Meta Records Almost $4 Billion Loss On Metaverse In First Quarter (cnbc.com) 97
In its first-quarter earnings report today, Meta said its virtual reality and augmented reality unit, Reality Labs, recorded a $3.99 billion operating loss. The unit generated just $339 million in revenue. CNBC reports: The numbers show a slowdown from last quarter, when Reality Labs lost $4.28 billion on $727 million of revenue. For all of last year, Reality Labs recorded an operating loss of $13.72 billion on $2.16 billion in sales, underscoring how VR and AR technologies have yet to reach the mainstream. Despite Reality Labs' operating loss, Meta posted first-quarter net earnings of $5.71 billion, or $2.20 a share, with revenue up less than 3% to $28.65 billion from $27.91 billion a year ago. This sent its stock soaring more than 10% in extended trading Wednesday.
"Facebook had 2.04 billion daily active users, up 5% from a year ago, and the 'family' of Meta apps -- which includes Instagram -- reported daily active users of 3.02 billion, up 4%," adds MarketWatch.
"Facebook had 2.04 billion daily active users, up 5% from a year ago, and the 'family' of Meta apps -- which includes Instagram -- reported daily active users of 3.02 billion, up 4%," adds MarketWatch.
double down (Score:5, Funny)
Meta should at least double down for the 2nd quarter. I mean the metaverse is such a clear winner in the future of the world, the faster they can get metaverse out the door the better off we'll all be, right?
So, please spend more and more quickly, we are counting on you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More, faster, please.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
$4B is only this quarter. Three months.
And that's actually a slightly reduced burn rate from last FY's $13B loss, but still on pace to beat FY21's ~$10B loss.
I don't know how you spend almost $30B on a shitty remake of Second Life where the graphics have been upgraded to look like something from a Nintendo Wii game from 13 years ago, but they've managed it.
Re: (Score:2)
$4B is only this quarter. Three months.
And that's actually a slightly reduced burn rate from last FY's $13B loss, but still on pace to beat FY21's ~$10B loss.
I don't know how you spend almost $30B on a shitty remake of Second Life where the graphics have been upgraded to look like something from a Nintendo Wii game from 13 years ago, but they've managed it.
How does an augmented reality team burn through $4B in three months? That's $16B per year, or enough to pay for over 50,000 full-time engineers. I could understand if almost the entire company were working on that, rather than the ~10K that are actually working on that. But no, that means they're spending on the order of $1.3 million dollars per employee above and beyond what I'd expect to be their average compensation... on what? Prototypes made out of solid gold with diamonds? Giant server farms to s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Zuck's looking at Musk and saying, hold my bong.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of money they are lighting on fire is just staggering
Only to you. It's not a significant amount of money compared to other tech behemoths investing in R&D. In fact Facebook is not only spending less in total terms on their current pet project than other companies, they are also spending less than many tech companies in terms for percentage of revenue.
If the numbers scare you it's because you don't understand the numbers.
Now on the other hand spending money on something as shitty as their Metaverse idea as a concept, that is truly staggeringly stupid. :-)
Re: double down (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Profitable hardware division? Where do you think the money is being spent, exactly?
Re: (Score:1)
So please, let's force Meta to sell off the profitable VR hardware division
WTF??? There is no "profitable VR hardware division". It is a massive money-losing boondoggle, due to the fact that VR is a stupid gimmick that nobody gives half a fuck about.
Re: double down (Score:1)
Re: double down (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> especially with body tracking in a large room
because everybody has one of those knocking about to make into the VR space
Re: (Score:2)
He's just a VR chat junkie. For the most part there aren't advantages beyond a couple square meters of floor space. Most people have that, even if they need to scoot the couch and coffee table. I use VR on a daily basis and the vast majority of the time I use it seated.
Here is the thing, it is very cool to walk around No man sky, Skyrim, Minecraft, etc. If anything it actually reduces your efficiency in many aspects of gameplay but that doesn't matter, games aren't actually about efficiency but enjoyment an
Re: (Score:2)
I use VR on a daily basis and the vast majority of the time I use it seated.
I hear VR porn is spectacular...
