Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Hardware Slashdot.org

IDC: 'All Eyes Will Be On Apple' As Meta's VR Strategy 'Isn't Sustainable' (arstechnica.com) 78

Posted by BeauHD from the only-time-will-tell dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A recent media release from market research firm IDC predicts that Meta (the parent company of Facebook) may not be able to compete in the mixed-reality business in the long run if its strategy remains unchanged. The media release offers a bird's-eye view of the virtual reality hardware marketplace. In the release, IDC research manager Jitesh Ubrani said that, while "Meta continues to pour dollars into developing the metaverse, [the company's] strategy of promoting low-cost hardware at the expense of profitability isn't sustainable in the long run."

A similar concern was raised by tech industry analyst Ming-Chi Kuo late last month. Kuo predicted that Meta would make moves to scale down investment in virtual reality, creating an opening for Apple and other competitors. He also wrote that Meta's practice of selling VR headsets at a loss is unsustainable. Currently, Meta owns 90 percent of the VR headset market, according to the IDC release. In distant second is ByteDance's Pico, at just 4.5 percent. Overall, VR headset shipments jumped 241.6 percent year over year in the first quarter of 2022. But the industry faced significant supply issues in Q1 2021, contributing to "a favorable comparison" for this year's Q1.

Like Kuo a couple of weeks ago, IDC research director Ramon Llamas said that "all eyes will be on Apple as it launches its first headset next year." Apple's headset is expected to be much more expensive than Meta's offerings, driving up the average unit price for the product category across the board, and Llamas believes Apple's offering "will appeal primarily to a small audience of early adopters and Apple fans." In other words, don't expect the first Apple headset to ship vastly more units than Meta's Oculus Quest 2 right out of the gate. It's just a first step in a long-term plan to own the mixed-reality market.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IDC: 'All Eyes Will Be On Apple' As Meta's VR Strategy 'Isn't Sustainable' More

IDC: 'All Eyes Will Be On Apple' As Meta's VR Strategy 'Isn't Sustainable'

Comments Filter:

  • Gaming consoles have been sold at a loss since they were invested. Manufacturers make back that hardware loss hand over foot on game and accessory sales.

    I can only assume that the person who wrote this was born yesterday? Further investigation reveals that he specifically covers Apple so this could be little more than fanboy drivel.

    • *invented

      Is the edit button gone too?

    • I can only assume that the person who wrote this was born yesterday? Further investigation reveals that he specifically covers Apple so this could be little more than fanboy drivel.

      Yep. There's no way an Apple-only VR system can succeed and I don't see Apple allowing it to run on Windows PCs. Plus there's the fact that no Apple hardware has the graphics power for this.

      It's not just Apple fanboyism either, it's VR-fanboyism. VR can only succeed if enough people want to own/wear headsets, which is a big stretch IMHO.

      • Yep. There's no way an Apple-only VR system can succeed

        First it will be AR, not VR.

        Secondly it would not require a computer at all. It would be dumb to release a wired headset when Oculus Quest exists.

        Also since as I said it's AR, you need to be able to move anywhere freely with it.

        But since it's self contained, that also means inherently it's an Apple only ecosystem with its own App Store. Works for the iPhone...

        • Correction: It will be iAR - TFIFY.

        • Calling VR with camera AR to me always feels like calling Pepper's ghost a hologram.

        • It would be dumb to release a wired headset when Oculus Quest exists.

          No, it would be dumb to release an underpowered POS that can only do basic disembodied floating heads and call it "reality." Yes, the need for it to be wireless is there, but the power needed to render a convincing scene is also required. (And is far more important.)

          That's not to say that both compute and wireless cannot be had, the original Vive had a third party wireless adapter that worked with standard Wifi. (I.e. None of the Wi-Max crap from Intel that the Vive Pro's first party adapter required.)

      • %30 cut of all in game buys + centership + more.

      • VR-fanboyism. VR can only succeed if enough people want to own/wear headsets, which is a big stretch IMHO.

        That would require VR developers to actually put forth the effort. Both on the hardware and software side of things. Of which, the names recognized by the general public are completely unwilling to do. The "big names" in VR that actually try to push things forward are still hobbyists to the rest of the world.

        VR can get going, but it's gonna require more effort than even Valve is willing to invest in.

    • Gaming consoles have been sold at a loss since they were invested. Manufacturers make back that hardware loss hand over foot on game and accessory sales.

