> This is incompetent execution of an untested idea.

VR will be huge some day. Maybe not as huge as the Metaverse hype, but huge nonetheless.

But did you expect Facebook to have any competence on making it? Even if the timing was correct, what differentiator do they have?

And then the CEO throws a world-changing amount of money without even an idea (because "a VR world!" isn't an idea). Did you expect any of that money not to be wasted? That's not how products are made.

The Metaverse wasn't an organization failure. It was all Zuckenberg's incompetence, Facebook didn't even get the chance to try.

The AI started different, but it's becoming the same thing again.

▲

somewhatgoated an hour ago | parent | next [-]

VR won’t be huge someday. We won’t live to see it at least. We also won’t experience quantum computing having a real world impact. We also won’t see humanoid robots doing any meaningful real world work. There also won’t be a Mars base in our lifetime or datacenters in space or underwater. There won’t be any flying cars either.

	▲	zmmmmm 21 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I can't tell how serious you are. But I'm curious - thinking of your past self (depending how old you are), what would have said about the current AI revolution 10 years ago? Eg: the chances that fully agentic generalised automated software engineering would become orthodoxy? What chance would you have given it happening by 2026?
	▲	johnfn an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I would definitely bet against the humanoid robot thing on good odds.
	▲	umeshunni 19 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Underwater data centers: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-powers-ai-b... "Flying cars" https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/joby-flie...

▲

Eufrat an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> VR will be huge some day. Maybe not as huge as the Metaverse hype, but huge nonetheless.

I really doubt this. There’s too many people who suffer from motion sickness to make this payoff. 33% of the population suffers from motion sickness to varying degrees and current mitigations including blowing a fan at suffering users, is an unrealistc barrier to causal usage.

	▲	zmmmmm 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		i think the key is, about half of that 33% can tolerate certain elements of it (stationary experiences etc) and another slice suffer in a way that will be resolvable or at least somewhat mitigated by technology improvements. And then another slice will accommodate it if exposed early enough. Put it all together and you probably are talking more like 10% of people residual. It is still a lot but I think it's just bearable to not be a death blow to mainstream use.

▲

HWR_14 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Even if the timing was correct, what differentiator do they have?

Being willing to put $80 billion on the line is a differentiator. It can subsidize hardware, hire talent, acquire companies, etc.

There were definitely ideas beyond just "VR good". But frankly, giving some of the high level employees he had (Boswell and Luckie and Carmack among others) $10billion each to make VR products they think should exist is something that would probably work