as the next major chapter of computing after mobile phones. Meta recently helped stand up the Metaverse Open Standards Group with Microsoft, Epic Games, and others. The idea is to spur the creation of open protocols that will let people easily move through future immersive, 3D worlds with their virtual goods. Apple is absent from the group, which Zuckerberg called out as not surprising in his comments to employees. He explained how Apple's approach of building hardware and software it tightly controls had worked well with the iPhone, but that for the metaverse, "it's not really clear upfront whether an open or closed ecosystem is going to be better."
[...] If VR and AR do take off like Zuckerberg hopes, it seems he wants to position Meta as the Android to Apple's iOS. There is a parallel to draw already: Meta's Quest headset already allows the side loading of apps that are not approved by Meta's VR app store, similar to how Google's Android allows for sideloading. And even though it just increased the price of the Quest by $100, Meta's hardware is still mostly sold at a loss or breakeven. [...] Zuckerberg's remarks suggest that even as he tries to invent his way out of being under Apple's thumb on mobile, the two tech giants are going to be battling for years to come.
Wrong words (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just more proof good old Zuckzuck is completely delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps get out of your basement and try to build something similar, eh? Oh wait, you don't have the skill nor talent for it
What most of us "lack" is the willingness to help create the panopticon, or the sleaziness to do what he wanted to do in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
-1, Struck a nerve
Re: (Score:2)
Username checks out.
Re:Wrong words (Score:4)
I'm still trying to figure out what the "Metaverse" they're showing us has to offer over things like Fortnite.
It's just avatars and "being able to talk". Video games have already been doing that for decades.
The headsets are just a distraction from this. They're decades away from being more than just a gimmick.
PS: Anybody else remember Onlive Traveller?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Real life is plenty engaging.....and takes a lot of a person's waking hours.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the "meta" part indicates AR over VR. In a game you're leaving reality, in a metaverse they are blended. Pervasive like phones but not confined to a rectangle like phones. Something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the "meta" part indicates AR over VR. In a game you're leaving reality, in a metaverse they are blended. Pervasive like phones but not confined to a rectangle like phones. Something like that.
Question: Will I be able to "meta" in a coffee shop, on the sofa, or ... anywhere away from my main PC in a special room at home?
If not? Most people simply aren't going to be interested.
Re: (Score:2)
The article links to another article which quotes Tim Cook: "I'm excited about augmented reality because unlike virtual reality which closes the world out, AR allows individuals to be present in the world but hopefully allows an improvement on what's happening presently. Most people don't want to lock
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that I would want to wear contacts or eyeglasses for that use case is delusional when I can scan the QR code at the table and read it on my phone. AR user interface controls would have to be far more seamless and discreet than they are currently to even come close to getting your average joe to use it.
I agree with one of the posters above - we're decades, if not centuries, from the "Metaverse" being anything more than Zuck's fevered dreams.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, right, so for example in the coffee shop the AR would probably make the menu appear over the table in front of you and then alert you when to get up and get your order because it's ready, or something.
You mean like the QR codes that are on every restaurant table these days.
We're also moving to QR codes that you you order as well. There's at least two places around here where you scan the code on the table then press the "beer+pie" button and the waiter appears with the order about a minute later.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what a Metaverse could offer a user is a different set of rules. In games running a business for real money is usually frowned upon; running businesses is one of the chief use-cases for a Metaverse. In a game you probably aren't allowed to advertise, advertising is likely a major revenue stream for a Metaverse. Content rules in a game are written as if things encountered in the world reflect on the game provider. In a Metaverse you'd be able to, say, run a virtual movie house showing R rated movie
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still trying to figure out what the "Metaverse" they're showing us has to offer over things like Fortnite.
The non-answer is: It's whatever some big, well-financed company says at some given time. Since there's still no metaverse as such, then it's pretty easy to define and redefine depending your audience or what the "survey says" that people want the metaverse to be.
The only thing that seems certain at this point is it will require some sort of new hardware access, a gadget that's neither a computer monitor nor a smart phone screen. VR Goggles or less nerdy Google Glass type lens? Smart "contacts", who knows?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still trying to figure out what the "Metaverse" they're showing us has to offer over things like Fortnite.
Meanwhile Linden Lab be like "What up, n00bs?"
