Zuckerberg is staking his company on a skeumorphic representation of the future, even though history is replete with reasons why that will not be the case.
'It's like real life, but 3D' is a pretty bad pitch, because what we're solving for is creating native representations in an ostensibly new medium. The problem, of course, is that nobody seems convinced that any of this is a new medium.
I started reading Snow Crash, and it's a very good book. Certainly revved up that part of my nature, the giddy kid doped up on scifi pewpews, and I can see how/why it has become the holy grail for the future, but certainly we can do better than that.
The metaverse is an interface problem, and Facebook has not solved it. It has only laid branding claims to it.
Why don't the tech billionaires chasing after sci-fi metaverses get that these fictional virtual realities seem great on the page but would be hell to actually live in 12 hours a day? I truly do not know, but I think it may have something to do with their refusal to admit that they are the baddies.
As the title implies, quite ranty, but with interesting references and arguments.
Zuckerberg calls the metaverse "an embodied internet where you're in the experience, not just looking at it." Has he used the internet? Actually? How much of it would you like to embody?
Fair criticism. The current internet is not something I’d like to embody. Then again, it’s hard to imagine doing that.
Also good points and about interoperability of virtual worlds limiting creativity: when each world (game) has its own constraints, items don’t have the same meaning or value.
Imposing an interoperability layer sounds hard, doing it in a decentralized way even harder, and the latter isn’t credible coming from a company like Facebook/Meta that makes money by controlling a social space.
clicking a mouse feels better than making a finger gun in empty air.
Here he lost me for a while. Why wouldn’t there be tangible controllers in “the metaverse”? Interesting point though: in the Facebook presentation, the physical reality of VR goggles & controllers was hard to spot.
Zuckerberg is staking his company on a skeumorphic representation of the future, even though history is replete with reasons why that will not be the case.
'It's like real life, but 3D' is a pretty bad pitch, because what we're solving for is creating native representations in an ostensibly new medium. The problem, of course, is that nobody seems convinced that any of this is a new medium.
I started reading Snow Crash, and it's a very good book. Certainly revved up that part of my nature, the giddy kid doped up on scifi pewpews, and I can see how/why it has become the holy grail for the future, but certainly we can do better than that.
The metaverse is an interface problem, and Facebook has not solved it. It has only laid branding claims to it.
This comment was deleted on 11/13/2021
Exactly.
10 Read; albeit I Am So Glad To Be Free of all this Bullshit (and that is an Expression with ☯️💕💓😘☯️ Inherently Anchoring).
Now Back to Our More Inspiring non-FB/MV Reads.
😉🫂🎭🍃🌸
We need less xboxes and more tackle boxes.
💯
As the title implies, quite ranty, but with interesting references and arguments.
Fair criticism. The current internet is not something I’d like to embody. Then again, it’s hard to imagine doing that.
Also good points and about interoperability of virtual worlds limiting creativity: when each world (game) has its own constraints, items don’t have the same meaning or value.
Imposing an interoperability layer sounds hard, doing it in a decentralized way even harder, and the latter isn’t credible coming from a company like Facebook/Meta that makes money by controlling a social space.
Here he lost me for a while. Why wouldn’t there be tangible controllers in “the metaverse”? Interesting point though: in the Facebook presentation, the physical reality of VR goggles & controllers was hard to spot.
The only thing you need to read about Meta in my opinion.