alrite

> laughed at for overpaying for Instagram and Whatsapp

That's not how it went down. They were laughed at for screwing up so badly that these apps were drinking their milkshake, and then they panicked and paid way more than any fundamental analysis would price these apps at, because they weren't actually buying an app, they were paying a ransom on their monopoly.

> Their continued bet on VR is still highly criticized

Because Zuckerberg thinks people are going to go around wearing his face hugger.

> and I'm sure it will have huge ROI in the near future

The "VR play" is predicated upon VR somehow taking even more time away from its users than cellphones do. The only way it works is if people put it on when they wake up and take it off when they go to bed. Heck, maybe leave it on in some kind of REM-mode so zuck can put ads in our dreams.

Meta "succeeds" as you demonstrated, when they wait for someone else to outflank them, mostly by not being Meta because Meta is creepy and nobody likes it, and then they fire a money bomb at at. The way for VR could have succeeded is if Occulus stayed independent and focused on gaming where it shines for another decade, and then as people start to feel like it could be a building block for something more, snatch it out from under them. Instead Zuck bought it too early and smothered it with his empire of ick.

This isn't the Instagram or Whatsapp transaction. Scale's been exclusively in the data labeling space.

Let's put this into perspective. OpenAI bought Jony Ive for about $5bln. Meta spent 3x that on Wang.

Imagine being the people at Meta who've had to deal with Scale now seeing Mark buy Scale's CEO for $14bln.

The thing is, I can imagine some futuristic version of AI that transforms humanity. But with VR, even in my wildest dreams with all the problems solved, it’s still just second best to smartphones and computers.

Imagine the perfect headset. Tiny, battery lasts forever, photo-realistic. I would still rather browse the Internet on my phone. I’d rather do my work on my laptop. I’d rather watch movies on my TV. What is the VR adding? Nothing but extra hoops to just through to get things done.

The only usecase that makes any sense is gaming. But only some games. It’s just too niche.

It gives you maximum immersion into a digital world. Rather than view it through a rectangular 2D window, it can encompass 360 degrees of your vision in full 3D. If you don't see how this would be appealing for consuming content, work, entertainment, etc., then I can't convince you otherwise.

VR adoption has always been held back by what is technically possible and how expensive it is. Nobody other than tech enthusiasts wants to wear a bulky headset for extended periods of time. Once we're able to produce that perfect headset that you mention, so that it's portable and comfortable like a pair of sunglasses, at an affordable price, the floodgates will open, and demand will skyrocket.

The same already happened with mobile phones, several times. The cellular phone was invented in the early 1980s. It was heavy, bulky, and expensive, and only business people and enthusiasts used them. It wasn't until the mid-to-late 90s that they got cheap and comfortable for the general public. Then the modern smartphone had several precursors that were also clunky and expensive. It wasn't until the iPhone and Android devices that the technology became useful and accessible to everyone. There's no reason to think that the current iteration is the ultimate design of a personal computer.

The same story is repeated for any new technology. VR itself has seen multiple resurgences in the last few decades. We're only now reaching a state where the vision is technically possible. There are several products on the market that come close. VR headsets are getting smaller, cheaper, and more comfortable, and AR glasses are getting cheaper and more powerful. I reckon we're a few generations away from someone launching a truly groundbreaking product. Thinking that all this momentum is just a risky bet on a niche platform would be a mistake.

I don't, legitimately I don't.

Okay, maximum immersion. And how does that help?

Like even just on the surface having a 360 degree view doesn't do anything. Because my eyes are on the front of my head, so I'm going to be looking forward. Stuff behind me doesn't matter much.

Same thing with 3D. Okay... but paper is two-dimensional, you know what I mean? Something being 3D by itself doesn't mean it's better or contains more information or is easier to use. I'd rather read and write on a two-dimensional surface. Reading and writing is the core of a lot of stuff, so there's goes that.

The test for me really is imagining some usecase and then imagining how it would be on super advanced VR. If you try that, you'll find that 90% of usecases just fail compared to already existing technology. Like imagine some perfect VR tech 5,000 years from now. Okay, now a usecase: programming. I would rather program with a keyboard and mouse and a monitor. I don't want to talk to VR. I don't want a dumbass virtual keyboard, that's worse. The 3D stuff makes no difference because I'm reading text. So even with alien technology, my current computer right now would beat it.

