Hacker News Reader

>This seems like a bit of 20/20 hindsight.

2nd Life, The Simms, various MMORPGS. We have loads of experience buildings virtual worlds with virtual belongings and conducting meetings virtually. I was part of a WOW guild that had meetings about raids and other small bits of admin stuff in game.

But a company known for being sketchy as heck slaps on 3D goggles and makes it less fun and I’m supposed to want to be in it?

I think you’ll find that a lot of people were skeptical.

I don't disagree that the company is "sketchy as heck", but the fundamental bet was that the main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor (and also perhaps the smartphone display) to being VR. And yes, there were people skeptical about that, but I don't think that idea in and of itself (that is, taking Facebook's nefariousness out of the equation) was that outlandish a couple years ago, despite my personal disdain for the idea.

> main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor (and also perhaps the smartphone display) to being VR

Strapping a screen to your face is not ergonomic. It isn't practical.

> Strapping a screen to your face is not ergonomic. It isn't practical

That argument is only sound for as long as the screen is unwieldy. If you could wear a pair of glasses that magically converted your laptop into a stable, triple-screen workstation, it'd be a no-brainer to assert that it was useful in at least some circumstances -- working on planes, trains, automobiles now becomes more and more possible. If the tech then progressed to the point where you could do that from a phone, and not require a laptop, or even necessarily pulling the phone out of your pocket, then it seemed like a pretty powerful productivity feature _at least_ some of the time, and if executed well enough, it wouldn't shock me to see people giving up their laptops in the same way that many people don't bother having tower PC computers any more.

Right, but VR today to that vision is the gap between the Newton and the iPhone, not the gap between the LG Prada + iPod Video and the iPhone.

If Apple actually reveals a headset and the ergonomics are on par with what’s put there now, I think that will solidify the idea that this tech isn’t going to be ready for a long while.

For what Apple's headset is going to cost, it better be a lot better than what's on the market now.

There's a TV show called the The First, about going to Mars. No on has computers, only voice activated TVs, and glasses that replaced computers. It's the most realistic next step in computer evolution I've ever seen. It's worth the watch just for the "near future" tech. Oddly enough, I could not figure out how we'd do the voice stuff, but it looks easy for a GPT with a little training.

> the fundamental bet was that the main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor

That's not really the bet they were making. It was deeper than that.

Facebook discovered that people are willing to use their product to dissociate to an extreme degree. There are some people out there whose entire lives are on FB and Instagram. Take their profiles away, and you would literally erase the livelihood and even identities of some individuals out there. They have no relationships and no skills in the material world. Their entire existence is a profile, and the relationships cultivated in that profile. Just as you and I cease to exist in the material world when we close our eyes and go to bed, these people cease to exist at all when they log off of Facebook and Instagram.

And so Meta, being the consumer-focused company it is, was looking to give their best customers exactly what they want: a way to complete their dissociation in the material world, and to bring even more of their existence into the metaverse, the digital plane of existence for many of their customers. Their pitch for metaverse meetings seems so strange to us on the material plane because in-person meetings are the last thing we'd replicate digitally. But for those who are ready to dissociate into the digital plane, a digital meeting room is the next logical step.

It's like what Agent Smith says about the first version of the Matrix. Yeah, it was perfect, but it wasn't real. So they added pain and suffering to make it real. The FB can offer a great dissociative experience if that's what you're looking for, but if you're really looking to let go of the material plane, you need to bring in all the pain and suffering you're used to into the metaverse. Otherwise the distinct lack of meetings gives away the charade.

The problem for Meta is that the Metaverse is a very expensive proposition, and there are only so many hardcore FB and Instagram addicts at this point willing to dissociate to that degree. The rest of us enjoy our material plane of existence, and aren't addicted to Facebook and Instagram the way their users are.

And there it is, the word "user", which reminds us that FB customers really have a lot in common with drug addicts.

People whose lives are FB and Instagram are following celebrities and getting caught up arguing with strangers over reality TV drama. None of this exists in the Metaverse, there are no Groups or Pages where this type of discussion could take place. That's the biggest issue with Horizon Worlds -- you are expected to go there and talk to strangers.

That is 100% unlike the FB experience, where someone else provides a prompt (post), and you join in the comments.

Also, without crowds inside, there was no reason to go develop your identity. I'm only on Instagram to make useful connections for my business.

> the fundamental bet was that the main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor (and also perhaps the smartphone display) to being VR

That's a terrible bet. Anyone who has ever played a 3D game will immediately understand that a 3D world is a strictly inferior interface for almost all use cases where you are actually trying to get something done, e.g. read and answer an email.

What do you expect monitor technology to look like in 20 years; the same as today just with more pixels? If someone types by touch, what's the difference between a VR monitor and a physical monitor?

> the same as today just with more pixels?

That's the safe bet, yes. Maybe not even with more pixels.

My point was that this is not 20/20 hindsight. A lot of people thought this was a non-starter from the beginning. So far it's panning out the way skeptics predicted. It would be 20/20 hindsight if they succeeded and we starting post rationalizing it.

Also I think people only think from the "what do I gain?" perspective. There is a comment below that asks "what do you think display technology will be like in 20 years?" I won't argue that 2 high res screens that can show my entire workspace where ever I am would not be awesome. I would try that.

But consider all the things you do while you work:

- Eat and drink - Stare out the window - Get up and go to the bathroom - Just have a stretch, spin in your chair.