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I remember that, though I never saw any actual video of it, just a newspaper article, back when they were printed on actual paper. Seemed like a neat idea but I never saw how it could be practical considering what dialup was. At least, it didn't seem like it would be a viable replacement for IRC.
Re: (Score:2)
I used it for a while, actually met a girlfriend on there.
It worked pretty well even over dialup.
PS: I know what it offers over Fortnite - no deathmatch, nobody shooting at you.
Re:Wrong words (Score:5, Insightful)
No one wants or needs the meta-verse. It is an outdated model for interaction on the internet that was basically "take physical reality and apply it to computers". It was a cool idea when everyone was still using dial up, but it is a pipe dream that ignores all the ways in which the current version of the internet is absolutely BETTER. So to keep pushing it is just stupid.
So why is Zuck wasting so much money on a pipe dream? becuase he can, and needs to do something with those billions to convince shareholders of future growth for his largely stagnant platform. Otherwise share price drops, investors call of this head, and he stops being treated as a tech genius. Sure, he's still be ridiculously wealthy, by beyond a certain point it isn't about the money anymore, but the fame and respect.
Re: (Score:2)
I think shareholders can't call for his head - cos he owns majority of the voting power in FB/Meta. He got Class B shares with 10x the voting power of the other shareholders. It seems he also has agreements with the few other Class B shareholders which gives him 90% of the voting power for any shareholder votes.
https://www.morningstar.com/ar... [morningstar.com]
In other words, shareholders have no say, if Zuckerberg disagrees with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that is wrong (which I admit it may be), there is the issue of share value. If
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "... FTC rule changes ..."
Here's an article from The Atlantic yesterday that observes SCOTUS is currently on a crusade to prohibit exactly those kinds of "major" rules changes by administrative agencies:
The Supreme Court Is Making America Ungovernable [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But as you say, this new SCOTUS could mak
Who will control the metaverse ? (Score:5, Interesting)
And the far more important question (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should anyone but the two ivory tower dwellers give a fuck.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should anyone but the two ivory tower dwellers give a fuck.
Because society has to deal with the wreckage caused by the visions of tech companies.
Re:And the far more important question (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has their walled garden (like it or not), but that's not what Zuck is after. He's not particularly clear about what he actually is offering, but it is not that. And if that is the metaverse, then why does Zuck need to do anything to create it, if it already exists?
The Metaverse is a long con from Zuck. He needs a way to justify continued share value growth. Facebook is both old news and about as big as it is going to get. Same for their other social network. Courts have made it clear they won't allow him to buy a 3rd social network. And users are so untrusting of his companies, that few if any would try a new social network produced by them if he tried launching one. (just look at the fiasco that was their crypto initiative)
He needs something new, but can't buy or build it, so he's going to try and BS it into existence. By conning all of the other major tech companies into helping him figure out and build it, in the hopes that his central coordinating role gives him the opportunity to co-opt it somehow for his own benefit.
Apple, otoh, has essentially ignored all efforts to publicly engage in metaverse pump-and-dump schemes, unlike the rest of the industry. They are not a part of any of the standards organizations Zuck has tried to build, and have not once said they will participate in this farce. Other companies are, but it is clear to me that most of them are putting token efforts in just in case Zuck is right. A type of corporate FOMO to show fad-following share holders that they are not out of touch. Only Meta needs this, everyone else is playing along, except Apple who is simply sitting to out entirely.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody has so far even defined what "The Metaverse" is supposed to be. It's a nibulous thing that everyone can pipe dream about, with everyone having vastly different ideas what wonder it will bring, but so far, nobody from The Metastasis has even remotely come forward to give us anything tangible what this fluffy piece of vaporware is supposed to be.
So far, all they do is (rightfully) assume that everyone will try to jump onto it as early adopter because everyone fears that they will be left behind if they
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody has so far even defined what "The Metaverse" is supposed to be.
Oxford: metaverse noun Computing: a virtual-reality space in which users can interact with a computer-generated environment and other users.
Dictionary.com: metaverse [ met-uh-vurs ] noun Digital Technology.
1. (in science fiction) a shared, realistic, and immersive computer simulation of the real world or other possible worlds, in which people participate as digital avatars.
2. a theoretical or emergent networked online space with digitally persistent environments that people inhabit, as avatars, for syn
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly there is no technical reason preventing that, since these virtual worlds don't take up real space, enabling many of them to "overlap" in the information realm.
