Apparently over $13bn, what on earth are they spending it on - giving
avatars legs?

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:34:55 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>Apparently over $13bn, what on earth are they spending it on - giving
>avatars legs?

Summon the violin-playing tardigrades!

But, yes... apparently the VR part of Meta is a massive money-sink for
the company. Reports were that the company spent $10 billion USD on
its metaverse division. Now, that includes the development, production
and sale of the hardware, as well as the appstore and individual
games; it's not just it's laughably bad "Second Life" clone. And that
division does bring in money too - sales from the hardware and games -
so it's not like it's a total loss. But it's really hard to see how
Meta's VR fixation is going to become a major part of its income
stream and worthy of the huge investments being pumped into that
division, given the public's lackluster enthusiasm for the product.

Then again, I get it. With only ten or twenty billion USD more, maybe
the VR gurus will finally be able to create a Zuckerberg avatar
capable of showing human emotion. ;-)

On 10/02/2023 15:58, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:34:55 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> Apparently over $13bn, what on earth are they spending it on - giving
>> avatars legs?
>
> Summon the violin-playing tardigrades!
>
> But, yes... apparently the VR part of Meta is a massive money-sink for
> the company. Reports were that the company spent $10 billion USD on
> its metaverse division. Now, that includes the development, production
> and sale of the hardware, as well as the appstore and individual
> games; it's not just it's laughably bad "Second Life" clone. And that
> division does bring in money too - sales from the hardware and games -
> so it's not like it's a total loss. But it's really hard to see how
> Meta's VR fixation is going to become a major part of its income
> stream and worthy of the huge investments being pumped into that
> division, given the public's lackluster enthusiasm for the product.
>
> Then again, I get it. With only ten or twenty billion USD more, maybe
> the VR gurus will finally be able to create a Zuckerberg avatar
> capable of showing human emotion. ;-)
>

That's the two parts I don't understand, yes development costs are high
but what on earth did they go on - you could buy a couple of aircraft
carriers for that. The second, they seem to be just carrying on even
though I don't see how it's going to become a product with mass appeal
and ongoing revenue generation. At least with smart phones it felt like
there was an appetite for what they promised but it was Apple that
managed to put that together into a practical reality.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 11:40:36 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 10/02/2023 15:58, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:34:55 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently over $13bn, what on earth are they spending it on - giving
>>> avatars legs?
>>
>> Summon the violin-playing tardigrades!

>
>That's the two parts I don't understand, yes development costs are high
>but what on earth did they go on - you could buy a couple of aircraft
>carriers for that. The second, they seem to be just carrying on even
>though I don't see how it's going to become a product with mass appeal
>and ongoing revenue generation. At least with smart phones it felt like
>there was an appetite for what they promised but it was Apple that
>managed to put that together into a practical reality.

The first I can't answer. Well, not in full. As I said, the reported
$10 billion wasn't spent solely on Metaverse but on the entire VR
division, which includes the continued development of the hardware,
the development and upkeep of the store, subsidising developers to
create apps so there's something to buy on the store, etc. And that
$10 billion USD was expended over several years. You know what they
say; a million here and a million there and before you know it, you're
talking REAL money. ;-)

But yes, there does seem to be a lot of excess... which leads into
question 2: why spend so much?!?

And I think this one is largely because the CEO - and guy with
controlling interest in the company - wants to do it. Partly because
there are many indications that Zuckerberg believes - or at least
believed - that VR was going to be the 'next big thing' and wanted to
get in on the ground floor, dominating the market before anyone else.

Because - if it were to take off in the way he espoused - it wouldn't
just be a 3D version of Facebook (which would be valuable all on its
own). But by getting in first, Facebook would also dominate app sales
(akin to Steam), and be the channel for distributing media (akin to
cableTV). Online retail - the dream was - would also flock to the
platform, allowing Facebook to sell digital storefronts too. The
income potential was tremendous... if it paid off.

It hasn't, of course, and it probably won't... but you can see the
appeal. And to a company like Facebook, they could afford the cost and
risk when the potential was so attractive. But I think that
Zuckerberg is chasing after VR also because he's a tech-bro at heart.
He likes technical solutions and gadgetry, and VR is neat. And he owns
Facebook* so what he says goes. Plus, there's probably a lot of
sunk-cost fallacy going on; "We already spent $10 billion trying to
get this thing off the ground; if we don't spend another $10 or $20
billion then the original investment will be wasted."