And now 2 tiny 4k screens strapped to your head is no longer ergonomic and isn't going to cut it. And a cheap and normal screens looks really good.

> I don't disagree that the company is "sketchy as heck", but the fundamental bet was that the main computer interface display device would move from being a monitor (and also perhaps the smartphone display) to being VR. And yes, there were people skeptical about that, but I don't think that idea in and of itself (that is, taking Facebook's nefariousness out of the equation) was that outlandish a couple years ago, despite my personal disdain for the idea.

Actually, that idea is less outlandish now; in fact, they should double-down on it if they can.

A few years ago ChatGPT and AI as they are now were not even close to allowing people to use something other than screen with (perhaps on-screen, perhaps physical) keyboard.

With the advances we've now seen in AI, it makes VR more likely[1] to be the main interface to the computer, not less likely. Hence, they should double-down on VR and immediately integrate AI, even if it means ditching the bulky headset that users have already rejected.

A ChatGPT-like assistant could be the final puzzle piece that causes users to stop using the monitor/screen/keyboard for interacting with their social network.

Not to say that they'll switch to VR, but it becomes ever more probably, with AI assistance, to ditch the current interaction mechanism for social network users.

[1] Still pretty unlikely, but more likely than before.

Never mind the whole VR + Powerglove fail of the 1990's....

Sometimes it takes a few tries before they get it right, the iPhone also wasn’t the first touch based screen only phone.

It wasn't? What were the other ones?

IBM Simon was the first in 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon

I had a Sony Ericsson p900 a few years before the iPhone, it had a small keyboard you’d usually flip out of the way to get a full screen touch display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_P900

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada for example. It looks pretty much like iPhone — no keyboard, just touchscreen. But it did not really "spark joy" (I had one), so it wasn't a big success unlike iPhone.

Thanks for posting that, I didn't remember that one. That's one of the only ones I would consider a "true" predecessor to the iPhone - as you say, capacitive touchscreen and no keyboard. Other ones that have a touchscreen but also a number keypad or something like a slideout/flip keyboard are just not ones I would consider in the same category.

I'd day the whole VR movement that played out and then died in the 90's was more than a few tries already. And two decades later still nothing society-altering. I guess I don't think the iPhone comparison is an accurate one.

> This seems like a bit of 20/20 hindsight.

I dunno about you, but I and basically everyone in my circles at the time agreed that it was most likely a terrible idea.

Until and unless there's a truly convenient piece of hardware to get one into a virtual space—I'm talking weight and bulk comparable to prescription eyeglasses, no wires going beyond your body (ie, maybe a pack at the belt/pocket/something like that), and some form of extremely intuitive UI—you're not going to get people interested in regular interactions in a VR/AR space.

Frankly, even once we do have something like that, I think it unlikely that many people would choose to do things like meetings in a virtual space over something simpler like Zoom, even if they did already own the hardware.

And none of these views have changed over the past few years.

No; I think Zuck has been far too isolated and out of touch with how regular people operate for too long, and when faced with, as you say, the fact that Facebook was only running on other people's platforms—and it became clear that no one was interested in making Facebook their platform, like by buying a Facebook phone—he convinced himself that this was The Next Big Thing based on sheer desperation.

Is there not a single product expert leading any company in big tech anymore? What’s going on.

Growing up I was used to there being more useful and fun tech gadgets than I could ever afford. Now it’s like unless they own your entire online presence they don’t want your money. Give me that dumb iPod v1.0 which gets sand in the wheel and lasts an hour on battery but for VR. The idea was all your music on the go and it met that goal.

For VR it should be hands free/hands minimal portable productivity. Give that shitty resolution and battery life. I would take navigating YouTube, PDFs, email at the lowest res feasible and 2 hour batteries and isn’t gigantic and prevents you from normal activities. Don’t build a multi billion dollar platform.

> I would take navigating YouTube, PDFs, email at the lowest res feasible and 2 hour batteries and isn’t gigantic and prevents you from normal activities.

Why? Who else would want that?

I know, right? The only reason to want a "fun gadget" like that is if you're the kind of person who enjoys gadgets for gadgets' sake. Which is fine - we all have our interests.

But I'm not a Gadget Guy. Why would I want shitty YouTube in VR when I have good YouTube on my phone?

In general, I think it's very hard for a "product expert" to obtain or hold leadership of a company once it gets large. The "bureaucracy experts" have a huge advantage in that realm.

And that's not inherently a bad thing. Despite his often shrill detractors, Tim Cook, who's definitely a "bureaucracy expert" more than he is a "product expert", has done a darn good job leading Apple since Steve Jobs' untimely death. The thing is, he knows to listen to the product experts, and to put the really good ones in positions of some power within the hierarchy.

The problem comes when your "bureaucracy experts" only value what they understand: Bureaucracy. Numbers. Finances, especially in the short-term sense.

Now, I honestly don't think this is precisely Zuckerberg's problem. From what I've seen, I don't think he's necessarily a "bureaucracy expert" himself—but nor is he a "product expert" in the same sense as someone like Jobs or Ive; he helped to create the original Facebook, but I don't believe he's ever come up with any other products that have seen any real success (though correct me if I'm wrong). He's more of a founder who rode a wave of money to where he is, and bought into the idea that that meant he was somehow smarter than everyone else.

He's done a good job money-wise, Apple hasn't released an innovative product in a decade.

Which “he”; Cook or Zuck? Oh well, doesn't matter: Neither has Facebook.