Re: (Score:2)
Now only if there were some type of business you could run around such an idea - maybe something where you rent a large space and subdivide it into large-ish rooms set up for this kind of thing, to be rented out for events or just ad hoc entertainment purposes. You know, like people have done for decades with new expensive entertainment technology. See: movie theaters, paintball / laser tag businesses, internet cafes in the late 90s, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Yea but exactly this shit is what keeps killing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the thing. There is a crew of luddites that shitpan this class of technologies and for some reason people listen to them. With 3D movies and TV I get it... initially the tech caused headaches and it only did so much for still content. For decades before its breakout the tech was a gimmick and the content reflected that which helped foster the reputation. Myself, I had a DLP projector so nobody in my home ever had headaches and the best content was actually regular movies which you got a little more
Re: (Score:2)
The hardware is okay, but Meta can only sell it at 50% off the way they've been doing if they make up the difference in spying... I mean personalized advertising. In order to do that, they have to convince people to do things in VR that are more illuminating than playing games.
Re: double down (Score:1)
Apple will be along shortly to keep the money fire burning bright.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple will be along shortly to show everyone how it's done.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at this pace they will at least stop to darken our monitors pretty fast. Seems Zuk is a 1-trick pony that got really lucky once. Or at least stole the right idea.
Re: double down (Score:2)
I assume the haters modded the parent 'Funny' because they are jealous of handsome charismatic genius Mark Zuckerberg. One last push of investment will see Meta conquer the whole intarnets.
Re: (Score:1)
Censor sock puppets were apparently defeated and it's now Funny. Barely?
Re: (Score:1)
Burn baby, burn!
Re:How the fsck (Score:2)
Did they get ANY revenue?
A lot of stupid people, apparently.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, the wonder of the stereotypical web commenter with no self awareness who assumes that anyone who buys a product must be stupid for deciding that that product adds value for them.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Meta's business model is addicting users by feeding them feeds of flamebait and then selling out the users of the various platforms it owns to third parties in addition to using to target advertising.
The judgement isn't on the people buying things... though the last thing anyone needs is a constant stream of crap they are tempted to impulse buy but on choosing to use the platforms in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
Mod parent Insightful with sad seasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially all social media that isn't tiktok is Meta.
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently forgot that Twitter exists. Well, for now, anyway. We'll see what happens when Musk's first loan payments come due.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, from the hardware sales. However, year-over-year revenue has actually decreased while burn rate is basically flat. So that's a good indicator of how the public seems to be "getting on board"...
Insanity (Score:5, Interesting)
How can any company, even the size of Facebook, keep blowing $4 billion a quarter on nothing?
I mean, can you realistically say any progress has been made on improving the metaverse in terms of engagement? You could maybe argue some slight improvement has been made technically in terms of adding legs to avatars, but is that enough to justify spending $4 billion?
What on earth are they even spending $4 billion ON?
Surprised there $339M revenue (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Interesting)
It's going one of two ways. Either they make it big, and are years ahead of everyone else if it becomes a hit, or they go bust. Right now it certainly looks more like bust. It's a massive gamble, but seems to be one that stockholders are accepting of right now.
Numerous others have done similar. Google has plenty of times. Tesla and SpaceX too. Blue Origin doing the same.
Essentially what Facebook is doing is what all HC firms do, they're just funding it themselves. There's a MVP that they've been sold on and they're investing big in it, recognizing it's boom or bust. I hate Zuck and would love to see him fail. Having said that, if they do succeed after everyone doubted them, it'll be funny to see how folks change their tune. And it'd put Facebook in an absolutely dominant position in a market that's expected to attract trillions.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Informative)
And it'd put Facebook in an absolutely dominant position in a market that's expected to attract trillions.
Expected by whom, exactly? I'm an early adopter of a lot of things. I have one of the earliest e-ink tablets ever made, before the Amazon product existed. I had to import it from France to get it. It still works to this day, 15 years later.
But I don't have a VR headset. Still. And I like cockpit games. A VR headset just seems like a very very expensive computer monitor that is liable to make me sick. Every year I say "maybe this year" and then I don't buy one.
