“ Having realized that few consumers actually want to be involved in the metaverse, Meta—which underwent a name change solely due to its blind faith in the metaverse—laid off 11,000 of its employees in November.”

If there were another pandemic then maybe the world might enjoy living online in a meta verse but for now I don’t see the need.

Maybe meta should add "induce another pandemic" in their GTM strategy.

But you are totally right this platforms have no engagement.

Maybe unpopular opinion but VR/AR isn't going to go mainstream any time soon.

100%

Also targeted ppl might change. They want young ppl to do everything virtually. Stay home, play video game, take office meeting, etc. But my dad has weak legs, he can't walk much and he uses to explore different parts of the world, enjoy alex honnold's free solo climbs, etc

> If there were another pandemic then maybe the world might enjoy living online in a meta verse but for now I don’t see the need.

I don't even think another pandemic would get enough interest for the 'metaverse'. Were actual consumers ever truly interested? And by that I mean if there would have been a product out there....would anyone believe enough in it to put their hard earned money on it

Facebook employees working from home were not interested enough to have meetings in the Meta-sphere.

And these are people who were GIVEN the devices for free. Imagine the odds of the general public dropping money on it

Don't give them any ideas!

It is an influx in talent for VR developers. MS brings absolutely nothing to the VR market and AR is nothing worth caring about.

I get a lot of hate for having the same opinion mostly. It's a very specific tool for a very specific use case. And it will not ever, imo, be for gen pop. No family of 5 is spending 14K on headsets so they can watch TV in VR.

The fact that to share in the experience "everyone needs a headset" reminds me of going in circles. Were not the first moving picture experiences done inside of little boxes where you mash your face against a "binocular" type of window thing?

https://www.loc.gov/collections/edison-company-motion-pictures-and-sound-recordings/articles-and-essays/history-of-edison-motion-pictures/origins-of-motion-pictures/

Then they invented the technology to make the image SO BIG, everyone who COULD see the screen could see the stuff on the screen. This has been the go to, since it got sorted. It's kinda amazing, you can easily point out things on the screen and everyone in the room can look there. Being humans, as we are, this is really great and fast and natural.

So now we're gonna go full circle, and everyone is gonna need some form of single view headset device, to see something? And again I get all the specific use cases. I have no idea how many there are, perhaps millions.

But it's a bit worrying that even in the enterprise, specific use case "community" Microsoft could not find footing. It's not like they suck and gave it a 1/2 ass attempt. Was it early? Probably.

I had a conversation with a Ar/Vr stakeholder recently and they said "Isn't manipulating 3d data on a 2d screen confusing and hard to wrap your head around?" and my answer was "Well actually no, not at all....I dont think it's strange to anyone who has ever played a game or used a computer really...given a few hours of training" As if people who manipulate 3d things on 2d screens have been screaming day in and day out "DAMN THIS 2D SCREEN!" I've been in CGI for my entire life, and i've never heard this take even once.

Another friend in the space said "Imagine going to the mall, and picking up a shirt and being informed that it's cheaper down at another store" I said....THE MALL?...are you serious? First of all Malls are dying, and you think someone is gonna wear a headset into a mall?

PLUS wouldn't I have already found out where the cheapest shirt was using "internet" and driven there specifically? What is this ridiculous use case?

We already know how wearing "headsets" out in the public eye works out...

https://www.businessinsider.com/i-was-assaulted-for-wearing-google-glass-2014-4

soooooooooooooooooo,.........................I'm not sure! I think a lot of these developments are driven by people living in a specific bubble and who have forgotten how humans work while also forgetting recent history of such devices.

You should check out tilt5. They're an AR gaming company and their prices are very accessible. They've already rolled out some pretty great games and they're acquiring the rights to a bunch more.

>Meta—which underwent a name change solely due to its blind faith in the metaverse

This claim stuck out to me when reading... Is that really the only reason for the name change?

Don't forget that there are a billion headphones users, nearly 1.5 billion PC users, and 4-5 billion smartphones users.

Headphones are pretty much always single-user devices, PCs are very usually single-user devices, and smartphones are a bit of both, but people are very protective about their privacy when it comes to their phones and handing it off to someone else, so they might just show someone the screen and that's about as far as that goes.

That's a lot of devices being used for single user experiences. VR can fit into that category just fine and still make it big.

Manipulating 3D data on a 2D screen can both work well and not work well; depends on the activity in question. People don't really have an issue creating/showing data through statistics and charts on a 2D screen, but there's a lot of struggle in both learning and ultimately using 3D modelling software because a mouse and keyboard or touchscreen isn't the most sufficient or natural interface there.

Perhaps one of the biggest usecases of 2D screens is communication. If we talk about videocalls in particular, then that is a huge step-back from how humans evolved to communicate, as there is no spatial context, it happens out of scale, and it happens in 2D - altogether creating this very unnatural result that we put up with because it's the best we have but would be tossed aside for something better. This is perhaps the biggest potential of VR - a new communications medium, enabling people to connect face to face instead of screen to screen.

>Microsoft could not find footing. It's not like they suck and gave it a 1/2 ass attempt. Was it early? Probably.

Isn't early better for Microsoft? When I think about some of Microsoft's flops, I recall a lot of products that were introduced when Microsoft was trying to play catch up. Microsoft's Zune didn't come out until the iPod was already mature, and the iPhone was only a year away. Microsoft came out with the Kin to capitalize on the Sidekick's popularity, but it came weirdly three years after the iPhone. They didn't get Windows Phone to market until the iOS and Android stores were already mature, making it difficult for MS to draw developers and customers to the platform.

The only example, that I can think of, involving MS successfully entering into a mature market, is perhaps the Xbox.

It's been the Next Big Thing since the 80s.

[deleted]

Hololens2 was shit, MRTK is pants, good riddance.

The curse of silicon valley. A bunch of ladder climbers jumping on this a few years ago as the next best thing in computing while everyone outside of silicon valley couldn’t give two shits.

MSFT shat the bed with VR from the start

No it’s also a keyword in programming for meta tags- so if you were trying to get rid of Facebook spyware you could just do a search for Facebook… do a search for meta and everything returns.

First of all, who asked for all this AR/VR stuff?! Like it just feels like a lot of companies are invested in this but not that many ppl care.

I think Amiga's were the go-to unit due to the cost and graphic power.

First tried one out at Downtown in Adelaide in the early 80's.

More or less.