It surprises me when people take real-world assumptions (e.g. there's only one geography, so buy this geo-fenced area in THE metaverse) into n-dimensional virtual space. There is no s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, he would be better to stick to his collecting people's faces for free scheme. If it's over, it's over, he should just retire and sell his assets while they're still worth something.
Seriously, is there anybody on wall street or something believing into his metaverse crap?
I see most Slashdot tend to agree with me predicting a failure but how is it perceived in other spheres of activity? (Asking for a friend)
Re: (Score:2)
I think at this point it's more a fear of being left behind than a buy-in. Nobody really understands what this Metaverse is supposed to be, and there isn't anyone who has any idea how to actually use it, or even to profit from it, but everyone's afraid that if they don't jump on and join the bandwaggon, and someone does come along and has the killer idea, they'll be left in the dust.
Re: (Score:3)
If it turns into something it is unlikely to happen over night. After all, every company has a website these days, and there really wasn't a barrier to entry for trying to get on the internet later than others. Just lost opportunity until you had a web presence (to the extent that a web presence actually benefits your business).
All-important Shareholder Value growth, howev
Re:And the far more important question (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I'm thinking more of the effect of all this metaverse cheerleading on the share price for Meta. That is where the pump and dump comes in to my eye. There is no business case for the metaverse. It has no "killer app" or use case that is not already solved cheaper, easier, faster by the existing technology. In that way it is like crypto, a complication to solve someone's problem. Just not the someone everyone is being led to expect. Shareholders will be trading stock in meta at a P:E ratio based on a wildly exuberant growth expectation for something that will likely only be a rather niche thing.
This article is a perfect example of what I mean. Apple has express zero public interest in the metaverse. And yet, Zuck descries the future of the metaverse as a battle between Apple and Meta. It's pure marketing BS. He knows Apple is unlikely to respond directly, so he gets to benefit from their silence and create a narrative were they are equals, while Apple makes more than 3x the annual revenue of Meta and is not participating in this lunacy at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And the far more important question (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seco
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Zuck is painfully aware of the problem of being on someone else's platform, so I expect that he'll try to continue to control taht to the extent possible. It is why he bought a VR company instead of j
Re: (Score:3)
Why should anyone but the two ivory tower dwellers give a fuck.
Because Meta and Apple are in a deep philosophical competition to determine who will be able to charge people for access to the 'Metaverse'. Whichever company 'wins' the competition will be the one that gets to set the price for connecting, and the one that gets to collect -- and sell -- the personal information of those users. For all of Zuckerberg's pious declarations of his intent for 'interoperability', he wants Meta to win against Apple so that Meta is the one that gets the lion's share of monetizing t
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, neither one should be in charge. It should open like the internet.
Maybe, both companies should be given abortions so these particular brainchildren are never born. Maybe, the whole concept of us putting still MORE tech barriers between us and our fellow humans should just go the fuck away. This shit is the equivalent of fiddling while the planet burns.
Is this something people want or something companies are pushing to make $$$ ?
That's what we call a rhetorical question. Given the obvious answer, why would we ever trust the companies' visions? Never mind their execution of those visions...
Re: (Score:2)
There is clearly not going to be one metaverse. If nothing else, international politics would ensure that.
There's no technical reason why there has to be just one, either. Having multiple games installed on one computer is not a problem.
Is this something people want or something companies are pushing to make $$$ ?
No. It's the one thing and the other. People have dreamt of being able to interact in VR socially on a massive scale for ages. Some for reasons of disability, others just because they think it would be fun. Yes, there are a bunch of games where people do interact socially in
We need an open standard (Score:5, Interesting)
I was a SciFi nerd growing up. Dreaming of virtual reality and holodecks as a kid, I'm very excited about seeing where this technology goes.
But, I really want to see open standards. I don't want Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, or any other company driving this. It would be in our best interest to have a consortium of companies to drive the standards.
I'm not joining Facebook to use their hardware. I don't want to be in an Apple walled garden Metaverse. I want to be able to interact with people on any system or platform.
I think each company would need to differentiate their headsets in some way. Apple could have tight integration with their ego system so that it all works flawlessly together. Facebook can use 80% of the visual space for scrolling ads, and but basically give it away for free. Other companies might have better screens, longer batter, better GPU, whatever ...
But, both Apple and Facebook and "Other" users should be able to be in the same virtual office space ... or Dungeon fighting skeletons ... or dealing with Q in Sherwood forrest.