Judging by the sales statistics, I'm in the majority. So... who expects VR to attract trillions?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
AR is not the metaverse that Facebook is investing in. The Oculus is only a SMALL part of their Metaverse investment. Clearly you don't really understand what they've been investing in here.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to admit, I don't understand what they're investing in either. I've read several articles on it. I've watched a half-hour DW segment. I've read a bunch of Slashdot comments - including yours. And I still can't tell.
So, who does understand where the money is going, and is willing to explain it?
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody, unless you're willing to join their satanic cult.
Re: (Score:2)
I love VR/AR and I think if it survives the growing pains it will dominate the world. But I still can't for the life of me figure out what they are spending that kind of money on unless it is all going into the acquisitions and those are heartbreaking because they don't do anything with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Acquiring competitors and burying them is one way to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but in many cases they don't really have anything competing with what they are buying or they don't bury it, they just buy it and let it stagnate. And burying content creators in an infant space starved for content isn't the best strategy when you are betting billions on that space succeeding.
This isn't social media where all the competitors basically do the same thing.
Then what is the whole. (Score:1)
AR is not the metaverse that Facebook is investing in. The Oculus is only a SMALL part of their Metaverse investment. Clearly you don't really understand what they've been investing in here.
I know that AR is only a small part... but what is the rest? That is literally what I am asking, what are they spending $4 billion on?
In all seriousness can you even describe it?
Re: (Score:3)
So... who expects VR to attract trillions?
I could probably find a few articles in Forbes or the Wall St. Journal or any of the other financial rags telling you to put the farm on VR because you'll make a mint, but they'll print any old PR crap from anybody's publicity department so none of it is real.
VR is not going "mainstream" any time soon, and the Facebook robot bloke is not as smart as he thinks he is.
Re:Insanity (Score:4, Interesting)
Think of something like World of Warcraft. They weren't the first MMO by a long shot, but they hit it so far out of the park that even two decades after their launch Blizzard is still coasting on a lot of that early success. The market for MMOs ballooned under that game.
Facebook is hoping that they're in a similar situation where the few million people who are causally using VR right now are just a tiny fraction of a massive global user base. I think they might be correct about the market potential, but I don't think they're the company that will be able to tap into it. But even if they fail, the time and skills develop led by some of the people working there can be used by others that want to carry the torch.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're a few more hardware generations away from the computational power needed for that to become available outside of top-end GPUs though and it'll need a killer app to go with it.
I think they need to forget about trying to make it run heavyweight 3d apps on the devices directly, and instead concentrate on making it run streamed content from your PC to do all the heavy lifting - even if that means they have to develop a special wireless interface that is optimised to be as low latency as possible.
Ideally though, they will get it working sufficiently well over WIFI. It's already almost there - the only games I have bothered playing for any length of time were steam games streamed from
Re: (Score:2)
The metaverse isn't just VR.
It's also a shitty, crypto infested, ad-fuelled MMO.
Re: (Score:2)
People can think of the various use cases for VR/AR and who actually do have headsets. It's like you are sitting there saying:
"I'm an adventurous eater who tries many things. But this lobster thing seems overrated. Every year I think about trying it but then figure it is just liable to make me sick. I can't imagine many people are going to want this stuff."
VR digitizes three dimensional space. It is literally adding a new dimension to the experience. With a couple square meters I can clear to log on I can e
Re: (Score:2)
Most of their newer stuff seems to be focused more on AR to me, or really more along the lines of MR. I can definitely see a lot of potential for both and the blending of the two but these entirely camera based passthrough setups don't really hold a candle to my magicleap in terms of visual quality of what is there. If you've used that kind of tech you are definitely going to feel disappointed by something that feels like a video feed.
But there definitely seem to be companies doing more with a few million t
Re: (Score:1)
the blending of the two but these entirely camera based passthrough setups don't really hold a candle to my magicleap in terms of visual quality of what is there.
I agree the MagicLeap is better (don't have one but I have used one a few times) but I think video passthrough is finally getting to the point where it's close enough, and Apple in particular I feel has been working really hard to refine that aspect as much as possible.