I think slowly Facebook is starting to come around to the idea that VR
- and more specifically, its Metaverse - isn't going to be the big hit
they expected, at least not anytime soon. But the gung-ho attitude
described above - because of the immense profit potential, because the
founder loves tech, and because it'd be 'silly' to give up now -
probably resulted in less control over expenditures than might
otherwise have been wise, resulting in the bill for the project
ballooning tremendously.

* Technically, Facebook is publically owned and Zuckerberg only
controls about 25% of the stock. However, his stock (Class-A) has more
voting rights which effectively gives him unchallenged control of the
company (unless he starts doing something illegally or radically
unwise that threatens the overall value of the company). So the TL;DR
is that what Zuck says is what goes in Facebooklandia.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 11:59:05 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>Facebooklandia.

If only they had called the "metaverse" that. Then they would have hit it
out of the park! But they had to go and change their corporate name.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 12/02/2023 16:59, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 11:40:36 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/02/2023 15:58, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:34:55 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently over $13bn, what on earth are they spending it on - giving
>>>> avatars legs?
>>>
>>> Summon the violin-playing tardigrades!
>
>>
>> That's the two parts I don't understand, yes development costs are high
>> but what on earth did they go on - you could buy a couple of aircraft
>> carriers for that. The second, they seem to be just carrying on even
>> though I don't see how it's going to become a product with mass appeal
>> and ongoing revenue generation. At least with smart phones it felt like
>> there was an appetite for what they promised but it was Apple that
>> managed to put that together into a practical reality.
>
> The first I can't answer. Well, not in full. As I said, the reported
> $10 billion wasn't spent solely on Metaverse but on the entire VR
> division, which includes the continued development of the hardware,
> the development and upkeep of the store, subsidising developers to
> create apps so there's something to buy on the store, etc. And that
> $10 billion USD was expended over several years. You know what they
> say; a million here and a million there and before you know it, you're
> talking REAL money. ;-)
>
> But yes, there does seem to be a lot of excess... which leads into
> question 2: why spend so much?!?
>
> And I think this one is largely because the CEO - and guy with
> controlling interest in the company - wants to do it. Partly because
> there are many indications that Zuckerberg believes - or at least
> believed - that VR was going to be the 'next big thing' and wanted to
> get in on the ground floor, dominating the market before anyone else.
>
> Because - if it were to take off in the way he espoused - it wouldn't
> just be a 3D version of Facebook (which would be valuable all on its
> own). But by getting in first, Facebook would also dominate app sales
> (akin to Steam), and be the channel for distributing media (akin to
> cableTV). Online retail - the dream was - would also flock to the
> platform, allowing Facebook to sell digital storefronts too. The
> income potential was tremendous... if it paid off.
>
> It hasn't, of course, and it probably won't... but you can see the
> appeal. And to a company like Facebook, they could afford the cost and
> risk when the potential was so attractive. But I think that
> Zuckerberg is chasing after VR also because he's a tech-bro at heart.
> He likes technical solutions and gadgetry, and VR is neat. And he owns
> Facebook* so what he says goes. Plus, there's probably a lot of
> sunk-cost fallacy going on; "We already spent $10 billion trying to
> get this thing off the ground; if we don't spend another $10 or $20
> billion then the original investment will be wasted."
>
> I think slowly Facebook is starting to come around to the idea that VR
> - and more specifically, its Metaverse - isn't going to be the big hit
> they expected, at least not anytime soon. But the gung-ho attitude
> described above - because of the immense profit potential, because the
> founder loves tech, and because it'd be 'silly' to give up now -
> probably resulted in less control over expenditures than might
> otherwise have been wise, resulting in the bill for the project
> ballooning tremendously.
>
>
>
>
>
> * Technically, Facebook is publically owned and Zuckerberg only
> controls about 25% of the stock. However, his stock (Class-A) has more
> voting rights which effectively gives him unchallenged control of the
> company (unless he starts doing something illegally or radically
> unwise that threatens the overall value of the company). So the TL;DR
> is that what Zuck says is what goes in Facebooklandia.
>

I can see the idea behind it but I'm just not convinced it translates
into a realistic reality. There is of course the old adage that people
don't always know what they want until they get it but personally I look
at what they're trying to offer and think, why on earth would I want
that. Another of course, is that maybe I'm just an old fart who doesn't
even understand why people like to blast the most trivial parts of the
lives onto Facewank. I don't ever remember years ago thinking if only I
could show a picture of the beans on toast I've just made to my friends!