Re:We need an open standard (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is, nobody actually needs, or could at least want or use, a virtual office space.
Take gaming as a prime example because it has already taken a step forward into the world of "immersion". We want so much "immersion" in our games. But eventually we had to accept that actually, when it comes to pure control, usefulness and efficiency, the interfaces we had already are superior to anything "VR" has offered us. Mouse, keyboard and gamepad beat any, literally any, kind of "immersive" control that has come since or before. Yes, it may be more fun to play Wii bowling by swinging your arm and flailing your arms to impress the Kinekt enough to let you parry that light saber blow may be fun, but nobody can tell me that it would not be far, far more accurate and faster to just use keyboard, mouse and gamepad.
But this is gaming. In games, fun and entertainment trump efficiency and precision.
Work is the opposite.
Re:We need an open standard (Score:4, Insightful)
In theory the metaverse makes sense. Both in terms of social networks and gaming, there has been a general progression to greater complexity/immersion.
1.0 = Facebook/Twitter = mostly text
2.0 = Instagram/Snapchat = mostly about the pictures
3.0 = Tick Tock/Quibi = mostly about video
4.0 ----> Should be something to do with VR right???
However, as you point out, there is a limit on the appropriate level of immersion for social networks, gaming, and work. The next step for social networks is not VR, but in-person interaction. Something (pre-covid anyway) work already delivered on. Similar thing for gaming. The next level of immersion is LARPING or in-person gaming tournaments, not VR (for most people anyway).
From the user perspective metaverse is a solution in search of a problem. That makes perfect sense because it does not exist not to solve a user problem, but a shareholder problem.
Facebook/Meta is stalled out. All growth from this point forward will be slow and steady. But that's not what shareholders want, they want explosive growth forever. Unfortunately, user trust in anything built by Zuck or his company is at an all time low, and the courts won't let him buy any more competitors, so he's in a pickle of his own creation, and hopes that wide open net cast in the name of the metaverse will give him a way to a new platform in spite of the fact that no one likes or trusts him anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't even work in theory.
There is such a thing as good enough, with everything beyond being a niche product that lacks the mass appeal necessary to make it a cash cow. Your example of LARPing is a perfect one. LARPing sure offers an additional level of immersion in the RPG. One should think that there are way, way more LARP groups than tabletop P&P RPG groups. There aren't. Actually, the number of people LARPing is minuscle compared to the rather huge number of P&P gamers.
Why?
Investment and ha
Re: (Score:2)
There are other examples too. Just look at computing hardware. From desktop to laptop to smart phone to wearable, the "personal"ness of personal computing has increased, but at a certain point, the use cases diverge so much that it requires more than a bit of mental gymnastics to consider them the same category. There is a fuzzy line at the moment for what can you work on, and what is far too much of a compromise. Desktops are a clear yes, and wearables are a clear no, but depending on the
Re: We need an open standard (Score:2)
You obviously havenâ(TM)t spent any substantial time with VR games. Flight and racing games with wheels and HOTAS? Whoa! FPS with a gunstock? Whoa! Any boxing, sword fighting etc.? Whoa!
Immersion is turned to 11 in VR. You can still use wheels, sticks, paddles, accessories⦠*and* there are some games with really interesting hand controls.
I cannot play racing and flight games in pancake any more.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, nobody initially needed email either, or video conferencing software or even websites. But all are ubiquitous now. Let's reevaluate in about 20 years when the technology has matured. I've seen some promising use cases, like being able to easy do 3D marker drawings that float in the middle of the room. That sort of interaction could be interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an immediately recognizable advantage to all these technologies. Email means instant (not even overnight) information, order and document transmission. Video conferencing... granted, I still wonder what the big deal is, most people I deal with don't care to see the other party, because, well, why bother?
The question is mostly what the expense and effort necessary to pull it off is. If it can be done as easily as sitting at the desk and talking, there's a chance. If it takes the effort it does today
Re: (Score:2)
We can talk about AR, where we can get rid of monitors because I have everything they could display in front of my eye, and where I can display people in the meeting as sitting across my table. But the technology for that is FAR from "here". The whole thing reminds me more of the 1990s years of "multimedia" days where we were supposed to think that 240x120 pixel videos (15fps, 256 colors) that we could get as snippets on a CD are the next best thing. Yes, eventually video on a computer became a reality, but
Re: (Score:2)
We already have open standards. They are called VRML and webVR. VRML has been around for decades. The problem today is the same as it was back then: tools. And that's where apple's winning. Their walled garden has the easiest to use the consumer-grade photogrammetry tools.
