Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Second life already failed. And even now we start to see creepy people harassing others in the next round of virtual worlds. There is nothing worth to go there. Is there anything left to come up with? Why would anybody go there and pay 50 percent tax to MZ?

 
Second life already failed. And even now we start to see creepy people harassing others in the next round of virtual worlds. There is nothing worth to go there. Is there anything left to come up with? Why would anybody go there and pay 50 percent tax to MZ?

I expected to see a page indicating that Second Life has been shut down, but they’re still taking sign ups. That’s not exactly failed if they’re still producing enough revenue to make enough profit to keep it running.

“Today, Second Life has an annual gross domestic product of $650 million and processes around 345 million transactions in a single year.” Another article I found indicated average annual revenue of 12 million. No, they didn’t become the next WOW, but 12 million a year is a long way from failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KurtMann
I’m not saying it’s not an open standard, it’s just an open standard where the vast majority of stuff people are doing on it is for profit or within closed communities/services. Remove all the for profit stuff, remove all the closed communities from today’s internet and what’s left wouldn’t even be recognizable. Meta’s just one more thing built on top of those same open standards for data delivery, display, transfer, networking, etc. You just get some neat goggles to view it with.


Depends on if you want to sell a little or a lot. Actually, even if you want to sell a little, if you’re not making enough to defray the costs of the network connection, the power for the web server (and authentication) not to mention the raw materials cost of the thing you’re selling (if physical, or you time of development/support if digital), then it’s not worth even putting it out there. That’s the very real “tax”.

Even if a person DOESN’T want to sell, no one is going to host their content for free, they’re going to lace it with ads. I think most of rosy image of the “glory days” of the internet were experienced by folks in their college years who had access to it for “free” (tuition). The active and vibrant internet we know today has always been about profit, Meta gets there in a more streamlined fashion such that that it would be child’s play for a metaverse macrumors to exist from day one.

You're not wrong, but these things are fundamentally very different from the kind of control that Meta has over the Metaverse, and they don't really make the internet a "closed system" the way that the Metaverse is. At least not in terms of what incentivizes fragmentation. Costs of creating servers aren't really the same as a global tax saying "47.5% of every payment must be sent to us", and they are flat costs that would the same whether someone created a "second internet" or not. No matter what, you've gotta pay for servers, and you have to pay engineers to manage them.

As far as the Internet becoming filled with for-profit companies, I don't really think that's inherently a good or a bad thing. The Internet is a neutral party, the same way that the roads we drive are roads for anyone with a car. What would be worse is if the internet said "Look, EVERY website online, any payment made through it, we want 20% sent to ICANN". That would be disastrous. It would significantly cut the profits and viability of a lot of e-commerce websites, raise prices for consumer goods, and heavily encourage folks to make alternatives to the internet (fragmenting it). Some might say this would have been a good thing (brick and mortar stores certainly suffered from the Internet's rise) but change is the future, and we live in a world of fast change. It was inevitable, and if someone tried to make the Internet a closed standard when it came out, someone else would have eventually just made an alternative one that was an open standard. In other words, the outcome would have been the same.

The MetaVerse is basically doing the exact opposite of everything that led to the Internet's rise. Mark Zuckerberg seems to want to make the authoritative virtual world that lives parallel to our own, but the Metaverse is controlled by one entity that calls all of the shots and does so for profit towards that entity. As a result, it will (basically by default) incentivize fragmentation and competition in the ecosystem (as is typical in any capitalist economy, and this is healthy). Efforts to contribute to it benefit the creators who might make money on it, but if those taxes are 47.5% (or if any single entity calls all the shots), then what would benefit these creators the most would be selling on multiple platforms. It's too risky to put all of your eggs in one basket when everyone would collectively benefit from investing in alternatives to exist alongside it.

In other words, if Mark Zuckerberg tries to exert too much control over the Metaverse, he will effectively limit its capability for innovation. And when some entity limits innovation, other developers and the rest of the tech community will simply innovate around it. It works like clockwork, almost every time. And it will introduce competitors, almost inevitably.

The end result is that we won't see "one" metaverse. We will see several, and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple and Microsoft (and perhaps even Google and Sony) get involved themselves in the next several years as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: decafjava
I expected to see a page indicating that Second Life has been shut down, but they’re still taking sign ups. That’s not exactly failed if they’re still producing enough revenue to make enough profit to keep it running.

“Today, Second Life has an annual gross domestic product of $650 million and processes around 345 million transactions in a single year.” Another article I found indicated average annual revenue of 12 million. No, they didn’t become the next WOW, but 12 million a year is a long way from failure.
I was talking about the forgotten hype back then and every company wanting to move to second life back then because it "was the future". What is the point of going to some place like that? I can understand people going to virtual game worlds but shopping? Do you need "characters" to do it? To have virtual drinks with disguised freaks? People tune their real insta and tinder profiles and pictures already they won't need avatars.
 