      I can only assume that the person who wrote this was born yesterday? Further investigation reveals that he specifically covers Apple so this could be little more than fanboy drivel.

      This all sounds great except for a few inconvenient facts:
      a) hardly anyone is making VR games
      b) hardly anyone is buying VR games

      Given this, recouping a loss on selling the systems is nearly impossible. If you doubt that take a look at the long history of failed game consoles that drove their manufacturers out of business. Even Nintendo barely survived the Wii U's poor sales.

      • Nintendo made multiple mistakes with the WiiU:

        1) Calling it the WiiU. Most people thought it was an addon to the original Wii.
        2) Pricing it at $350.00 US (+$100.00 from the Wii) during an economic downturn. I walked into Walmart and couldn't stop laughing when I saw the advert for the thing.
        3) Complete lack of titles. The WiiU, like the 3DS launched along side it, had very little in way of titles to choose from at launch. This only got worse as Nintendo refocused it's efforts on the 3DS, leaving the Wii

  • Meta's strategy of focusing on the cost barrier to entry is not sustainable for VR development, instead we should look to Apple, developer of overpriced luxury goods who currently have zero VR/AR products on the market to save the world.

    Sometimes I wonder why only analysts smoke the good shit. VR needs to be widely accepted and low cost before anyone can talk metaverse or any of that flavour of the month bullshit. At best the only thing Apple can do is keep the product as a niche toy for the rich. Sony, isn

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by xevioso ( 598654 )

      Well, maybe, but remember Apple's strengths. Time after time, they've come along when something was already on the market (digital music player, smartphone...) and have perfected it, and have that so well they are the world's most valuable company. They had 0 iPods and iPhones on the market when they first brought those to market and then we all know what happened next.

      • Incorrect. There was a healthy market of mp3 players before i things came out. There were plenty smartphones (some of which matched the featureset of the first i device).

        • Incorrect. There was a healthy market of mp3 players before i things came out. There were plenty smartphones (some of which matched the featureset of the first i device).

          And the iPod squashed the sad, hard to navigate, little mp3 toys flat, and caused every single smartphone to emulate the iPhone down to the color of icons within 2 years of its introduction.

          Yeah, no influence on trends whatsoever...

          • Point is, there was already a massive market for portable music players (the Walkman smashed it in the 80s) and a very healthy market for MP3 players as the new format.

            Ditto the iPhone - mobile phones were already pretty ubiquitous and smartphones were on the up-tick.

            VR headsets - still super-niche.

            • Point is, there was already a massive market for portable music players (the Walkman smashed it in the 80s) and a very healthy market for MP3 players as the new format.

              Ditto the iPhone - mobile phones were already pretty ubiquitous and smartphones were on the up-tick.

              VR headsets - still super-niche.

              So now we come full-circle to what the GP, xevioso, said:

              "Time after time, they've [Apple] come along when something was already on the market (digital music player, smartphone...) and have perfected it, and have that so well they are the world's most valuable company."

              https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]

              So, I guess you and SleepingEye have wasted not one, but two Posts saying something that was already rendered moot by the very Post to which xevioso and I were Replying! Good job!

      • That's known as survivor bias. You focus on a few products Apple has done well and completely ignore those that have failed or live in relative obscurity. Yeah everyone has an iPhone. How many people run rack mounted Apple servers? How many MacPros are there currently in the wild?

        The reality is Apple isn't magic or special here.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

          Consumer products versus business products.

          Apple happens to be magic in consumer products. How else do you explain their success?

          • Yeah consumer products that they market to infants. (Their own words.) I'm sure the complex hardware and software setups, experimental APIs, and complete lack of standardization have all been figured out by Apple. The company that constantly and historically hamstrings any traditional gaming development on it's platforms.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

              And yet *someone* who apparently is not an infant, given the amount of money spent, is buying them. Even if they are "marketed to infants" (I'd like to see that quote).

              We were talking about success in products. Surely you can't deny that Apple has been successful in the consumer market, no matter how they market oro how much you dislike them?

              >I'm sure the complex hardware and software setups, experimental APIs, and complete lack of standardization have all been figured out by Apple.

              All hardware is comple

              • We were talking about success in products. Surely you can't deny that Apple has been successful in the consumer market, no matter how they market oro how much you dislike them?

                Yes, Apple has had success in the consumer market. That doesn't mean they always will. Again, we're talking specifically about the chances of success in a type of product Apple has little to no experience in. In an industry that Apple has a historically poor track record with. Casual gamers are not gamers. They may be a large market in their own right, but the two are decidedly different groups with different tastes. VR / AR, (what we are talking about here), is something that has traditionally been the in

    • instead we should look to Apple, developer of overpriced luxury goods who currently have zero VR/AR products on the market to save the world.