Re:We need an open standard (Score:4, Interesting)
We already have open standards. They are called VRML and webVR. VRML has been around for decades. The problem today is the same as it was back then: tools.
VRML - XML with magic syntax for (at the time) non-existent VR devices. No one wants to write an entire VR environment in some scripting language. Let alone require a webserver just to run it.
webVR - VRML with a "modern" spin: (More webGL and webasm.) Once again requires a webserver to run it. Which, with it's bolted on after the fact state tracking, is not suited for running a realtime interactive environment at all.
Tools have nothing to do with those standards failing. It's the fact that no-one wants to screw around with a 3D web browser. Second Life is the closest anyone got and that is a niche in and of itself. It's simply too cumbersome and time consuming for a human to wander around in some virtual space trying to get some data. When they can simply punch something into Google and get a usable result in about 0.5 seconds. If you want to replace that, you're going to need to provide some extra value that outweighs the negative of extra time consumption. VR might provide that one day, if it becomes big enough to the point that people don't need to logout of VR to do something else. But that's still a ways off.
As for the tools, you need something like OpenXR (for app development), and some sort of open source driver kit. The last one if you cannot tell, doesn't really exist yet. (OpenHMD exists but seems to have stalled out.) As a result, VR/AR is restricted to whatever OS / apps your device manufacturer decided to support. Which in turn limits the developers to whatever platform they bought into. (Remember many of these devices have price points in the $500-$2000/unit range.) Adding a web browser to this won't fix the problem. The VR/AR device still cannot be connected because there are no OS drivers for it, and no-one wants to build a really great IDE only for it to be stuck on one VR/AR platform. Fix that, and you'll get better tools.
As for standards, we don't need programming language standards for VR/AR. What we need is consistent UI design and some common sense. The ability to use your hands is a major requirement. Using a controller to interact with something "in front of you" isn't intuitive, or convenient. Neither is having to stare dead-on at a word two feet away from it for it to be legible. Yes, these are screens strapped to your face. No, the text surface being shown is not always displayed at the same orientation / size. Nor can you the developer control that. Also, stop calling disembodied floating heads "reality" and actually make content that isn't another simulator or 3D movie. Like any other new gaming platform (yes, I'm calling it a gaming platform because it's the closest analog), people aren't going to buy into it if it lacks unique content.
The whole reason why VR/AR is foundering (minus the vomit), is due to everyone's NIH syndrome getting the better of them. That needs to be fixed before anything serious can happen.
apple's winning. Their walled garden has the easiest to use the consumer-grade photogrammetry tools.
I personally would consider Meshroom [github.com] useful. The only downside is the lack of updates and slow as heck development. (Small dev team.) So in that regard, yes Apple is winning.
Re: (Score:2)
I was a SciFi nerd growing up. Dreaming of virtual reality and holodecks as a kid, I'm very excited about seeing where this technology goes.
But, I really want to see open standards. I don't want Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, or any other company driving this. It would be in our best interest to have a consortium of companies to drive the standards.
Even if there's a standard (which there won't be) you know it'll just be a monetized world of NFTs and other add-ons.
Basically like Fortnite but without the deathmatch.
Do you really want that?
If you want an online experience with your friends then most modern video games already have that. Even Fortnite.
Re: (Score:2)
As with all exciting tech developments - mobile phones, AI, AR, VR, personal health, etc - it could be awesome, but instead it will suck, because the interests with the resource to drive the development have very different goals to you and me. Where it gets interesting (to me) is 10 or 15 years down the line when the tech is commodified and the real nerds can start doing things with it.
As an example, imagine adblock for AR. Rectangular shapes that are identifiied as ads (billboards, posters on public transp
Re: (Score:2)
"Apple could have tight integration with their ego system"
That's a pretty funny typo.
VR oligarch post competition... (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, please, just ignore them altogether, as the whole thing is currently a joke that will turn into a dystopian nightmare before any good aspects ever see the light of day.
