They’re all about “increasing the number of people connected to me”. Calling those people connected to them friends or followers (or patrons or “fam”) doesn’t make any difference. As long as this new platform also focuses mainly on ways for people to get other people to connect with them (like, follow, subscribe, etc.) it’ll be successful to some degree.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Meta Plans to Take a Nearly 50% Commission on Purchases Made Inside the 'Metaverse' Despite Complaining About Apple's 30% App Store Cut
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s the same kind of things they’d purchase in any modern game that supports after sale purchases. DLC is not really very different from what they’re buying here. Actually, even a modern game is just one big virtual playground, even without dlc.
So I know FB has been seeing a steep loss recently... but taking half the money gives a new meaning to robbing. Ironically Z has been whining how Apple overcharges at 30%.
Ain't nothing wrong with a dictatorship... long as you're the dictator.
Ain't nothing wrong with a dictatorship... long as you're the dictator.
people need to stop using Facebook products and let them die. Get off Facebook, delete Instagram, remove Whatsapp, and bin your Oculus.
10 years.
10 years ago I closed my account on FB.
My life sucks, but at least I have this to feel a little bit better about myself.
The only thing I "get" is seeing my mother who is in her 70s and uses FB to stay in contact with old friends and relatives. So part of me doesn't really want that to stop because I get it.
I have one friend so that doesn't really affect me personally.
10 years ago I closed my account on FB.
My life sucks, but at least I have this to feel a little bit better about myself.
The only thing I "get" is seeing my mother who is in her 70s and uses FB to stay in contact with old friends and relatives. So part of me doesn't really want that to stop because I get it.
I have one friend so that doesn't really affect me personally.
Hopefully this will collapse Facebook once and for all. If this was 2005, it would be a hit. Today.....I don't think so. Everyone has spent 2 years in lock down....I don't think the psychology is there anymore for this to work on the scale they need it to. But I could be wrong...maybe there are enough stupid people to spent $499 for an iPhone NFT thats a JPEG of your iPhone you carry around in the metaverse.
To be fair. MySpace was much better than then modernday Facebook.
Imagine how many coders we’d have by now if it stuck around.
My God he's a creepy human being. Assuming he is actually human. Maybe he's just a very low-budget approximation. Like Gaetz, Cruz, Marjorie Nutjob Green and the rest of the pathetic weirdos out there.
Last edited:
The Netherlands dating-something-whatever organization must be dancing with so much joy for the potential tune of several dozens of millions of dollars in fines to pocket a week.
I'm still absolutely uncertain if this will sink Facebook once and for all, or if it actually really is worth the hype. The funny thing is: I know a fair bit of people, in and outside of IT, and nobody seems to be interested in it or is outright certain it will crash and burn. Yet: "statistics" want to show that people indeed are interested. Echo chamber effect much? No idea. I remember how people dismissed the Internet 25 years ago, and how giant companies disappeared over the course of just a few years because they didn't get the memo. But.... I just don't feel like this is comparable. It's another interface to the same thing, no more, no less. And I don't think the technology to use it is really there, yet, especially not widely adopted.
So ..... to me those 47.5 percent sound pretty outlandish for a market place that yet has to prove if it's any good. Maybe, just maybe, Zuckerberg is a bit like me and has read Snowcrash one time too many - but came to a different conclusion.
So ..... to me those 47.5 percent sound pretty outlandish for a market place that yet has to prove if it's any good. Maybe, just maybe, Zuckerberg is a bit like me and has read Snowcrash one time too many - but came to a different conclusion.
Yes, it’s another interface to the same thing, but the “same thing” is wildly profitable. This has the potential to be wildly profitable just based on that. Plus, because one has to buy into it, that means there’s a certain floor in place, where someone who’s not interested in spending any money at all doesn’t even join the party, but those with the funds to purchase the required hardware likely has a few more bucks to spend on content.
Probably just some weirdos pushing this for profit while the rest prefer some balance. I don’t know anyone who has ever said to me “I need more screen time”. Most people feel that their should limit their personal screen time not increase it.
I will do one better, I never jumped on the Fb/meta bandwagon from its inception.
See that‘s sorta my problem with it: people had computers already, and affording internet could actually save you time and money. Plus the internet didn’t take off as a market place, but as a platform to seek information - free information - and to get in touch with people - faster and less expensive than before. Maybe things look different in 5 years, but right now the cost associated with „entering“ the metaverse is very much prohibitive to a lot of people. And I’m not quite convinced the well-earning audience of early adopters will compensate for that.
I don't see the problem with Apple asking 30% for what they give the developer and I dont see the issue with Meta asking for 50% , both take on a mega R&D budget to compete , for example Apple will update their HW on a yearly basis with new SoC`s , displays , body , cameras and what not to attract new users (which are potential buyers of Apps) , Apple will invest in brand , SW API`s and use cases and other ways to attract new potential clients for those developers , getting access to those clients without taking any of the risks Apple is taking by investing and competing is something that needs to be paid for , Meta is in the same boat , 10 Billion dollars a year (and growing) of R&D to create a new platform for developers to earn money in , I dont see why they wont be getting a portion back , putting it in 50% when they are the market leaders and basically moving the train all by themselves basically (for now) is a reasonable price , I cant see why a developer that will be using Meta entire framework and HW should expect to just come in and pick up most of the profits , if developers feels the ROI is not there , they can wait for the competition to catch up or put their developing time elsewhere where they feel they will get better ROI.
With all that said , it is funny to see the switcharoo from "30% is way too much" to "50% is fair".
With all that said , it is funny to see the switcharoo from "30% is way too much" to "50% is fair".
Second Life / Linden Labs, which has been doing this whole virtual world thing for over a decade and knows more than anyone else about how this all works (despite the media hardly ever mentioning it) only takes 10% on in-world sales of user creations and I have always felt that is a very fair amount.
After all, without 3rd party content a platform will die, so both parties benefit from work put in by everyone.
It's why I don't get the Apple 30%, people argue that developers should pay Apple that much, as they owe Apple this much for offering the platform, and yet they seem to forget that Apple would be no-where in this space if 3rd parties did not develop for it.
Both sides work and benefit, and should appreciate each other.
After all, without 3rd party content a platform will die, so both parties benefit from work put in by everyone.
It's why I don't get the Apple 30%, people argue that developers should pay Apple that much, as they owe Apple this much for offering the platform, and yet they seem to forget that Apple would be no-where in this space if 3rd parties did not develop for it.
Both sides work and benefit, and should appreciate each other.
But, compared to the numbers that have computers (and internet enabled computing devices) today, it wasn’t a lot. People who HEARD about the internet from someone else went out and bought into it with the hardware and modem to access it. And, the internet wasn’t free, it was paid for via Compuserve, AOL, OR through a cable operator. There was a cost of entry (hardware and software) which would cost more than a Quest today, which is a standalone device.
The information was not free, there were ads involved, and the access wasn’t free as it was paid for up front. Meta likely won’t be much different other than the Quest being the screen instead of a desktop.
