> For better or worse, it does seem Zuckerberg is as invested in making the "metaverse" the new future of Facebook as Jobs was with Apple and the iPhone
I don't think we should take that at face value; Zuckerberg of course has strong motivations to appear completely committed, including a desire to motivate employees, partners, etc., and a desire to distract from FB's current bad news (which might explain the timing - why now?). If we take it at face value, we are part of the messaging.
For one thing, FB's metaverse is an over-the-horizon technology and product, very much vapor at this point and one that may never happen. The iPhone went on sale months after Jobs' announcement (IIRC).
More interesting is that FB possibly has lost so much confidence in its brand that it's de-emphasizing it, which seems like an overreaction to me.
> The iPhone went on sale months after Jobs' announcement (IIRC).
yes, but thats a different CEO who was about presenting themselves as perfect. Zuckerberg for his legion of faults has never done this. He is far more comfortable saying what he wants to deliver _first_
> don't think we should take that at face value
We don't need to, they've handily split out the amount of money they are pouring into this in the public accounts.
> More interesting is that FB possibly has lost so much confidence in its brand that it's de-emphasizing it, which seems like an overreaction to me.
It was fucking stupid to try and link them so closely in the first place. Instagram was a cool brand. Instagram by facebook is deffo not.
> It was fucking stupid to try and link them so closely in the first place. Instagram was a cool brand. Instagram by facebook is deffo not.
Yeah, that was not a smart business decision. I think the goal was to make it look like FB was cool by associating it with the other brands, but all it did was make the other brands worse.
That's the kind of craziness you can get from a founder that controls everything I suppose.
Bear in mind that Mark Zuckerberg has only ever worked at Facebook, which must be pretty weird.
The iPhone turned out to be the most walled garden smartphone as well (even compared to older designs that relied on Java ME), and it didn't exactly hurt them.
The more relevant question is, can Facebook in 2022 excite people as much as Apple did when riding on the height of the iPod/iTunes craze in 2007?
You are misunderstanding or wilfully ignoring the details. They talk about interoperability as a key part of how this will become reality, and the fact that no single company can realise this vision...
I am misunderstanding then. I am also probably willfully assuming Facebook will continue to operate as they have been — trying to steer all users to their site, keep them engaged on their site.
