Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook

John Carmack Resigns Meta VR Post, Leaves VR Industry, Criticizes Meta's 'Inefficiency' (venturebeat.com) 163

Posted by EditorDavid from the game-over dept.
"John Carmack, the programmer who brought us Doom, Quake and Oculus/Meta virtual reality products, has resigned from his executive consultant post for virtual reality at Meta," reports VentureBeat.

"This is the end of my decade in VR," Carmack wrote in an internal post (which he later reposted on Facebook).

"I have mixed feelings." Quest 2 [Meta's VR headset] is almost exactly what I wanted to see from the beginning — mobile hardware, inside out tracking, optional PC streaming, 4k (ish) screen, cost effective. Despite all the complaints I have about our software, millions of people are still getting value out of it. We have a good product. It is successful, and successful products make the world a better place. It all could have happened a bit faster and been going better if different decisions had been made, but we built something pretty close to The Right Thing.

The issue is our efficiency.... We have a ridiculous amount of people and resources, but we constantly self-sabotage and squander effort....

It has been a struggle for me. I have a voice at the highest levels here, so it feels like I should be able to move things, but I'm evidently not persuasive enough. A good fraction of the things I complain about eventually turn my way after a year or two passes and evidence piles up, but I have never been able to kill stupid things before they cause damage, or set a direction and have a team actually stick to it. I think my influence at the margins has been positive, but it has never been a prime mover.

This was admittedly self-inflicted — I could have moved to Menlo Park after the Oculus acquisition and tried to wage battles with generations of leadership, but I was busy programming, and I assumed I would hate it, be bad at it, and probably lose anyway.

Enough complaining. I wearied of the fight and have my own startup to run, but the fight is still winnable! VR can bring value to most of the people in the world, and no company is better positioned to do it than Meta. Maybe it actually is possible to get there by just plowing ahead with current practices, but there is plenty of room for improvement.

Make better decisions and fill your products with "Give a Damn"!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

John Carmack Resigns Meta VR Post, Leaves VR Industry, Criticizes Meta's 'Inefficiency' More

John Carmack Resigns Meta VR Post, Leaves VR Industry, Criticizes Meta's 'Inefficiency'

Comments Filter:

  • Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thsths ( 31372 ) on Saturday December 17, 2022 @12:46PM (#63138194)

    Facebook is an advertising company. They want to control what you see, and a VR headset is the ultimate level of control. That's why Fakebook is interested, and for no other reason.

    As for Meta - it has about the graphics appeal of the Nintendo Wii. As a showcase for VR, it does very poorly.

    But advertising, that works.

    • Yep, exactly this. I'm glad to see Carmack leave this shit storm.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

        Yep, exactly this. I'm glad to see Carmack leave this shit storm.

        Why? They gave him money, and he is precisely the kind of genius you want at the helm. I would be glad if I heard he was joining some other VR company to produce products that could leapfrog Facebook. But as it stands there's nothing to celebrate here. The only company providing really meaningful investment just lost the one person seemingly keeping things going.

        There's nothing to be glad about, unless you have some deep seeded hatred for VR and just want it to fail.

        • Re:Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)

          by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Saturday December 17, 2022 @02:37PM (#63138416)
          Carmack working for an advertising company is what was disheartening here. As you pointed out, his talents would have been much better suited at an actual company wanting to push VR forward for gaming and/or some sort of metaverse, not getting eyeballs on ads. Facebook entering the VR space set the technology backwards in my opinion. Carmack tagging along with them was a puzzler.
          • Unfortunately none of those existed or were willing to spend as much money chasing after it as Facebook was. Carmack has been around long enough that he isn't so naive not to realize this. Be glad that Facebook spent billions of dollars forwarding the state of the art. Even if it didn't really pan out for them, there are a lot of people who now have several years of developed skills in this problem domain. Even if the overall market contracts, those skills don't entirely go away. Maybe another company decid

        • Re:Advertising (Score:5, Interesting)

          by RazorSharp ( 1418697 ) on Saturday December 17, 2022 @03:27PM (#63138518)

          There's nothing to be glad about, unless you have some deep seeded hatred for VR and just want it to fail.

          I have a deep seated hatred for Facebook and I just want to see them fail. So losing a guy like Carmack who trashes them on the way out makes me happy.

          As for VR, I'm indifferent. I don't think it will fail, but I also think it will always be a rather niche. So, in the eyes of guys like Zuckerberg, who are banking on it being the next big thing, it will probably fail.