But there definitely seem to be companies doing more with a few million than fac
Re: (Score:2)
I really think they'd do better to open up API's to allow more integration and access to the hardware by apps, especially improving PC/cloud backend integration and building development tools. The home environment needs a rework, they basically have a phone interface tossed into VR. They should have an actual VR interface and make it feel like all the content, even third party is integrated into it... especially desktop content. They've accomplished a lot on the headset but lets be honest, high quality VR c
Re: (Score:2)
Expected by whom, exactly?
Literally everyone in industry. There's a reason every man and their pet dog is throwing R&D money in this direction.
But I don't have a VR headset.
All that means is that you're not an early adopter of VR. Not all tech is equal. You have a shiny e-ink tablet, good for you. I don't. I do have 2 VR headsets though.
Judging by the sales statistics, I'm in the majority.
The sales statistics show VR headsets are more popular than many wildly successful gaming consoles. What are you comparing to and what majority are you in? I interviewed an Amish community recently, not a Nintendo to be found
Re: (Score:2)
years ahead of everyone else if it becomes a hit
I know Meta keeps trying to sell the notion that they invented the metaverse, but virtual worlds have been around for decades [headphonesaddict.com]. Second Life does everything their flavor of Metaverse claims to offer, and has been doing so for nearly 20 years with millions of users. Meta's chance to be years ahead of everyone else de-rezzed long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
seems to be one that stockholders are accepting of right now.
Could be wrong, but my understanding is that Zuckerberg holds 51% of controlling shares. It's possible that no one can stop him. Also, the public stock seems to be mirroring Alphabet and Microsoft for the most part so it may be that no one cares yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Very much like Musk, these people have been successful enough in the past that they've basically earned the ability to do almost whatever they want, a
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is a sole-proprietorship.
No, it's not.
I don't care about the formal definition.
Then why use that term?
It's his money.
No, it's not. Not that you care.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't you a Must sycophant? $4 billion is nothing compared to what he wasted over a similar period.
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth are they even spending $4 billion ON?
Indeed. The money seems to be going into almost nothing. Unless Meta is secretly funding a medium-sized war somewhere, I really do not see how they could spend all that and still essentially have nothing.
Alternate viewpoint (Score:3)
How can any company, even the size of Facebook, keep blowing $4 billion a quarter on nothing?
The answer is that Meta, even in it's "struggling" state, still banks tons of money.
Another way of looking at what Meta should be doing is to ask the question, "If Meta doesn't sink $4 billion into Reality Labs, what should it do with the $9.7 billion in profits from the first quarter?" Should it just put the money away in the piggy bank like Apple? The Metaverse could turn out to be nothing, or it could be transformational (not based on what it looks like today but in the future years). Depending on you
Re: (Score:3)
How can any company, even the size of Facebook, keep blowing $4 billion a quarter on nothing?
I guess you have never seen "empire building" in action before, eh?
When one of the top manager engage in the game of empire building, he/she would wave the "we must do this or we will perish" slogan, start a huge project to do this thing, hire or transfer lots of staff into the project (which of course is under himself/herself) and grab a large bite of the company budget. This is his/her empire and the manager can relish on the power over all the serfs in it. Such project can go on for years.
Not surprisin
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, can you realistically say any progress has been made on improving the metaverse in terms of engagement?
I'm not sure why you're picking these weird goalposts. Lots of people say "there won't be significant engagement until the technology has advanced a couple of generations" so the incremental work to advance the technology those generations will naturally not have corresponding engagement until it crosses a threshold.
Re: (Score:2)
... and each generation costs a fuckton or two of money because it's hardware development.
Only two things are required to get a fledgling technology to be a flourishing technology: money, and a good idea. They clearly have the money, but I'm not sold on the idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Treason.
Re: (Score:2)
How can any company, even the size of Facebook, keep blowing $4 billion a quarter on nothing?
I mean, can you realistically say any progress has been made on improving the metaverse in terms of engagement? You could maybe argue some slight improvement has been made technically in terms of adding legs to avatars, but is that enough to justify spending $4 billion?
What on earth are they even spending $4 billion ON?
Why, Hookers and Blow, of course!
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth are they even spending $4 billion ON?