You're not wrong, but these things are fundamentally very different from the kind of control that Meta has over the Metaverse, and they don't really make the internet a "closed system" the way that the Metaverse is.
Is it any different from the control that Apple has over the non-Mac ecosystem, though? Sure, non-iOS users can browse the same internet as iOS users, but there are lots of iOS applications/games/experiences that are ONLY on iOS (way more than just the blue bubbles). No iOS device (and, in some cases specifically the iPad), no access.

In other words, if Mark Zuckerberg tries to exert too much control over the Metaverse, he will effectively limit its capability for innovation. And when some entity limits innovation, other developers and the rest of the tech community will simply innovate around it. It works like clockwork, almost every time. And it will introduce competitors, almost inevitably.

The end result is that we won't see "one" metaverse. We will see several, and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple and Microsoft (and perhaps even Google and Sony) get involved themselves in the next several years as well.
Apple exerts almost total control over iOS. There are even certain apps they won’t allow on the platform. That hasn’t prevented them from continuing to innovate on hardware and continuing to work hard to make iOS devices the kind of system today’s users want to buy. Not ALL users, of course, but enough to be profitable with it.

If, in 5 years, Meta is selling a mere 10 million devices a year, that’s slightly less than Playstation 5 numbers and still a healthy market that developers will buy into, 47% and all. And, Apple’s currently indicating the plans for their device is something you wear purposely for a specific task, then remove. If they stick to that, then Apple users will just be using a Meta app to get their fix. :)
 
I was talking about the forgotten hype back then and every company wanting to move to second life back then because it "was the future". What is the point of going to some place like that? I can understand people going to virtual game worlds but shopping? Do you need "characters" to do it? To have virtual drinks with disguised freaks? People tune their real insta and tinder profiles and pictures already they won't need avatars.
Ah, yes, I did see reference to that when I searched. Coke and other big companies were part of a big rush to buy “land” in Second Life and set up shop. :)

I’m still reminded of Playstation Home, though. It ended for several reasons, but, if the lead that helped to create it had stayed with the company and eventually released something more than the beta, it might still be around today. Like Second Life, third parties would create “experiences” in it and, within those experiences, they would sell additional things like unlocks to more of that content or objects that the user could adorn their avatar with. When returning to the common area (users had their own “apartments” for free, but could buy other living spaces, and had access to a common area), their avatar would look different which, of course, led to people wanting to adorn THEIR avatars similarly. It’s a VERY simple feedback loop that I can’t see NOT working. Pretty much every AAA game out today PLUS every “free-to-play” game plays the same for everyone. The only visible difference between the users are the ones with avatars wearing only free content and those wearing purchased content.
 
47,5% commission, 0% privacy protection. It is an interesting proposition... I do not see this future, but on the other hand I am not a tech visionary with cold beady eyes. I think I would be more inclined to follow the news and developments if zuckbook was not involved. But I still don't see it. I don't get it. Am I old?
 
I think it is way more likely that instead of the Metaverse we will use something like google (or other company) glasses with augmented reality for everything. Pedestrian navigation, get signs with people's names above their heads, directions to people we know - and advertisements and stuff everywhere - while we move in the real world. This will create enough issues with other people not wanting to be tracked and filmed and such. But this would make sense in some commercial way. Going to some virtual web enclave not so much. And the new factor has worn off already.
 
Going to some virtual web enclave not so much. And the new factor has worn off already.
Every best selling game out today is essentially people creating avatars and going to some virtual web enclave, though. Whether it’s Skyrim or Vice City or Night City or Azeroth or Tilted Towers, it’s what people are buying, spending hours in and buying in-game content for. It’s been “new” since, I don’t know, Ultima Online in 1997? Some people stop playing and some people start, so it’s always new to somebody.
 
Yes games work, as I had mentioned above. But this is not a game but more like a shopping and communication environment meant for everybody and everyday. I don't see any use for the consumer. I wonder what the "killer feature" might be if they feel like a 50 percent sales "tax" payable to Meta is warranted?
 
Yes games work, as I had mentioned above. But this is not a game but more like a shopping and communication environment meant for everybody and everyday. I don't see any use for the consumer. I wonder what the "killer feature" might be if they feel like a 50 percent sales "tax" payable to Meta is warranted?
But, just like iOS is capable of a lot, but most of the money is from game type experiences, this will be pretty much the same. There will be some vacation simulators, maybe even some concerts like the kind FortNite is known for (that I’m sure folks will need to buy a ticket to “attend”). There may even be some webex type services that utilize the avatar you create. But, most of the focus AND the money will be going towards games and game like experiences. The main difference will be the interface will be VR enabled and one will need a Meta approved headset to access it.

For someone that currently doesn’t play any online games with others or purchase any DLC, then it would be hard to explain how people could sink a large amount of money into virtual worlds, virtual experiences and virtual objects. But, for everyone playing a “free-to-play” game today, they owe their free experience to those spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a month keeping the servers up and new content flowing.
 