        • Why? They gave him money, and he is precisely the kind of genius you want at the helm. I would be glad if I heard he was joining some other VR company to produce products that could leapfrog Facebook. But as it stands there's nothing to celebrate here. The only company providing really meaningful investment just lost the one person seemingly keeping things going.

          Personally I would certainly celebrate Facebook failing, getting out of VR or losing VR market share. I think these would all be positive developments.

          There's nothing to be glad about, unless you have some deep seeded hatred for VR and just want it to fail.

          It's possible to hate Facebook and wish they go bust and love VR. It's also possible to hate VR and hope it fails while wishing Facebook success in all of its sleazy endeavors.

        • It was a terrible match. Other than having lots of money (and Carmack isn't poor himself) Facebook had nothing going for it. John apparently had to fight management at every step because Zuck's vision for VR is ridiculous.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday December 17, 2022 @04:28PM (#63138640)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Really no one cares why they are interested, and no one is criticising their position. Quite literally everyone from the industry who has commented so far have been quite unified in their complaints: They simply aren't showing enough for their investment. And so are you for that matter. Given how much Facebook has sunk into the metaverse you'd think the showcase for VR would be compelling. But it's not.

      Advertisements aren't the issue here. Bureaucracy in a massive company is.

      • Given how much Facebook has sunk into the metaverse you'd think the showcase for VR would be compelling. But it's not.

        It's because the case for VR isn't compelling. Same as 3D TVs a decade ago.

        • Not to you, perhaps.
          Over 14 million headsets sold in 2021.
          VR game sales are in the multiple billions of dollars a year region ($1.5 billion, alone for Meta's store)

          But ya, just like 3D TV.

          • All those sales (at a huge per-unit loss, btw), and Meta still has only made less than a half billion of REVENUE (not profit) from it.

            Revenue without profit just doesn't work long-term. That's why Facebook stock is in the tank, down by 2/3 from the beginning of the year.

            So yes, except for games it's just like 3D TV. Overhyped shit.

            • at a huge per-unit loss, btw

              Bullshit. You made that up.
              My HMD cost me $1000, there's no way it was sold at a loss.
              Oculus devices being a bit cheaper (though still not cheap) could potentially be sold at a loss, but you can't possibly know that.

              and Meta still has only made less than a half billion of REVENUE (not profit) from it.

              You're confusing R&D costs with unit costs.
              Meta is currently spending a large fortune on their whole "Metaverse" bullshit.
              Don't conflate that with loss-leader sales, which there is no evidence Oculus devices are.

              Revenue without profit just doesn't work long-term. That's why Facebook stock is in the tank, down by 2/3 from the beginning of the year.

              Bullshit. This is car manufacturer math, where each new model "loses money f

              • Forbes, October 2022 [forbes.com]

                Meta Platforms’s metaverse losses will get worse before they get better. The company’s Q3 results showed the biggest profit shortfall and lowest revenue for its Reality Labs division since the final quarter of 2020, the first period for which the Facebook parent released separate results for its metaverse unit.

                Not only is Meta having trouble attracting users to its project, shareholders outright detest it. But the company is holding firm to its vision. Revenue from the metaverse branch was $285 million, barely more than half the year-ago figure, largely due to low Quest 2 headset sales. Operating costs rose to $3.6 billion in the latest quarter, contributing to an operating loss of $12.7 billion since Q3 last year.

                Revenue of $285 million includes their cut from sales of games by 3rd party developers. We're past the "early adopters" stage. And people aren't buying. It's the whole 3dTV scenario repeating. So headset sales are in the tank. It's "exponential growth" but with a negative exponent.

                Turns out that not that many people are into a tarted-up Second Life experience.

                • Read, my dude.
                  Read.

                  Meta largely attributes the shortfall to manufacturing costs for its new Meta Quest Pro virtual-reality headset, manufactured this quarter and is available for sale as of yesterday. But with a retail price triple that of predecessor, Meta Quest 2, the $1,500 headset is currently all cost against unproven income.

                  They made a shit ton of $1500 HMDs, and nobody bought them.

                  Nowhere is it implicated that their HMDs are loss-leaders, or that the existing ecosystem is not itself profitable.

                  • Even the cheaper ones were selling at a loss - which is why they bumped up the price. After all, fewer sales == fewer users to monetize data off off (someone put that at about $100/headset/year).