      Perhaps you were unaware that Apple has hundreds of millions of AR devices out in the world?

      They started shipping Lidar on iPads a few years back and I think the last two model phones have included Lidar as well.

      Even without Lidar though, devices for the last few years can make use of any application built using ARKit, which helps apps either scan the surrounding world

      • ARKit has been around for years now and there are a number of popular applications that make use of it. AND Apple now has a large base of developers who know how to write augmented reality applications...

        So yes in fact, Apple is pretty darn well positioned from a hardware and software standpoint to deliver an AR headset that works really well right out of the gate.

        I saw in an interview the other day with Tim Cook that there are over 14,000 ARKit-based Apps on the iOS/iPadOS App Store. I didn't count; but there were a lot more than I could stand to scroll through. Some were pretty cool, too. And the few I tried seemed to work fine with my iPhone 8; which is far from bleeding-edge.

        And once there is a proper AR/VR platform like what Apple has in the oven, that 14,000 App number will quickly grow exponentially; because, as you said, there are already lots of App Develope

        • There are some great use cases for AR on a phone/tablet you have any way (mostly getting impressions of something in the real world before buying/making). That doesn't necessarily carry over to something you'd have to buy and strap to your face.

          • There are some great use cases for AR on a phone/tablet you have any way (mostly getting impressions of something in the real world before buying/making). That doesn't necessarily carry over to something you'd have to buy and strap to your face.

            Do I think that it will have the adoption rate of smartphones and iPads? No, not ever.

            But I am pretty sure Apple and the Army of Independent Devs. will be quite successful introducing strap-on-AR into a wide variety of Applications for both Business and Entertainment.

            A lot of it depends on how much wearer-fatigue/sickness is a problem, what practical battery life is like (hopefully Apple will allow for replaceable battery-packs, like cordless tools; for extended operation!), and to a lesser extent, price po

            • A lot of it depends on how much wearer-fatigue/sickness is a problem,

              This is a major problem for most people regardless of headset or manufacturer. (As in, have the vomit buckets on standby.) I'd doubt Apple's offering will be any different in this regard.

              what practical battery life is like (hopefully Apple will allow for replaceable battery-packs, like cordless tools; for extended operation!),

              What makes you think Apple would even remotely allow for replaceable batteries? If their anti-right-to-repair agenda and recent offerings are anything to go off of, They'd love nothing more than hotgluing the entire device shut.

              But, with this much R&D effort, I doubt seriously that it will be a dud. Add to this the rumor that Apple did a Dog and Pony show for their Board of Directors a few months ago, and the Project wasn't Cancelled; tells me that there is definitely something there.

              Yes, and I'm sure that dog and pony show went something like:

              AR Project Head: "Gentlemen, AR

              • What makes you think Apple would even remotely allow for replaceable batteries? If their anti-right-to-repair agenda and recent offerings are anything to go off of, They'd love nothing more than hotgluing the entire device shut.

                It would be nice to actually have a reasonable debate about this; but you are incapable of intellectual discourse at an adult level.

    • Meta's strategy of focusing on the cost barrier to entry is not sustainable for VR development, instead we should look to Apple, developer of overpriced luxury goods who currently have zero VR/AR products on the market to save the world.

      Sometimes I wonder why only analysts smoke the good shit. VR needs to be widely accepted and low cost before anyone can talk metaverse or any of that flavour of the month bullshit. At best the only thing Apple can do is keep the product as a niche toy for the rich. Sony, isn't fairing much better in that regard.

      Why don'tcha wait until it's demoed, at least, before you pronounce it DOA?

      Apple has been taking their sweet time with this; not rushing-out a half-baked, game-oriented toy with an astounding 2 hour battery life, with a half-baked "Metaverse".

      • Why don'tcha wait until it's demoed, at least, before you pronounce it DOA?

        I didn't pronounce it DOA. I said the eyes will not be on Apple as some kind of savior of VR. It may be a success, but it will also remain in obscurity given the end of the spectrum they are targeting.

        not rushing-out a half-baked, game-oriented toy with an astounding 2 hour battery life

        Now we know you're a fanboi. You are after all claiming Apple with its 2 year effort will be great while denouncing the single most popular VR headset that is the culmination of a decade of funded research as "rushed out and half-baked".