Yes games work, as I had mentioned above. But this is not a game but more like a shopping and communication environment meant for everybody and everyday. I don't see any use for the consumer. I wonder what the "killer feature" might be if they feel like a 50 percent sales "tax" payable to Meta is warranted?
It feels more like a case of double-dipping. Facebook keeps 30%, Horizon keeps 25% of the remaining 70%, which is kinda similar to what Apple is doing, where they charge 30% of transactions. Just that in this case, Horizon is owned by Facebook, so it looks and feels as though they are charging the developer twice.

It's certainly ironic that after all that table-banging, Facebook ends up aping Apple's strategy (and validating it indirectly).
 
I understand that Facebook is toxic and is trying to sound like it’s no longer Facebook, but does Zuckerberg actually think his “Metaverse” nightmare will ever be a successful business? Please tell me he knows it’s all BS.
 
I understand that Facebook is toxic and is trying to sound like it’s no longer Facebook, but does Zuckerberg actually think his “Metaverse” nightmare will ever be a successful business? Please tell me he knows it’s all BS.
I’m pretty sure it’ll be successful. People “not liking a thing” is one determinant, but not really a good wholesale metric of whether or not something is or will be successful. People consider the Mac to be successful and there are hundreds of millions out there that look at the Mac and go “I really don’t understand what anyone likes about the Mac!”.

There be hundreds of millions that never consider Meta worth the time spent to code it, but if there’s 10’s of millions a year that DO think it’s worth it, that’s really all that’s needed.
 
This shows how desperate they are. No company that plans to stay relevant for the next decade would alienate content creators this badly. Because in the end, there was content online before Facebook, but Facebook requires content in order to make money. So yeah, they're grabbing as much cash as they can from suckers on the way out the door.

There are plenty of ways to get content online without Facebook and Twitter, and I wish more talented people realized this. You might not reach as many bots, but you will reach people who genuinely enjoy what you create, and you'll make 100% of the revenue you generate.
 
I wish this company would follow MySpace into the grave already.
It already has. I know for a fact that they no longer even take down fake accounts. I'd estimate 50% of the accounts on there are Nigerian Princes, Army Generals, and marketers. Is your grandma real? Yeah, she is, and she's sharing junk content from these accounts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: decafjava
Well, it seems likely there will be several competing metaverses, and there will inevitably be a period of metaverse acquisition, takeover and mergers.

But 50% seems a bit steep.
We've already had an online metaverse. It was called Second Life, and it was a **** show. It made a little bit of money from the midnight and later crowd for a couple of years and then it imploded into the novelty it is today. Is it online? Yeah.

But the idea that post-pandemic people are going to want to have fake coffee with their fake NFT aunt is... yeah it's not happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: decafjava
Still not exactly clear what Meta/this particular Metaverse actually is/will be, but pretty confident I won’t really have to bother finding out.
No one will. Second Life was over a decade ago, and it's still there and still a novelty. Normal people don't want to have coffee with avatars. I honestly have no idea what they were thinking. But this is the internet. It's not about the product or anything good that could come from it (nothing), it's about fooling investors for two years and then giving up.
 
Millions of people have voluntarily given up their personal privacy to Meta/Facebook and continue to do so on a daily basis. For e.g., if you change your cereal from product A to B, Meta knows it. This is valuable information.

Meta can charge 0% commissions on app, yet realize millions in profit by harvesting the data. Other cereal companies can pitch ads on your phone, send emails, send physical coupons, try to cross sell (how about almond milk with cereal B?).........

Once you've welcomed a thief wearing a suit, there is no stopping him from taking everything that you own.
 
This shows how desperate they are. No company that plans to stay relevant for the next decade would alienate content creators this badly. Because in the end, there was content online before Facebook, but Facebook requires content in order to make money. So yeah, they're grabbing as much cash as they can from suckers on the way out the door.
The content creators also know that if they get in early and luck up on the “next big thing” they could be billionaires or selling their company for billions in a year. I have to say, if I had 2 billion in revenue, but only was getting 1 billion… I think I could live comfortably. :)

There are plenty of ways to get content online without Facebook and Twitter, and I wish more talented people realized this. You might not reach as many bots, but you will reach people who genuinely enjoy what you create, and you'll make 100% of the revenue you generate.
100% of the revenue… minus the hosting. And the streaming costs. And the administrative staff to keep the hosting and streaming servers up and secured. AND the support staff to deal with issues from consumers, to keep those who genuinely enjoy what’s being created, happy. Oh, and if there’s money being exchanged, then that’s a whole ‘nother set of servers (or maybe just pay a fee for someone else to process) perhaps an accountant that can help deal with all of the different currencies in the world, plus a tax expert that will make sure there’s no arcane tax that’s being missed…

These services exist because they’re beneficial to the creators, most who just want to “create” and make it available.
 
We've already had an online metaverse. It was called Second Life, and it was a **** show. It made a little bit of money from the midnight and later crowd for a couple of years and then it imploded into the novelty it is today. Is it online? Yeah.
And pulling in more millions of dollars than I’ve ever made in a year. There are lots of companies started way more recently doing way worse.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.