                    And of course, few sales == higher cost per unit for everything else that keeps the ecosystem running.

                    Helps explain the 11,000 layoffs.

                    And you totally glossed over that headset sales are down by half. That's not because of the Meta Quest 2. The cheaper units aren't selling as much. As I said, (posted a quote f

                    • Even the cheaper ones were selling at a loss - which is why they bumped up the price. After all, fewer sales == fewer users to monetize data off off (someone put that at about $100/headset/year).

                      Your source does not support that claim.
                      There is no evidence that the Oculus was a loss-leader.

                      And of course, few sales == higher cost per unit for everything else that keeps the ecosystem running.

                      A hypothetical that is again unsupported by evidence. The "ecosystem" maintenance costs have not been demonstrated to be high, and there's no logical reason to think they are.

                      You are again conflating the bizarre Metaverse push with the Oculus product.

                      Helps explain the 11,000 layoffs.

                      There have been layoffs all across tech right now, having nothing to do with VR.
                      And again, you're conflating the Metaverse with VR gaming.

                      And you totally glossed over that headset sales are down by half.

                      Wtf, sales of everything

          • Millions of people have those 3D televisons. Do you see them watching 3D content all day?

            I brought one of the Meta headsets. It promised a better integration than the crummy old Pimax 2K I had.

            Its pretty cool, it works well, and SOME things look decent. it doesnt give me the nausea the old one did. With a degree of screwing about it also works OK with Steam VR.

            The issue is, there just isnt much to do using it. Halflife Alex is kinda cool. But I never get far before I get weary of it. Uh, theres a neat rolle

            • Millions of people have those 3D televisons. Do you see them watching 3D content all day?

              3D televisions sold millions of units for a couple of years in the early 2010s, as content was available for them.
              As content stopped being available for them, sales dropped off a cliff.

              The content market for VR increases every single year, and is now alone a multi-billion dollar a year business, while 3D home films was never, ever, a multi-billion dollar business.

              The issue is, there just isnt much to do using it. Halflife Alex is kinda cool. But I never get far before I get weary of it. Uh, theres a neat roller coaster thing. Theresa shitty VR video viewer that doesnt really work well. But beyond that that? Lots of shite apps that cost $30 bucks and look about as much fun as watching paint peel. Its just expensive tech demos as far as the eye can see.

              Nope. It's also a shit ton of AAA games. Just because you don't like them doesn't really mean shit to this equation. I've got just short of 200

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          It's because the case for VR isn't compelling. Same as 3D TVs a decade ago.

          Yeah, I never really understood that. I mean, a common complaint with 3D is the glasses, yet the enthusiasm for VR is you strap a heavier headset to your head to see things in 3D.

          I enjoy a 3D movie, I have no problems with wearing the glasses (I have coke bottle glasses anyways, so 3D glasses are no big deal). But heaven help me because VR goggles almost always fail to adapt to glasses, so no matter how hard I try, they just don't wo

          • Btw, PSVR works fine with glasses.

          • Yeah, I never really understood that. I mean, a common complaint with 3D is the glasses, yet the enthusiasm for VR is you strap a heavier headset to your head to see things in 3D.

            Have a feeling most of the people making 3D comparisons have never actually tried VR. VR is amazing with just one eye. The point of the technology isn't that you get fancy stereo vision it's that you get to be somewhere else.

          • I mean, a common complaint with 3D is the glasses

            No. The common complaint with 3D is that they were shitty glasses which didn't work well and ultimately did nothing but very limited perception of depth to this tiny little 2D box in front of you. 3D on a small screen was an abortion of an idea. I don't hear anyone complain about having to wear 3D glasses in the cinema.

            yet the enthusiasm for VR is you strap a heavier headset to your head to see things in 3D.

            I have a big comfortable office chair I sit in where I'm typing this right now. I love stretching my legs under my desk. Yet next week I am going to be sitting in a very uncomfortable very ti

            • There were 3D TVs without glasses. They also tanked.

              Half the population will never be able to tolerate VR because of visual defects. And there really isn't a compelling business case for them - virtual meetings? Bullshit. Email, chat, text, ordinary video already have that more than covered. If it's so great why isn't Zuckerberg forcing all Facebook employees to work wearing VR goggles in a VR reality? Simple answer - it doesn't work for real productive work.

        • It's because the case for VR isn't compelling. Same as 3D TVs a decade ago.