        Please take Cook's cock out of your mouth. It's rude to talk with your mou

        • Why don'tcha wait until it's demoed, at least, before you pronounce it DOA?

          I didn't pronounce it DOA. I said the eyes will not be on Apple as some kind of savior of VR. It may be a success, but it will also remain in obscurity given the end of the spectrum they are targeting.

          not rushing-out a half-baked, game-oriented toy with an astounding 2 hour battery life

          Now we know you're a fanboi. You are after all claiming Apple with its 2 year effort will be great while denouncing the single most popular VR headset that is the culmination of a decade of funded research as "rushed out and half-baked".

          Please take Cook's cock out of your mouth. It's rude to talk with your mouth full.

          How do you know what audience(s) Apple is targeting? Are you on Apple's Board?

          Others on here (and elsewhere) have already derided Facebook's Toy VR product I was thinking of for its low-resolution displays, short battery life, etc. I was just parroting their observations and objections. How does that make me a "fanboi"?

          If you think this is only a 2 year R&D effort on Apple's part, you haven't been paying attention to Apple's hiring history; nor do you have any idea how long something like AR glasses tak

          • MS Kinect

            That technology is a depth camera (XBox 360 version), or stereoscopic 3D camera (Windows version). Both are dependent on an emitter of some kind for the stationary camera to track the user. This approach has been around for decades (Disneyworld and the Military have them) and has multiple tracking issues. The most obvious being obstructions of a single camera causing sudden jumps in tracking and other tracking failures. Failures that disillusion the user at best, and at worst disorient the user. (To the po

            • MS Kinect

              That technology is a depth camera (XBox 360 version), or stereoscopic 3D camera (Windows version). Both are dependent on an emitter of some kind for the stationary camera to track the user. This approach has been around for decades (Disneyworld and the Military have them) and has multiple tracking issues. The most obvious being obstructions of a single camera causing sudden jumps in tracking and other tracking failures. Failures that disillusion the user at best, and at worst disorient the user. (To the point of vomiting.)

              If that's the technology that Apple has gone with for their offering, it will be just as bad as PSVR. (Which uses the same tech.) The multi emitter single receiver model that the Vive uses is more accurate (especially when the user is bending, twisting, and stretching), and leaves room for expanding tracking coverage both to defeat physical obstacles, and to increase the size of the tracked area.

              I said they were interested in the general subject of Enhanced Reality ever since they PASSED on Buying the Kinect company (Apple was offered it first). I did NOT say that Apple was USING the Kinect-like Tracking.

              (Facepalm)

  • Metaverse is stupid, Apple not going there (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @06:29PM (#62676184)

    I have had a few VR goggles, and have used a number of other ones.

    I do enjoy VR games but the simple truth is the Metaverse is a horrifically stupid idea that no-one wants, or enjoys.

    Just watch any of the absolute cringe videos that Facebook has put out showing people doing stuff in "the metaverse". Who among you has wanted to spend even a single second doing the things pictured there? No me, that's for sure.

    "The Metaverse", while it can be fun in games, is just a terrible way to interact with other people. It's clunky, you can't really record important things like hands or limbs or faces. Unlike thing where you can say "Ok but in ten years technology will improve" - nope. Fundamentally if you do not have an entire metaverse room with cameras up the wazoo and projectors all over, it just doesn't work as a means of people interaction.

    So that's why what Apple is doing is way more HoloLens than Oculus or any kind of Metaverse device. Instead of trying to falsely claim it's an awesome way to connect with other people it will be what these things are inherently really powerful at - augmenting your own vision of the world around you.

    In all ways you can see why this is a plan that will work. As technology improves, viewing resolution improves, cameras improve all of which help to make a headset that can not only essentially perfectly replicate the world around you, but start adding important data - like overlays on things that an AI is helping recognize from the camera, or alternate forms of vision like IR, or virtual in-air magnifiers that can be tuned on the fly.

    An augmented reality headset perfectly matches with all of the hardware skills Apple has spent the past decade or so working on, and as a result they can deliver a way more practical product than the Oculus, and a way more useful product than the HoloLens.

    We are only now where I think they can deliver a product they can consider a high quality base device, to show people the potential of the technology as they refine form there. That's also why it will be pretty expensive to start with, in the thousands of dollars I think - which also helps to distinguish it from mere VR gaming headsets.