With the phones you mention, when we envision some futuristic technology we can see how the phones would be useful. Same thing with TVs - I mean, people were envisioning wall-wide flat screens in the 60s. But when you do that with VR, the product still isn't very good. That's the difference, in my eyes.

Yes, we read and write on 2D surfaces, but a 3D environment allows you to have an infinite number of them. You could be writing on one, with a video playing in the background, while keeping an eye on a stock ticker, all inside a virtual beach, outer space, or whatever you want. You could be having a conversation with someone who looks and feels like they're physically in front of you. Have you seen the new visionOS avatars? They're incredibly realistic. Talking to a 2D video from a crappy webcam feels awfully primitive in comparison.

There are an infinite number of these experiences that we can't imagine yet, which a 2D display simply can't deliver.

As for HIDs, we'll figure it out. Voice and touch will become far more useful and user-friendly. Remember how touch keyboards on smartphones were unbearable to use initially, and tech geeks like myself strongly preferred a device with a physical keyboard? Well, text prediction and haptics got a lot better, and we invented swipe typing, so the experience improved considerably. I'm typing this on a swipe keyboard from my phone, and while I would prefer to use a keyboard on a real computer, I also like being able to type with one hand from bed. :)

So I'm sure we'll invent input mechanisms that feel natural and friendly to use in VR as well. In the meantime you can also use a physical keyboard. There are many software developers who have adopted AR glasses, with a phone and keyboard as their mobile workstations. The tech is almost there.

If you think about it, a 2D board with keys you press to compose words is an archaic method of inputting data into a machine. It's a remnant from typewriters dating back to the 19th century. They're far from being an optimal method for doing the type of things we use computers for today.

Ultimately, we can have different opinions on whether we want these experiences or not, but the reality is that this future is inevitable, for better or worse. As we move towards transhumanism, fully immersing our visual sense in a digital world is an obvious first step. The current iteration of devices that we're used to is merely ~50 years old, and ~20 for mobile devices. It's far too early in our technological evolution to consider these the best designs we can produce.

And bringing up VR is probably not the best comparison to make- sure, Meta is a leader here, and they are competitive with their AI team too. But "I'm sure it will have huge ROI in the near future" is just saying that it hasn't paid off and they don't have an obvious path to getting there. Shoving VR and the Metaverse into everyone's face hasn't paid off for several years, and the VR segment as a whole has remained niche despite being around for decades.

This acquisition is different- AI is not Meta's core product, it's just something hot right now and CEOs are trying to figure out how to stuff it into their products and hoping they can figure out how to make money later. Plus, they paid a pretty big chunk of money for a company that does, what? Cleans data for LLM training? Meta's Llama team clearly has a good data group already. They paid for a few employees that are clearly popular amongst the executives in the tech industry, but I don't know how this will go in terms of attracting other talent. Unless Wang is bringing something secret along with him, I think this one is an overpayment- Meta will need to both figure out how AI makes them money and Wang will have to attract several billion dollars worth of talent to the team. I'm skeptical that people will talk about this the same way they will about Meta getting Yann LeCun to work for them for a lot less money.

Correction, people were saying that FB couldn't beat their competition and had to buy them.

Acquisitions do happen but it's telling when the people whose company you bought publically disparage you (in other words it wasn't a peaceful takeover)

Are you using something that hasn't yet paid off as an example of how their big risks often pay off just because you are personally sure it will have huge ROI?

But I'm not actually sure I agree with the premise.

What risks is Meta known for taking? Instagram and Whatsapp purchases were defensive moves; they were laughed at for the prices not for risk.

Here they are similarly being laughed at for the price.

Is there much risk beyond that?

If Instagram had petered out and people had stayed on Facebook proper, they would've been fine. Same with Whatsapp. It's not like they've been trying to push people away from their core Facebook product. More the opposite - they've used acquisitions to try to push Facebook accounts to more people.

Compare to Apple, letting Mac software flounder for a while while focused on growing the iPhone and iPad business. Risky, worked out. Compare to Microsoft, going down years of dead-ends trying to come up with a next-gen operating system - a big part of their core bread-and-butter - and then having to release the generally-panned Vista because they bet too big on stuff they couldn't realize with Longhorn. Risky, failed. Compare to Snap, even - turning down Meta cash for independence. Risky, kinda meh results? But adding another social media app to a social media company's portfolio? Less so.

VR, on the other hand, does seem like the closest analog here. Buying their way into a non-core-competency space. There they bought the undisputed leader but it still hasn't paid off to date. Here? Eh....