It's been a while... time for another ramble!
So, honestly, does anybody care about this latest push - by Facebook
mainly, but by others too - about the creation of a 'metaverse'
network?
It's not a new idea - in fiction, a shared graphical network dates
back at least to Gibson's "Cyberpunk" - but it's been attempted in
actuality numerous times since then. Sierra's On-Line's early attempts
at Internet dominance had you create 2D avatars with which you
interacted with other users. In the late '90s, VRML was briefly the
hot thing, where businesses created 3D representations of their stores
and business to be viewed through a web-browser. "Second Life"
combined the two - a social network and a vast 3D rendered world - and
for a while was hyped up as "Web 2.0" until it devolved into a
universe of furry porn and flying penises. So why is this time
supposed to be different?
Is it because this time there's VR?
Who really wants this?
I mean, I don't, but I'm a self-admitted grognard and misanthrope. The
new doesn't frighten me, but neither do I accept it based on its
novelty alone; it needs to prove itself. Nothing the proposed
metaverse networks - in any of their promised forms - seems
interesting to me. None of my friends and colleagues show any interest
in it either, beyond mild curiosity. Of course, I trend towards an
older demographic; maybe it's aimed at the youth? Except the few
children I do have access to - admittedly all family, and thus of a
similar background and mindset - don't seem inspired by it either.
What problem is Meta supposed to solve?
From a business standpoint, it's obvious. Facebook loves the idea of creating a giant network where everything everyone does is under its umbrella. No more escaping to the Playstation for gaming, or to WeChat
for interacting with friends, or even Real Life for a concert. Make everything virtual and you never escape their gaze. And it's more than
just the Zuckerbergian wet dream of data-gathering every instant of everybody's life; think of the money from all the licensing
opportunities. Want to show your wares - your game, your music, your
IP - on Meta's Metaverse? Pay up, chum. Plus, Facebook isn't cool
anymore; the youth at best treat it like a utility, at worst avoid it altogether. But a "Ready Player One" cyberworld? That'd bring 'em
back, right?
Epic Games, alternately, sees the opportunities provided by the
necessities of a network using shared assets. You can't jump from game
to game right now because everything is running on different software,
on different graphics engines. But if the underlying framework was standardized - say, onto a platform renowned for its ease of use and graphical fidelity like Unreal Engine - the owner of that platform
could make bank. Or Amazon, which not only drools over the
data-gathering possibilities, but also the opportunity to sell lots
and lots of server capacity that such a shared network would demand.
But these are all business needs, and not something the customers
wants. The metaverse seems a solution looking for a problem.
That there's some interest in the idea is undeniable; as mentioned,
it's been part of our fiction - our dreams - for decades, if not more. Products like "Fortnite" and "Roblox" prove there's demand; people
socialize on those platforms as much as they play games (Fortnite has
even hosted concerts), and user-generated content creation is a major
draw for players. But do these prove a desire for a larger networked
world? Or is this all just the latest fad, to be forgotten as soon as
the next big thing comes around?
So I guess that's the point of this ramble; that's the question I'm
dancing around. Is the metaverse the future or not? Is it something
people want, or just a rehashed gimmick, a pretty 3D-rendered shell
that poorly duplicates the existing functionality of the Internet?
That it will be created seems likely, given the money being poured
into the projects, but if they make it, will anyone come?
Will you?
On 26/04/2022 05:45, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
It's been a while... time for another ramble!
So I guess that's the point of this ramble; that's the question I'm
dancing around. Is the metaverse the future or not? Is it something
people want, or just a rehashed gimmick, a pretty 3D-rendered shell
that poorly duplicates the existing functionality of the Internet?
That it will be created seems likely, given the money being poured
into the projects, but if they make it, will anyone come?
Will you?
I honestly don't know as on the one hand I'm just not sure what you as a >consumer really get out of it. The big but, it never ceases to surprise
me the amount of users of Facewank that use it as platform that seems to
be to try and add to the own perceived self-importance. I've got an ill >informed opinion and I demand that everyone gets to see it.
Personally I have no interest in it so the only reason I could see me
using it is if that the only option that's practical, a bit like the way
I view Facewank.
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 11:01:18 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2022 05:45, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
It's been a while... time for another ramble!
So I guess that's the point of this ramble; that's the question I'm
dancing around. Is the metaverse the future or not? Is it something
people want, or just a rehashed gimmick, a pretty 3D-rendered shell
that poorly duplicates the existing functionality of the Internet?
That it will be created seems likely, given the money being poured
into the projects, but if they make it, will anyone come?
Will you?
I honestly don't know as on the one hand I'm just not sure what you as a
consumer really get out of it. The big but, it never ceases to surprise
me the amount of users of Facewank that use it as platform that seems to
be to try and add to the own perceived self-importance. I've got an ill
informed opinion and I demand that everyone gets to see it.
The concept of a 3D simulated world - possibly augmented with VR -
where you can wander about and do things (chat, surf, see a movie,
play games) sounds nifty and exciting... but then so do all those touch-enabled holographic displays you see in movies (e.g., "Minority Report"). But when actually using it, once you get past the initial wow-factor, you quickly realize how impractical they are. 3D
metaverses have been tried repeatedly before, and they've never
achieved more than niche status.
Even were Facebook not involved (and there are other attempts to
create similar metaverses), I just don't see what this newest attempt
is offering that differs from previous iterations. After the
wowie-zowie! effect is over, it just doesn't seem to offer anything
better than current offerings.
