• 0 Posts
  • 29 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle


  • Because most articles you see online are written to get clicks, not to actually inform you, and no one particularly cares to defend meta, so no one bothers correcting them.

    But saying that meta spent $80B on the metaverse and is now shutting it down because they’re shutting down horizon worlds is flat out disingenuous.

    First of all, let’s be clear, the $80B number is the accumulated losses of the entire Reality Labs division over the past 6 years. Reality Labs includes not just the Oculus teams that cover AR and VR, but also other teams like the cancelled Portal hardware / software, and their Facebook Spark AR (closer to snapchat filters).

    Second of all, those losses include

    • all the R&D costs of developing the Quest 2, Quest Pro, Quest 3, the various Ray Ban collab glasses, and their unreleased future headsets / AR glasses.
      • The R&D costs related to the controllers and input devices.
      • Some of the R&D costs for the display technology used.
      • The R&D costs for developing machine learning based 6DOF inside-out tracking, and hand tracking.
      • Developing and customizing Android into a viable operating system for all their devices.
      • Subsidizing the cost of every VR headset they sold to grow the market (and they sold more Quest headsets then Microsoft sold Xboxes)
      • Developing VR utility apps like the browser, the Link system, the HDMI in / capture card system, the desktop link apps, etc.
      • Buying a bunch of VR studios and games like Beat Saber, that mountain boxing game, etc
      • developing multiple top quality VR games like Assassin’s Creed, Batman, and a Resident Evil 4 remake
      • And yes, developing and supporting their social VR app, Horizon Worlds, which has never been as popular as third party alternatives.

    Out of all of that, they have shut down just Horizon Worlds, and the VR studios / games they bought. All of the hardware and platform work is still ongoing.

    And what does it buy them? The potential opportunity to be Google or Apple once AR glasses become light and powerful enough to be common place. Do you know how many billions of dollars Google and Apple have made from being the dominant mobile OS companies? Microsoft rode the Windows train for decades before switching to Azure. Meta is buying a chance at becoming that for AR.







  • Self-Driving works decently in predictable environments but anything outside of those limits can make it literally crash and burn.

    Public road transportation by individuals just has too many cases where real decision-making is required.

    Despite all their resources, I think they’ve given up. All the brilliant engineers and scientists have given up, because they know what we’ve suspected for a long time.

    I mean, Waymo is still actively expanding to new cities and expanding its coverage areas within cities.

    Tesla may have given up on the consumer market for that reason if they were banking on a super llm based self driving system, or it could just be because they got burned when Elon rallied consumers against them.



  • Lmao. So how many “breakthroughs” happened in the US last year and how many “breakthroughs” happened in the UK?

    And how are you measuring their relative significance and scale?

    In case youre not aware, the overall point im making us that you have literally no idea how to measure innovation in a reliable or meaningful way.

    So again, I would point you to overall outcomes, rather than chasing shiny buzz words. At the end of World War 2, the US was orders of magnitude wealthier per capita then virtually every single European country, and yet, today, Europeans are happier, healthier, and richer then Americans. So all those patents helped Americans how exactly?




  • How can they benefit from innovation that has been stifled?

    a) how are you measuring “innovation”?

    b) how are you measuring the “benefit”, and for who?

    Regulations and standardization can hold back an existing company from trying a new idea, however, they are also the only thing that creates true, lasting, interoperability, and interoperability is what let’s new companies enter markets.

    i.e. Theoretically, Apple may be held back if they want to innovate their charging port because they have to make it compatible with USB-C.

    However, now new companies that aren’t apple that want to innovate on cables and chargers can enter the market, and they’ll benefit from a consistent specified interface and not having to design a million proprietary variants, and they’ll be able to plan their products in a stabler, longer term environment, that will make it easier to attract investment.

    Standards are effectively a government created platform / framework for building and designing new ideas. True innovation often strives when you have some thoughtful constraints that lets everything work together predictably.





  • However, most of that is still part of advertising; producers proactively strive to get reviewed.

    Reaching out to reviewers is still technically advertising in the broadest definition of the word, but it is distinct from commercial advertising where companies pay to broadcast their specific messages to users.

    This distinction is also reflected in the way that most companies are operated these days: reaching out to reviewers with information and offering them review units would fall under the marketing / communications / strategy department, but wouldn’t be referred to as advertising unless they were paying the reviewer for a positive review, which isn’t even legal in some places.