People make the comparison to MySpace, because it's the most comparable service - Facebook de-throned it as the king of social media.
And incidentally, MySpace is still around. They survived the de-throning by pivoting, which is inevitably what Facebook will do. I think we've seen the groundwork for it already.
As comparison, look at Amazon's smart speakers. $10 billion spent, lots of hype, part of the zeitgeist enough that SNL is doing jokes about it [1]. End of the day it's a "colossal failure": https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/amazon-alexa-is-a-co...
That's their bet, anyway, and we can speculate whether it will come to pass or not.
I'm inclined to think that the tech will eventually become mainstream, when headsets are as comfortable to wear as glasses. It's a prime opportunity for Apple to jump in near the tipping point, and claim to be the innovator, once again. It would be the mainstream push the industry needs, at least.
I'm less confident that Meta's verse will succeed, though. They've shown to be incapable of delivering an appealing product people want to spend hours in. And the Meta brand is tarnished beyond repair, no matter how many rebrandings they go through.
AI, and VR tech don't pay out right now. But AI is rapidly developing and Meta is one of the leaders in AI research. We could easily see chatbots, Alex like things, or even manufacturing and disability assistance. Or robots and image classification. Skies the limit. The thing is with this tech, the killer product doesn't even exist yet, and probably isn't even a thought in someones mind.
The goal is to make it so when the killer product does arrive, all the R&D they've invested is able to allow them to become to dominate leader. The same also applies to VR tech and the interfaces for VR. It's not a consumer focused field, but their R&D is worth millions, and when it comes time for the killer product, they'll have it, or be able to smother the one who does.
And this honestly makes sense for a company like Facebook. Their golden goose is dying. Facebook won't churn out money. All the legislation against them is killer, and they know it's a market propped up by easy VC money where almost no social media company makes money. So why not invest the all their billions into future tech we'll see likely playout in 5-10 years, where they will then be able to completely pivot to that product. It's the long game.
They clearly want to be the Apple/iPhone of VR. The part that confuses me is that they can't seem to decide whether or not to make consumer VR stuff or business VR/AR stuff. They're completely different markets.
Consumers want games and apps/experiences that are fun and/or exciting (even if they're not games). Businesses want specialized apps and equipment that's suited to their industry/use cases. If you're going to make business-focused hardware like the Quest Pro you're not going to be making the highly specialized software that businesses want because that would be a waste of your time (too niche). So it would behoove Facebook to sell something like the Quest Pro with a significant markup (the "business tax" like with all things "enterprisey") instead of at or near cost like they're currently doing.
The thing that baffles me the most is how much friction they've artificially introduced in order to develop for the Oculus platform(s). Firstly, you need a Facebook account to gain access to their developer portal. This makes zero sense considering that Facebook is primarily something meant for personal use. It also means you have to give your employer your Facebook account which is... Bad. To say the least!
(Aside: You might be thinking, "just make a separate Facebook account for work" but that's actually a violation of Facebook's TOS!)
Secondly, there's ZERO information about developing custom hardware for the Oculus platform in their developer portal. In their forums/community pages there's loads of people asking questions about how to do this and no answers from Oculus/Facebook staff. Nothing!
The ability to integrate custom input devices would be a HUGE boon to business-specific solutions/use cases. Simple example: Imagine walking around a store doing inventory while wearing an AR headset... It automatically identifies the products on the shelves and estimates their counts for you but how do you enter in the real count? Hold a controller in your hand and use a virtual keyboard? That would be the peak of inefficiency.
Sure, you can pair a Bluetooth keyboard/numpad to the Oculus (I think) but a customized input device that could say, weigh some bananas and measure the temperature, light/color, sound, and levels of ethene gas would be sooooo much better! It wouldn't be too difficult to make either except for the fact that Facebook has made it impossible.
When I bought the CV1 Oculus Rift, it listed Windows 7 as being compatible, and no requirements of a Facebook account.
Now the Oculus software has been "upgraded" by dropping compatibility with Win7, and the support for using it without a Facebook account will end on 2023-01-01.
Where I suspect this violates EU consumer laws, is that Oculus/Facebook/Meta doesn't provide me with an option to keep running old versions of Oculus software (offline if need be) that work on Win7 and without a Facebook account, along with apps I bought from or outside the Oculus Store !
Also, not much advance warning (if any??) between starting to warn about the end of Win7 support on the box and dropping Win7 support - we got plenty of time with the mandatory Facebook account requirement, though I haven't checked whether it was the case on the boxes ?
And the less said about Oculus promise of CV1 Rift Linux support that is still nowhere to be seen 6 years after release, the better. And this would have reduced developer friction a lot !
Continued advertising revenue is predicated on user count and eyeball time.
Consequently, the only thing that really kills Facebook is if users abandon the platform.
And there isn't really a Mastodon-equivalent alternative for FB's feature set. Or even assurance that there could be (i.e. features that require centralization or expensive compute).