In many ways, we already have a metaverse, of course; there already is
an interconnected network where you can surf, chat, watch movies, play
games, etc. It doesn't have a unified 3D-rendered interface, of
course, but other than that it's everything that was promised in those
old sci-fi novels and movies. Of course, to companies like Facebook,
Amazon, etc. it's a flawed creation, since it's not entirely under
their control... which is largely what the drive to create a metaverse
is really about. But you don't see a lot of people clamoring to make
YouTube a 3D-rendered realm, so you have to wonder if the demand for
such a thing exists outside the dreams of C-level executives at major technology companies.
Personally I have no interest in it so the only reason I could see me
using it is if that the only option that's practical, a bit like the way
I view Facewank.
But like you, I have to wonder: am I not seeing it just because I'm
not the market for that sort of thing? Would "The Kids" really prefer
to live in a virtual world like that, or would they -after a few weeks
of fascination - go back to the conveninence and speed of 2D text and
images? I can't say.
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 11:01:18 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2022 05:45, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
It's been a while... time for another ramble!
So I guess that's the point of this ramble; that's the question I'm
dancing around. Is the metaverse the future or not? Is it something
people want, or just a rehashed gimmick, a pretty 3D-rendered shell
that poorly duplicates the existing functionality of the Internet?
That it will be created seems likely, given the money being poured
into the projects, but if they make it, will anyone come?
Will you?
I honestly don't know as on the one hand I'm just not sure what you as a
consumer really get out of it. The big but, it never ceases to surprise
me the amount of users of Facewank that use it as platform that seems to
be to try and add to the own perceived self-importance. I've got an ill
informed opinion and I demand that everyone gets to see it.
The concept of a 3D simulated world - possibly augmented with VR -
where you can wander about and do things (chat, surf, see a movie,
play games) sounds nifty and exciting... but then so do all those touch-enabled holographic displays you see in movies (e.g., "Minority Report"). But when actually using it, once you get past the initial wow-factor, you quickly realize how impractical they are. 3D
metaverses have been tried repeatedly before, and they've never
achieved more than niche status.
Even were Facebook not involved (and there are other attempts to
create similar metaverses), I just don't see what this newest attempt
is offering that differs from previous iterations. After the
wowie-zowie! effect is over, it just doesn't seem to offer anything
better than current offerings.
In many ways, we already have a metaverse, of course; there already is
an interconnected network where you can surf, chat, watch movies, play
games, etc. It doesn't have a unified 3D-rendered interface, of
course, but other than that it's everything that was promised in those
old sci-fi novels and movies. Of course, to companies like Facebook,
Amazon, etc. it's a flawed creation, since it's not entirely under
their control... which is largely what the drive to create a metaverse
is really about. But you don't see a lot of people clamoring to make
YouTube a 3D-rendered realm, so you have to wonder if the demand for
such a thing exists outside the dreams of C-level executives at major technology companies.
Personally I have no interest in it so the only reason I could see me
using it is if that the only option that's practical, a bit like the way
I view Facewank.
But like you, I have to wonder: am I not seeing it just because I'm
not the market for that sort of thing? Would "The Kids" really prefer
to live in a virtual world like that, or would they -after a few weeks
of fascination - go back to the conveninence and speed of 2D text and
images? I can't say.
On 26/04/2022 05:45, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
It's been a while... time for another ramble!
A slightly different topic but it does seem sometimes you do get
technology just for the sake of it. Home appliances seem a good place to >start. Changing the heating from an app or by voice, I can see that.
Being able to start the machine via an app - what's the point I still
have to put the washing in don't I. Then we have our digital kettle and >toaster set. The kettle is useful as it has different temperatures which
is really good if you have different types of tea which require it. The >toaster, digital in the since means instead of having a knob to control
the 'brownish' you instead have +/- buttons and little leds. It really >doesn't give you anything except that it matches the look of the kettle.
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:40:22 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2022 05:45, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
It's been a while... time for another ramble!
A slightly different topic but it does seem sometimes you do get
technology just for the sake of it. Home appliances seem a good place to
start. Changing the heating from an app or by voice, I can see that.
Being able to start the machine via an app - what's the point I still
have to put the washing in don't I. Then we have our digital kettle and
toaster set. The kettle is useful as it has different temperatures which
is really good if you have different types of tea which require it. The
toaster, digital in the since means instead of having a knob to control
the 'brownish' you instead have +/- buttons and little leds. It really
doesn't give you anything except that it matches the look of the kettle.
The why is obvious: digital interfaces sell products. People think the
slick, knobless buttons are more technologically advanced and capable,
and thus they're getting more 'bang for their buck'. It's also cheaper
to manufacture; a simple programmable microcontroller costs less than
the dozens of buttons and knobs you'd need to provide similar
functionality.
(That a toaster needs so much functionality is debatable, of course.
But being able to boast your toaster can auto-start at a programmed
time and toast one side of the bread to 250 degrees and the other to
180 degrees sells machines...)
Sadly, our marketplace has devolved from "buy this because it works
and it will last" to "buy this because it's somehow better than what
you have", which leads to new stuff always having to do more than
older devices, even if it makes the core functionality worse.
If you really wanna get me started, though, there's the
Internet-of-Things enabled devices. There are, arguably, some
use-cases for some devices... but even those tend to be mostly unused luxuries that do little to justify the added cost and security vulnerabilities. Or those that demand an online account just to use a
device which shouldn't be online-enabled at all. Grrrr.
Douglas Adams once wrote, "1. Anything that is in the world when
you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the
way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you
can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things." I'm not quite to
step 3 yet (ignoring the age issues) but it is increasingly hard for
me to justify a lot of the so-called advancements being foisted upon
us. It's not that I don't want new and exciting technologies, it's
just that what we're getting is too often focused more on form than
useful function.
(ramble ramble ramble)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 116:01:33 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,176 |