    I'm personally really looking forward to seeing what Apple can do, if anyone can deliver a really wide FOV and high quality screens/cameras, it will be Apple.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Just watch any of the absolute cringe videos that Facebook has put out showing people doing stuff in "the metaverse". Who among you has wanted to spend even a single second doing the things pictured there? No me, that's for sure.

      But you haven't tried the "activities" behind Door 666.

    • Re:Metaverse is stupid, Apple not going there (Score:4, Interesting)

      by NoMoreACs ( 6161580 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2022 @12:18AM (#62676904)

      In all ways you can see why this is a plan that will work. As technology improves, viewing resolution improves, cameras improve all of which help to make a headset that can not only essentially perfectly replicate the world around you, but start adding important data - like overlays on things that an AI is helping recognize from the camera, or alternate forms of vision like IR, or virtual in-air magnifiers that can be tuned on the fly.

      Imagine an AR-enhanced iFixit repair video, with the next step's screws highlighted right on the device you're working on...

      You: Hey Siri, Start Procedure.

      Siri: Starting 2018 Mac mini Power Supply Replacement. Step 1. Remove the 3 T6 screws holding the fan, and set it aside.

      You: Hey Siri, magnify 4.5 X.

      Siri: Setting Magnification to 4.5 X power.

      You: Hey Siri, Set Virtual Headlamp to 50%.

      Siri: The Virtual Headlamp is set to 50%.

      You: [Remove fan screws and fan].

      Siri: You have successfully completed Step 1. Do you want to move to the Next Step?

      You: Yes.

      Siri: Moving to Step 2...

      • Yes stuff like this, it could be amazing for... there were some concept videos for the HoloLens along those lines as well.

        • Yes stuff like this, it could be amazing for... there were some concept videos for the HoloLens along those lines as well.

          It's just a thought. But it could nicely bring together several technologies that Apple has been developing for several years; such as Machine Learning (e.g. "You have successfully Completed Step 1."), AR, and Siri improvements.

    • AR with a relatively large non see through headset is little different, it opens up a small number of extra niche use cases but even with an Apple logo almost no one is going to be wearing them outside.

      Kids can catching pokemon in the backyard, you can play AR lasertag etc. Just as niche as VR games and chat.

      • even with an Apple logo almost no one is going to be wearing them outside.

        Maybe not outside outside, but I can imagine an alternate future where you wear a VR headset for driving.

        Even outside outside, they could be useful for gardening, spotting things you are not able to notice easily or incorporating sensor data in your view.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tom ( 822 )

      Spot on.

      For almost 40 years, VR has been "just around the corner". The problem is that there are pretty much no use cases for it. Not then, not now.

      AR, on the other hand, is a huge thing. Instead of looking down on your phone, stuff would just show up in your glasses. Google Glas was maybe too early or not well enough designed, but the basic idea is still great. Yes, I'd love to have directions in front of me instead of having to look at my phone all the time. Yes, if someone calls me, show their name, numb

      • Real-Life ad-blockers - that is brilliant, a way to get a lot of people to wear AR glasses!

        Even just the thought of re-skinning boring real-world surroundings is a really great idea.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Tom ( 822 )

          Why I want Apple to lead in this area? Because if Facebook or Google do it, the AR glasses will ADD advertisement to the world instead of blocking it.

  • VR headsets are around for quite a while now, and they're not as cool as they (the developers) think they are. They have some severe drawbacks. Maybe if someone can do augmented reality - and do it very well, but until then it will stay a very clumsy technology to use. Apart that, there are no killer apps. Not then, not now, if anything it's more for the professional market like surgeons and underwater welders. Yes, games are fun. Headaches, less so.

    So, even if it will work eventually, it won't be Apple or

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      I am uncertain about how 'cool' they are widely, but I enjoy mine immensely. Of course I've never had even a hint of motion or simulator sickness so I may be rarely blessed with just the right situation for VR.

      In terms of killer app, I don't think it's a matter of something categorically different, but about a whole new level of engagement for things like games that you might already play.

  • I will never put on a helmet or mixed reality thing around my face. Ever. I don't want it and am not interested. I much rather spend time with my kids.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by xevioso ( 598654 )

      Suit yourself. I spend time with my kids by letting them play VR games with me.

    • I will never put on a helmet or mixed reality thing around my face. Ever. I don't want it and am not interested. I much rather spend time with my kids.

      I'm sure Apple will immediately cancel the Project; based solely on your objection!