          You say that, but reality doesn't agree with you. Even through all the doom and gloom VR headsets are trending on exponential growth, and the thing which separates them from a TV is that they are an expensive optional device, not a feature people couldn't escape (we have a 3D TV which never once displayed anything 3D).

          So you personally may not find it compelling, but many people do and one of the biggest problems right now is it has an early technology price / benefit ratio: Expensive toys, little content,

          • It's because the case for VR isn't compelling. Same as 3D TVs a decade ago.

            You say that, but reality doesn't agree with you. Even through all the doom and gloom VR headsets are trending on exponential growth, and the thing which separates them from a TV is that they are an expensive optional device, not a feature people couldn't escape (we have a 3D TV which never once displayed anything 3D).

            So you personally may not find it compelling, but many people do and one of the biggest problems right now is it has an early technology price / benefit ratio: Expensive toys, little content, not unlike the 3dFx VooDoo 2 when it was released.

            They're heavily subsidized. 3DFx Voodoo 2 cards didn't have to be subsidized to sell. And with the 10s of billions that are being thrown at it every year by Facebook, perhaps the lack of content is an indicator that it's never going to be a must-have for most people, so any competent manager would sell off the whole division.

  • The Problem with VR (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Saturday December 17, 2022 @01:08PM (#63138222) Journal

    The overlooked issue with VR and VR headsets isn't the technology, it's the need for VR, and there isn't one yet.

    Other than gaming it's still a solution looking for a problem; there just don't appear to be any really compelling real-world uses for VR yet.

    That'll change, but a lot of people and companies are trying to find the benefit in this technology, and failing. The "what is it actually good for?" question is still being asked.

    Education seems to be one of the prime areas of opportunity for usage, but the advantages (whatever they may be) don't appear to be enough to have sparked much interest in the academic community.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      There are countless problems that VR could solve tomorrow if technology was there. Everything from remote administration to remote piloting.

      Technology isn't even close to where it needs to be for those however. There are some very promising local AR implementations however.

      • There are countless problems that VR could solve tomorrow if technology was there. Everything from remote administration to remote piloting.

        Technology isn't even close to where it needs to be for those however. There are some very promising local AR implementations however.

        Really? Remote administration? Even more time-wasting than Zoom meetings?

        Remote piloting is already a solved problem with drones, and you don't need a VR headset to do it.

        The metaverse has always been a half-arsed ill-defined "solution" looking for a problem.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          >Really? Remote administration? Even more time-wasting than Zoom meetings?

          So you're writing this on a system that is almost certainly powered by AC power coming from power grid. How do you think we administer it right now? How do you think we keep it running?

          Being able to have engineer slap on VR goggles and look around in high res from drone footage when something goes wrong would remove a tremendous cost of having to power things down for inspection for example.

          As for "lol drones", good luck convincing

          • Your arguments are so contrived it's not a joke.

            Nobody is using VR to manage a power grid, or a water supply grid, or even a traffic grid. We have better ways to do that. So, rather than use VR to read a gauge, we just have a remote sensor, which can also trigger alarms that a VR headset can't.

            We already have remote cameras - there's no need for VR. A regular screen does just fine.

            As for flying, you always need a human in the loop. And it's better if they're present, not in VR. That stuck control leve

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Bullshit. You are full of crap, as already shown above.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          I love how eloquent you are in listing all the reasons why I'm wrong, and what it is I should change my opinion on to be more correct.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            No point. Your statements are ridiculous on a level that nothing will help. You are clearly incapable to listen to reasons or to understand rational argument. Plenty examples in other discussion threads relating to the subject here already.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      People are dying because cars have blind spots, a problem that the F-35 solved with its VR (actually AR) helmet.

      • Re:The Problem with VR (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Saturday December 17, 2022 @01:32PM (#63138280) Homepage Journal

        People are dying because cars have blind spots, a problem that the F-35 solved with its VR (actually AR) helmet.

        You don't need a HMD to solve that problem, though. You can put displays on pillars, you can provide top-down displays, you can have collision warning systems that use tones and/or lights to warn of proximate obstacles... Requiring drivers to wear shit on their face is not a good solution when there are so many others. It makes much more sense in a plane, where you're already wearing something on your head (at least comms gear, even if no helmet is involved.)

        • People are dying because cars have blind spots, a problem that the F-35 solved with its VR (actually AR) helmet.