Re: (Score:3)
What a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm far more trusting of Apple than Facebook, but I don't know taht I want the metaverse, regardless of who builds it. I'm looking to reduce the amount of information I give to our corporate overlords, not increase it. The metaverse strikes me as a lot of pointless pizazz in exchang
Who really wants metaverse? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think Apple is going to do anything in a metaverse. I have no interest in using it and I don't know anyone who does. I think Apple is just trolling him so that he does this massive spend drain and Meta goes away.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, it's a self-promotion by association. Currently, among the players doing VR/AR, it's mostly just Meta playing the 'metaverse' angle. By implying a more respected company is going to play the same game, they want to elevate the image of their strategy.
The relative success of their VR headset has very little to do with 'metaverse-y' usage, but as it stands that usage doesn't map to Facebook's wheelhouse, so he feels compelled to keep beating that metaverse drum because otherwise, Oculus doesn't r
Re: (Score:2)
In fact it looks more like Zuckerberg is already living in a world of fiction of his own creation, where anything AR/VR can be automatically 'metaverse' if he wishes.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree, Apple is doing nothing (Score:2)
I don't think Apple is going to do anything in a metaverse.
Exactly, if they were going to do something we would have seen steps towards that already.
There are already a lot of AR apps on the phone, they've been building out support for a while.
For social stuff, Apple has tried a few brief attempts that went no-where, they have not tried again for a while.
As you said, no-one really wants to do anything in a Metaverse - what Apple has realized is that AR is teh future, inherently grounded in the real world.
Nobody (Score:2)
Nobody wants this virtual reality. This is yet another technology in search of a product, opposite of what is good business. Blockchain also comes to mind.
When you want to buy something, you want to find it quickly and easily. Why would someone want to replicate the annoyance of going out in public, walking around the strip mall, going into the store, walking through the aisles... You can buy something in 10 second on Amazon. I don't see people wanting this. Meta will not succeed. They'll fall back to Faceb
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I doubt the metaverse will help, but I will say that if I know *exactly* the product I want then Amazon is a great place. By exact, I mean I know the reputable brand name and everything.
If I'm looking for 'something that does X', then Amazon has become a bit of a crap shoot. The search results are stuffed with fly-by-night vendors applying today's company logo to random bit of knock-off crap. The reviews are manipulated to the point of uselessness, where the well reviewed products are more the ones
Re: (Score:2)
Well for starters I'm certainly excited to see where this tech ends up. As for the shopping experience you describe, all your scenario does is show your lack of imagination as obviously VR isn't going to get far perfectly modeling reality, no one needs a headset for that.
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy something in 10 second on Amazon.
Sight unseen and of questionable quality yes. VR/AR could help with that. (With a little help from a depth camera.) If instead of getting some stock pics from Google Images, Amazon required a 3D scan of an object sold by a seller, then the risk to the buyer would go down and encourage more people to shop online. Ebay in particular could use such a requirement.
replicate the annoyance of going out in public, walking around the strip mall, going into the store, walking through the aisles
Hello America. FYI, In other areas of the world most people aren't that anti-social. Or have built their society to require a goddamn car to do virt
If the metaverse actually becomes a thing... (Score:2)
If the metaverse ever actually becomes a thing, I sincerely hope that it will be based on open protocols. Really, the metaverse is just the Internet in 3-dimensions, instead of on your 2-dimensional screen.
No one should be able to play gatekeeper.
Re: (Score:3)
You do know what companies we are talking here, right?
Your best hope is that this crashes and burns without taking the idea down in its demise. That's the best possible scenario.
Taking the technology and trust in it along for the crash and burn is the second best outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
There's "never" going to be one Metaverse (unless full fascism wins, I guess — more on that in a sec) and there's no big reason why there has to be. Corporations will happily exist across multiple 'verses if that's what's needed to reach an audience. The rest of us can decide which one[s] we want to waste our time on socially.
Which brings me to the point of my comment, a lot of people are railing against this idea and all the things wrong with it are really things wrong with our society which will per
Philosophy? (Score:2)
Mark the great philosopher (Score:2)
VR == 3D movies (Score:2)
It ain't gonna fly outside of games and serious simulations. There won't any "metaverse", Second Life has thoroughly proven that already.
Facebook is stagnant n dying (Score:2)
Facebook stopped innovating after they killed off all the early developers using their api to make games and apps. They ripped off all the best UI app ideas and killed off the originators.
Since then they've spent tons of cash buying other companies and copying others they can't buy.
