Why doesn't the Metaverse look as disruptive as it should?

techxplore.com

3 points·Brajeshwar··6 comments

Text is still a leading way to transfer information efficiently. Browsing websites with big goggles is not fun.

VR is still expensive. Only one provider offers a less expensive, standalone form.

For what purpose is VR to be enjoyed? As a novelty or gaming rig, it's okay. The catalog is small and Balcanized. I can't do my job, network software development, effectively in VR.

2D computer screens are still more convenient for 3D modeling than VR headsets.

Curiously, there's no video call app yet. You'd have to jump through a number of hoops on VRChat to get people into a private session.

Wouldn't ever happen. We don't even have to have video calls enabled. Those fancy background effects are basically server-side. I don't want MS or Facebook analysing the background of my calls for marketing purposes because my employer decided to use Teams.

I wouldn't be surprised if video calls were made entirely optional EU wide for data protection.

No way I'm wearing any form of VR kit to attend a meeting. Zero.

Wasn’t the Matrix a series of films fighting against the Metaverse? Sorta makes the target audience a bit conflicted, eh?

Zuck is the only person who watched the matrix and walked away thinking “wow yeah the Machines make a good argument.”

I think because it doesn't make anything better. It just provides alternative ways (often much poorer) to do things. Disruption comes when a new technology solves a real problem/need that everyone has.

Because it isn't nearly as disruptive as people make it out to be. It's basically Second Life in VR but Facebook. Everything the article mentions has been done before.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com