this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
412 points (93.5% liked)

Technology

59137 readers
2324 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

I know it's apples to oranges and what not, but there's a lot of life changing things you could do for a lot of people with that kind of money.

As a society the way we allocate resources is stupid.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Honestly love to see Meta losing money. Zuck is a parasite on this nation. A cancer.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Business lesson, : never build a factory because it won't pay for itself in the first year.

And yes I know it's hard to hear but Meta's vr is doing really well in the areas they targeted, industry, academia, and special use. This is likely to end up a profitable part of their business for a long time.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

What is “really well”?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

Yeah unfortunately I agree, as much as I dread knowing Meta's going to be behind a lot of the VR/AR developments as it gets more common, this isn't really an indication that they screwed up. They're not the first company I'd want to lead the VR market but it looks like they will be regardless.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

I was happy and now I am sad.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

heres hoping they fail 🤞

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Imma say nah. Competition is good, and this space needs more competition.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So everyone has to succeed for it to be competition?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Would a football game be good for the fans if one side didn’t show up?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

wut? How is that a response? I am asking if everyone has to succeed for it to be competition. So your analogy should be 'would football be a good game if both sides won?'

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Alright, well you’re a dipshit. Moving on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

....I see...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Depends; is the one team still gonna play and pretend like the opposition is invisible while pratfalling tackles and such? That might be kinda fun to see at least once.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah I’ll give you that.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

they aint in the game to compete, if their past is any indication they will cheat, dominate and make it awful for everyone.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You reckon Apple made money on it's VR division either?

Almost nobody is making big money on VR, because nobody wants to work together to make it into a widely compatible common standard. If you could have one headset that worked on all platforms, for a reasonable price, you'd get a lot more take up, and nicer headsets costing more would make more sense.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago

It's maybe unpopular, but I agree that if you're going to leverage your success to make a bet on the next big thing, VR/AR is a great choice. I agree it's inevitable that many computing interfaces will eventually become a personalized virtual space, and AR will eventually become a permanent way to add our "computer brains'" data to our vision.

Obviously we're not there yet. And there's always going to be a contingent that thinks that future will never come. But I do think it'll come, when that one thing or things we need VR/AR to do and can't seem to imagine life without are eventually found. Zuck doesn't know where the inflection point is going to happen but he's positioning Meta to be in the ideal place to own the space. He seems to know it may not happen for a long time. He's gambling he can afford to wait for it, which is a bet I'd take.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

As others have said, the implication in this article's title is silly... Surely an r&d phase start easily explains this

What I'm curious about is how you spend that much money in such little time? Was that money actually spent or just committed?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

$1900 per second is a hell of a burn rate for anything outside the US military

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

indeed... you'd expect big bucks on the D part... new factory, going for mass production, etc... and even then, you can only build so fast

[–] [email protected] 45 points 6 months ago

So what? R&D expenses aren't supposed to turn an immediate profit. Developing a new technology can take years before it's earning money, and some never do. I'm all aboard the "hate meta" train, but that's nothing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›