This mega verse thing is a pie in the sky hope for future revenue features no one needs or wants. The entire concept is pre-dead. I have been following this tech for decades and outside some limited gaming niches have yet to s
Meanwhile from Apple... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, Apple doesn't have quite the same history of hopping on every shiny thing they see like Zuck - it's Apple customers that fall into that camp, and even Apple is not going to be able to sufficiently polish this turd for the consumer market.
Re: (Score:2)
belief (Score:2)
"And we believe that there is a lot to be done in specialization across different companies, and [that] will allow a much larger ecosystem to exist."
Aha?
"And we believe that there is a lot of unused advertisement space in the larger FOV that AR and VR provide over a screen, plus the user can't just look away. We can sell more ad space while also claiming it's better targeted (rofl, as if we'd spend that money!) and we will make it possible for a much larger advertisement market to exist."
There, fixed that for you.
open to him to mine all your data (Score:2)
Pointless ...currently (Score:2)
VR like 3D gets hyped every so often as the next big thing ... .... You remember 3D TV .... ? ... You remember 3D Cinema - it's killed 2D ... ?
The issue is that ~20% of the population can't use 3D or VR systems properly, and many more don't like using them for any length of time
It's a technology that excludes many of it's potential audience - it will keep dying, and being hyped, until they find a real use for it and (nearly) everyone can use it
What do each of these companies sell? (Score:2)
Meta sells advertising. Nothing more. Apple, on the other hand, sells hardware and content. They also sell a user-experience which is arguably much more polished than any other similar user-experience. Having watched the extensive video of Meta's R&D into VR goggles on Adam Savage Tested, they are certainly putting a lot of effort into solving many of the fundamental problems VR has had over the past 25-30 years. That's all well and good but nobody is going to care if the content isn't there. It w
Reading between the lines (Score:2)
Drinking the Metaverse Koo-Aid (Score:2)
Similar? (Score:2)
"similar to how Google's Android allows for sideloading"
Yes, quite "similar" since the Quest headset is running Android.
Porn will be first (Score:2)
Like 8mm movies, VCR's, and the early internet, porn will probably be the biggest VR driver. But existing big corporations don't want to be associated with porn, so there's an open niche for a startup to gobble up.
In early VR social network tests e-groping has been a constant problem. Get a clue and make it a feature instead. Raging hormones = raging profits.
Why Zuck will fail (Score:2)
Talk about a story begging for a joke? (Score:2)
Very deep, philosophical money.
Next question.
Zuckerberg wants to be the lawnmower man (Score:2)
I love when billionaires waste money on nonsense nobody cares about all the while stubbornly refusing to accept reality.
Can't build the metaverse on a closed platform. (Score:2)
Apple ? (Score:2)
I'm a fairly tech-forward guy (Score:2)
...but as much as I loved Snow Crash and Neuromancer et al, I still don't get what, fundamentally, this metaverse is supposed to give us.
A network of networks? We have that.
A UI that people can use that's only available if people have 10gig perfect connections and $10k in luxury hardware, so what, they can 'interact casually' on the web? To do what?
Seriously, how does that help anyone do anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Zuck's point is that he wants Meta to be the affordable solution that everyone can afford, while Apple's solution will be the luxury solution that only a few can afford, according to Zuck.
All of this is smoke and mirrors of course. Zuck knows that Apple will develop an application that will compel users to pay for Apple's device, and Meta will essentially have to emulate it or die. As a result, just as Apple makes something like 70% of all the profits to made off smart phones, Apple will garner the lion's s
Ignoramuses Don't Do Philosophy (Score:2)
Philosophy is a word that is appropriated by jerks like Zuck to legitimize their pillaging schemes. In this instance, of course, there are no philosophies involved. There are two competing business models.
Meta's is one of offering services to customers for no money in exchange for manipulating them psychologically in order to shove ads in their faces.
Apple's is one of making useful products and selling them at a profit.
Zuck is terrified that Apple has developed applications that will compel users to pay for
Zuck is way off-base. (Score:2)
The "Metaverse" was summoned into existence with IRC, back in the 80's. Zuck's vision brings nothing new to the table, except some retrograde vision of the adorable cyberspace meeting rooms that William Gibson was already writing about. (Again, back in the 80's.)
It completely and perhaps deliberately misses the point. The next step is not about anything so grand. The "killer app" is niche and is right in front of most people: AR/VR headsets are on the verge of becoming the new essential engineering and