          You don't need a HMD to solve that problem, though. You can put displays on pillars, you can provide top-down displays, you can have collision warning systems that use tones and/or lights to warn of proximate obstacles... Requiring drivers to wear shit on their face is not a good solution when there are so many others. It makes much more sense in a plane, where you're already wearing something on your head (at least comms gear, even if no helmet is involved.)

          I don't know - the thought of using an F-35 to take out assholes who don't check their blind spots has a certain je ne sais quoi appeal to it.

          You know, "pour encourager les autres ..."

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Indeed. This very much is not a problem were VR even comes close to being a good solution.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          Requiring drivers to wear shit on their face is not a good solution when there are so many others.

          It must be nice to have perfect eyesight, but I like many others am already required to wear "shit" on my head when I drive.

          Moreover, it would be nice to be legally permitted to wear headphones while driving.

          • It must be nice to have perfect eyesight, but I like many others am already required to wear "shit" on my head when I drive.

            How would you like to wear something several times heavier?

            Moreover, it would be nice to be legally permitted to wear headphones while driving.

            No.

      • People are dying because cars have blind spots, a problem that the F-35 solved with its VR (actually AR) helmet.

        Those F-35 helmets cost about $400,000 each so I'm thinking that's not gonna be a promising use case.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          Those F-35 helmets cost about $400,000 each so I'm thinking that's not gonna be a promising use case.

          Someone should sell a consumer version for $400. Wouldn't that be great?

    • I think people would really enjoy immersive VR games. I think the issue is developing a game with that level of immersion takes absolutely vast resources. You can't just throw a VR overlay on a FPS, you need to engineer the game for VR from the ground up.

      Also, it sounds like Meta is rediscovering the mythical man-month. As in, you can't throw double the people at a project and expect it to be finished in half the time. It also sounds like the Star Citizen problem where, in trying to build a vast Ready Playe

      • they can't even get basic character models quite right.

        Yes, their initial reveal was pretty underwhelming, to put it graciously.

      • I think people would really enjoy immersive VR games.

        People do. Right now.

        I think the issue is developing a game with that level of immersion takes absolutely vast resources.

        Shrug. I've got a couple hundred VR games of just about every type. Some incredibly immersive, some cheap and fun.

        You can't just throw a VR overlay on a FPS, you need to engineer the game for VR from the ground up.

        You'd be surprised, I think, how effective it is to simply map a FPS into a VR environment.
        Those kinds of games are almost always at the top of the popularity charts, because they're fun as fuck.

        • would you say a few words about your top 5 favorite VR games?

          • Sure.

            I've had my Valve Index for somewhere around 2-3 years now (can't remember, but got it when it became available)
            Different people handle different types of ...VR genres... differently. But almost all people can learn to be comfortable in all VR environments.
            If you're sensitive to motion sickness, start small- roller coaster simulators, car games... games where your position is relatively fixed with regard to some point in your VR environment (your cockpit). That way you can just sit there and lean b
          • Crap, I've got to do another.

            If you have artistically inclined children or nieces/nephews (it's nieces and nephews for me)- Google's Tilt Brush, with their viewpoint plugged into the living room TV is fun for the whole family. My niece has produced shit in that application that just had the entire family staring at the TV with amazed grins.

            And for pure "VR experience" applications (not games, per se), Google Earth, Blue Planet, and Ocean Rift are amazing- as in awe inspiring, and there are many more lik

    • it's the need for VR, and there isn't one yet.

      There's no "need" for anything. We don't "need" computer games. We don't "need" game pads. This is a form of entertainment. VR is an incredibly fun one at that. It's not solving a need, it's addressing a want.

      Other than gaming it's still a solution looking for a problem

      So wait. You did identify something that it does after all. Why do you "need" more? Is building immersive worlds in gaming not good enough for you? Should we stop developing something simply because it only does games? Can you imagine the state of computer graphics if we legitimately did that!

      • Is building immersive worlds in gaming not good enough for you?

        No. Next question.

        Should we stop developing something simply because it only does games?

        What are you babbling about? No one said anything about stopping development on anything. Nice strawman, though.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      It's pretty cool for gaming. Why do you need more uses?

      Oh, if you're Facebook you need more because everything has to be world-shattering innovation, er, I mean, you need people to spend a significant amount of their time using it so you can harvest data. But I doubt Valve regrets developing VR headsets, and I don't think Oculus, pre-aquisition, would have either.

      • Maybe you missed the part where I said, "Other than gaming ..."

