Why?

FaceBook largely requires an Apple iPhone, Apple computer, "Microsoft" computer, "Google" phone, or a "Google" computer to use it. At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]).

The Metaverse was a long term goal to get people onto a device (Occulus) that Meta controlled. While I think an AR device is much more useful than VR; I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...

▲

everforward 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think this is sane washing their idea in the modern context of it having failed. I think at the time, they thought VR would be the next big thing and wanted to become the dominant player via first mover advantage.

The headsets don’t really make sense to me in the way you’re describing. Phones are omnipresent because it’s a thing you always just have on you. Headsets are large enough that it’s a conscious choice to bring it; they’re closer to a laptop than a phone.

Also, the web interface is like right there staring at them. Any device with a browser can access Facebook like that. Google/Apple/Microsoft can’t mess with that much without causing a huge scene and probably massive antitrust backlash.

	▲	Aerroon an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think headsets might work, but I think Meta trying to use their first mover advantage so hard so early backfired. Oculus, as a device, became less desirable after it required Facebook integration. It's kind of like Microsoft with copilot - the idea about having an AI assistant that can help you use the computer is great. But it can't be from Microsoft because people don't trust them with that.

▲

latexr 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms.

Devoid of other context, it’s hard to disagree. But your parent comment only asserted that the metaverse specifically as proposed by Facebook was an obviously stupid idea.

▲

corford 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Why?

Patrick Boyle did a nice video a few weeks back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BaSBjxNg-M

▲

IshKebab 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because it's been very clear for a long time that the vast majority of people do not want to play VR Second Life.

▲

snek_case 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Meta's vision was worse than that. They were trying to hype doing work meetings in VR. There's a case to be made that VR games and VR universes can be fun... But work meetings?

▲

ethbr1 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Mark Zuckerberg using his company to build things he's the primary user for?

	▲	jimbokun 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It worked when he wanted a system for ranking Harvard girls by appearance.

▲

PKop 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because it's been a massively expensive failure. They can't just will their own platform into existence just because it would be good to have, consumers have a say and they've rejected it completely.

▲

turtlesdown11 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

so after $80 billion spent, they must have an ecosystem of hundreds of millions of users? Right?

Maybe they should have spent that on the facebookphone