As a complete aside I also don't understand the number of people who
will shove their phone in my face to show me the latest 'funny' video
they found, or were sent, on the internet.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 10:45:56 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 12/02/2023 16:59, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>I can see the idea behind it but I'm just not convinced it translates
>into a realistic reality.

You're not the only one, and no, it's not just an age thing. VR hasn't
been the runaway hit some people predicted, and the idea of spending a
huge chunk of your life - chatting, watching movies, working, playing
games - immersed in a virtual world doesn't seem appealing to a lot of
people. And even fans of the concept look askance at doing so in a
virtual world controlled by /Facebook/!

That their efforts to date have been so laughably bad (and expensive!)
only make their efforts look all the more ridiculous.

But for Facebook (and Zuckerberg) the potential benefits were -
however unlikely - so high that the risk was worth it; they saw the
metaverse as being as transformational to the Internet as the Internet
was to the world at large. And it's not like a few billion dollars is
/that/ much of risk to Facebook. If somebody asked you for $500 in
1990 and then you'd own controlling interest in the Internet, getting
a piece of every transaction made by every website and service
thereafter, you'd probably make that deal too. That's sort of how
Facebook sees it.

Like I said, a lot of people don't believe that 'the metaverse' will
ever reach that potential. But Zuckerberg isn't one of those people,
and the benefits were too great and the cost too low for him to ignore
what he saw as a sure thing.

>There is of course the old adage that people
>don't always know what they want until they get it but personally I look
>at what they're trying to offer and think, why on earth would I want
>that. Another of course, is that maybe I'm just an old fart who doesn't
>even understand why people like to blast the most trivial parts of the
>lives onto Facewank. I don't ever remember years ago thinking if only I
>could show a picture of the beans on toast I've just made to my friends!

Get with the times, daddio! Only old geezers use Facebook now. All the
hip cats are on the TikToks and Instagrams.

Me, I'm happy just sticking with Usenet. But, not to be outdone by
Facebook or Instragram, I'll share a picture of a beer I drank the
other day. ;-)

..~~~~.
i====i_
|cccc|_)
|cccc|
`-==-'

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 10:57:52 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>Get with the times, daddio! Only old geezers use Facebook now. All the
>hip cats are on the TikToks and Instagrams.
>
>Me, I'm happy just sticking with Usenet. But, not to be outdone by
>Facebook or Instragram, I'll share a picture of a beer I drank the
>other day. ;-)
>
>.~~~~.
>i====i_
>|cccc|_)
>|cccc|
>`-==-'

Facebook is generally regarded to be a cesspool.

Even I'm on Instagram, old fart that I am. I have no issue with Meta, my
issue is with raw sewage.

TikTok, OTOH, is probably an intelligence app for the Chinese. No thanks.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 13/02/2023 15:57, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> There is of course the old adage that people
>> don't always know what they want until they get it but personally I look
>> at what they're trying to offer and think, why on earth would I want
>> that. Another of course, is that maybe I'm just an old fart who doesn't
>> even understand why people like to blast the most trivial parts of the
>> lives onto Facewank. I don't ever remember years ago thinking if only I
>> could show a picture of the beans on toast I've just made to my friends!
> Get with the times, daddio! Only old geezers use Facebook now. All the
> hip cats are on the TikToks and Instagrams.
>
> Me, I'm happy just sticking with Usenet. But, not to be outdone by
> Facebook or Instragram, I'll share a picture of a beer I drank the
> other day. 😉
>
> .~~~~.
> i====i_
> |cccc|_)
> |cccc|
> `-==-'
>

Well I did have a purge of my Facewank usage as a New Year's resolution
which I've pretty much stuck to. I really don't know what it is that
seems to attract the strangest people to social media.

As for Instragram, or indeed TikTok, never used them and never plan to.
They just seemed to have chucked the pretence of it's so you can
communicate with people in the bin and gone straight to no it's all
about telling people how great you are.