        We're still waiting for that "killer app" that will make VR enticing to corps and other venues.

        Why do we need more uses? Why not? If it's useful somewhere else, use it. I'm not against VR, I'm just saying it hasn't become mainstream because a lot of people don't know what to do with it yet (besides gaming).

        • It isn't mainstream because it's expensive.

          As far as people not knowing what to do with it, my Great Aunt worked at a company that designed interiors for Boeing jets, and they were using VR to get an idea what designs looked like a decade before a consumer could get their hands on such gear.
          Companies already use VR today, right now.

          • It isn't mainstream because it's expensive.

            That's definitely a barrier to adoption too, but one that people would overcome if they had a good enough reason to.

            Like in the Bad Old Days when a decent PC was $3000 ~ $5000, even at that price a fair number of people were still buying them.

            VR rigs are less expensive than that; I suspect a lot more people would be buying them if there was something -anything- besides gaming that you could do with them.

            • I've been doing the VR thing for a while now.
              First on a 1080Ti, then a 2080Ti, and now a 3090Ti.
              It has, in fact, been the singular driver for my video card upgrades.

              As you can see from that lineup, keeping my PC "VR ready" eclipsed the price of any VR headset ages ago.
              And that's really the problem. If you want a really good VR experience, you really do need pretty high-end equipment.
              Sure you can get by with less, but things like frame drops and jerkiness are really frustrating in VR. Reductions in qua

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Quite right. But there appear to be no really compelling games either.

    • there just don't appear to be any really compelling real-world uses for VR yet.

      There's a really compelling use case for VR: virtual workstations. Why have giant monitors and monitor stands burning through 60-100 watts of power when a 3 watt 2" LCD that's 1" from your eyeball could be used even in a coffee shop.

      People work on laptops which SUCK for ergonomics. Your head is pointed down, your keyboard is in a weird spot etc and the reflections and glare cause eye strain.

      The problem with VR isn't the compelling need. The problem with VR is still distinctly a technological one that nee

  • Hope he will make Open VR instead (Score:3)

    by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Saturday December 17, 2022 @01:15PM (#63138238)
    I hope he starts a new company to produce an Open VR world, with multiple manufacturers making Open-Standard VR headsets for it.

  • Relatable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Saturday December 17, 2022 @02:48PM (#63138438) Journal

    I think this is extremely relatable to most any of us software developers who are more down in the weeds type coders, which Carmack absolutely was. It doesn't matter how much we know, how much insight we have, or even in the case of Carmack how much fame and power you have. At the end of the day when you're put into a bureaucratic, corporate environment it's all about how good you can manipulate others and work the power structure. Generally, people who excel at those skills have no other skills or insight whatsoever (that's not always the case, but it usually is), and conversely, most of us highly analytical thinkers that are good developers are extremely weak in those corporate type skills (which are actually social and interpersonal in nature).

    So I feel for the guy because I would have failed in guiding and directing the design of the products for the same reasons, but even worse, because I have no fame or name recognition.

    • Re:Relatable (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ItsJustAPseudonym ( 1259172 ) on Saturday December 17, 2022 @04:21PM (#63138626)

      it's all about how good you can manipulate others and work the power structure. Generally, people who excel at those skills have no other skills or insight whatsoever (that's not always the case, but it usually is), and conversely, most of us highly analytical thinkers that are good developers are extremely weak in those corporate type skills (which are actually social and interpersonal in nature).

      I'd like to put an additional spin on that. Even if you excel at technical thinking, once you are moved into the role of having to deal with org structures and power structure in a big company, you won't have time to drive the technical side of things. It just sucks up too much time to do the org stuff. Meetings, meetings, meetings. Reports, reports, reports. Defense, defense, defense. Your best hope is to hire people below you who are good technically, and then shield them strongly from distractions and inertia. Worst case is you find there's too much distraction and inertia, like Carmack apparently found at Meta, and you can't fix it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by evanh ( 627108 )

        Which probably means the person/persons who wanted Mr Carmack there in the first place failed to do that shielding. It's not like he was an unknown after all. If they really valued him they would've gladly done that work.

        Or maybe everyone higher up ended up thinking the whole idea of Meta was already a dead horse.

  • Maybe he'll bring Armadillo Aerospace out of hibernation?

  • Inefficiency is the best thing preventing Facebook from being more evil than it already is.

    Seriously, don't go to work for Satan for 10 years and then complain you weren't able to get more done.

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close