  • If I cared about cost at all I'd have a windows PC instead of a MacBook. Even if the VR headset is $3,000 I'd still buy it so that it integrates with all my other apple stuff. It has always been my belief that you get what you pay for and I believe that I have gotten the quality I paid for with all my apple products.

    • You are in the minority. Most people, even Apple fans, care about cost.

      Apple can't make a profit catering to you, because they can't sell enough units to people like you to cover R&D. That's why Apple shrank ever smaller until the iPhone.

  • I suspect VR will never grow beyond niche until hardware and/or bandwidth becomes so cheap that multitudes of hobbyists accidentally discover a killer app via shear trial and error.

    • That's exactly what they don't want to see happen. Unless it's in their ecosystem using their tools and their hardware and their payment processor, of course.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        True, they want to monopolize it all. However, a consolation prize is to spark innovation and then ride the initial wave of popularity. It usually takes a while before "open" versions or standards take over the market.

  • I don't think VR is sustainable (Score:3)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @07:02PM (#62676276)
    Just like with 3D television a sizable portion of the population can't enjoy it for a variety of physical reasons. As the cost comes down I'm sure it'll find a niche but I don't think it's ever going to go in mainstream.

  • Apple save us! (Score:3)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @07:49PM (#62676440)

    Meta cheaped out on VR. Meta thinks low resolution displays are good enough for VR and that people would be will just get used to and tolerate uncanny blurriness or the screen door effect. They claimed a mere 55 pixels per degree (ppd) is good enough to pass the "Virtual Turing Test", when it is provably false. We know about 100 ppd are required for VR. Also, it was clear from their presentation they won't bother to pressure their suppliers to even make the display needed for their low-res 55 ppd VR headset until 5 years. Hopefully Apple would do much better. Hopefully Apple will invest in and pressure their display suppliers to make 80 to 100 ppd displays a reality. That's how Gorilla glass came about. That's how smartphone retina displays were made.

    • Hopefully Apple will invest in and pressure their display suppliers to make 80 to 100 ppd displays a reality. That's how Gorilla glass came about.

      so apple invented gorilla glass? or did the makers of gorilla glass make gorilla glass? i bet you think elon musk is personally screwing bolts down on his latest space bollock

      • I didn't say Apple invented gorilla glass .. they paid Corning to develop it. That is well documented if you research it.

        From Wikipedia:
        "Corning experimented with chemically strengthened glass in 1960 as part of a "Project Muscle" initiative. Within a few years they had developed a "muscled glass"[7] marketed as Chemcor. The product was used until the early 1990s in commercial and industrial applications, including automotive, aviation and pharmaceutical uses,[7] notably in approximately one hundred 1968 Do

        • I didn't say Apple invented gorilla glass .. they paid Corning to develop it. That is well documented if you research it.

          I do like Gorilla Glass. You may have noticed that Apple doesn't actually seem to use it. Dropping your iPhone generally means that the glass will shatter dramatically, and you're looking at a $700 repair bill if you didn't buy into their insurance program.

  • A screen view is a single camera, a face hugger is a stereo pair camera.
    It's just a view and a face hugger isn't an essential element in a virtual world.

    The worlds themselves, interoperable and open, with a way to manipulate them, is the hard part.
    Goggles from Google, or Apple, Meta, Valve, Amazon, whatever.
    Hardware comes and goes quickly. Nobody's going to corner that market for long.

    It's difficult to make a workable 3D editor that's easy to use and learn. Gods save us from the curse of Blender.
    Plus there'

  • that Facebook and Zuckerberg have the vision to spearhead the metaverse. Anyone? ANYONE? (looks around for a single hand to raise).

    Facebook is a super-successful company. This is true. But vision and originality NEVER had anything to do with their success. Zuckerberg implemented a really good social networking site at an opportune moment of the internet's development, and financed it by selling ads. All well and good, but none of that is even remotely original.

    In terms of doing something visionary.
  • FB is all in on the metaverse now. If their gambit fails, they will go out of business.

  • am i right in thinking meta is poor-man's second life? and they are suggesting using meta instead of zoom? and use meta instead of amazon?

  • Facebook is just pumping out what used to be called vaporware. And, what is the purpose of vaporware? To drive device/platform excitement where none otherwise exists.

    Kinda like self-driving cars, the vision for the Matrixverse that The Zuck is selling is many decades down the road -- if it can ever be achieved at all. The complexity involved in the very customized simulations they are touting is gynormous. Also, why do I need a 3D simulation of a friend when I can just video-call them?

    So, if you are a

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close