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.
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.
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.
That's the safe bet, yes. Maybe not even with more pixels.
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.
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.
That is 100% unlike the FB experience, where someone else provides a prompt (post), and you join in the comments.