If we're starting a betting pool, my money is on "hookers and cocaine".
Re: (Score:2)
As you say, these numbers are just amazing.
Re: (Score:1)
That works out to ~$1,000,000 each for fully burdened cost (base salary, bonus, stock grants, taxes, perks, etc.) which is sounds about right for a company like Facebook.
Now, if you are asking how can 17,000 people create such a pathetic pile o' poo poo as The Metaverse? Well, that's Facebook's secret sauce. They ain't gonna give that secret away.
Re: (Score:2)
How can any company, even the size of Facebook, keep blowing $4 billion a quarter on nothing?
Because they earn significantly more than that. In terms of investment as a percentage of revenue this R&D budget isn't out of the ordinary for any tech company. Heck Intel spent well more than double this amount both in absolute terms as well as reinvestment as a percentage of earnings. You're just scared of big numbers you can't comprehend.
The only thing unique here is that they are hell bent on not reviewing a likely losing strategy.
Well sure (Score:2)
It's expensive to participate in and offers little to no value.
It's a niche for rich people. Which is fine, I can appreciate the hussle, but they bet the farm on it.
I'd feel bad for the company if it were almost anyone other than Meta.
It's a medical miracle (Score:5, Funny)
I think this is the first time that a cancer dies from a Metastasis.
I'll solve their problem! (Score:3)
I can fail completely and utterly for a much lower cost. They should just shut down their "metaverse" department and send me $400 million/quarter. I'm much cheaper.
4B dollars aint what it used to be... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
An in such a short time! Ordinarily, you need some "groundbreaking" military project to waste so much money for so little in such a short time. I do not think there even are hookers that expensive and coke is outright cheap compared to what they threw out the window.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't even need to be groundbreaking. The amount of money they spent last year could have bought a state-of-the-art Ford-class aircraft carrier, and still had change left over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What's really going to bake your noodle is that this $4B is only the latest quarter, after losing $13B in FY22 and $10B in FY21. There's a good chance they cross the $30B net loss mark before July.
But, you know, keep backing up the dump trucks of money to the incinerator... the world will come around someday! After all, now you have legs to go with your shitty 13-year old Wii-esque graphics version of Second Life!
Ans nobody with a clue is surprised (Score:2)
Zuck the fuck is like a lottery winner now: Tons of money, but no clue how things work. Desperately trying to stay relevant is his own defect though.
Proof Zuck Sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
However, this asshat actually thinks he is a Genius and is willing to spend money to disprove it.
Literally every concept requires R&D, and so far Meta's R&D spend is actually lower in percentage of revenue than several other tech companies.
The only thing unique here is that VR is everyone's favourite punching bag and therefore the subject of shock stories about otherwise perfectly normal R&D statistics. Incidentally Meta's share price rose after their quarterly report, so clearly the privacy Zuck has some people who agree with him.
$339 million (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They spent $400 million of the $4 billion the blew on buying their own product.
Stock price? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Meta verse: solution without a problem (Score:1)
There is basically no one who is desperate for a meta verse.
Especially one without legs. Lol
How on earth do you burn 4 billion ... (Score:2)
... on this? I fundamentally don't get it.
Could someone elaborate? What can R&D for high end VR goggles cost? 100 million? 200? Add in some programming and the development of protocols optimized for Fabs existing infrastructure and some small scale rollouts of early RC devices and services. What would that be on the upper end? 500 million? 800 perhaps. But 4 billion? Something's off.
What happened here?
Anybody with details, perhaps even someone involved in the project? Not unlikely on slashdot I presume.
3D TVs (Score:2)
Remember when 3D televisions were all the rage (and by that I mean what the manufacturers wanted us to buy)? The various incarnations - passive polarized glasses, active glasses, and then *gasp* 3D TVs that didn't need glasses at all (like Nintendo's 3Ds). And consumers said.... meh. Even the Nintendo 3DS basically went away eventually - they released the 2DS, and obviously the next generation Switch console was not 3D at all.
That is what VR is at this point. Tech companies are desperately wanting to find
$4B in a quarter? (Score:2)
Fire him! (Score:2)
Murdoch needs to fire Zuckerberg.