Neal Stephenson Speculates New Metaverse Hype Partially Driven by Turf Protection

Image credit: Christopher Michel

Interesting comment from Neal while talking with CNBC about his new environmental sci-fi novel Termination Shock:

[CNBC reporter] I have to ask about the metaverse, a term that you coined in the book “Snow Crash” in 1992. Now it’s everywhere in tech. It was on Disney’s earnings call! Everybody in the tech world is suddenly using the term, probably not the way you intended it or originally envisioned it. What are your thoughts on that?

Along with expressing similar bogglement at his Metaverse concept's longevity and influence that he expressed to me in 2014, Stephenson's reply is curiously unexpected:

[Neal Stephenson]: I have to assume that some of this is pre-emptive. Making sure that one company -- that Facebook -- doesn’t establish a trademarkable position. If they begin to throw the term around, and nobody else does, then they might be able to later prevent other people from from using the term. So that might be part of why they’re doing this. I don’t know. All I can do is kind of sit back and watch it in amazement.

There’s a pretty big gap between what Facebook is actually doing, like running Facebook and WhatsApp and Instagram, and the visions that they’re talking about for the metaverse. They’re two very different things. That’s important to keep in mind.

I read that as basically saying he's skeptical Facebook is qualified to build the Metaverse (hey that sounds familiar), and that Disney's plans to make "our own metaverse" could be more about turf protection than a specific product announcement, a bid to prevent Facebook from owning the concept outright. Both analyses sound plausible to me, and as the CNBC report notes, Neal himself now has first-hand experience in the Metaverse industry, via his "Chief Futurist" stint at Magic Leap.

Anyway, read the whole interview here. See also: "What Neal Stephenson Told Me About His Metaverse Inspiring Oculus".

Comments

[Luther Weymann]

Linden Research had twenty years to lay their claim as “The Metaverse Company” so if they didn’t want to be identified as that company, I’m sure there are quite a few other tech companies who would be delighted to have that in their logo and name.

[lkosov]

Honestly, so much of this just smacks of companies trying to capture media attention by loudly embracing the latest vague and misunderstood buzzword. It's like all the companies embracing "THe CLouD" ten years ago. One or two of them really understand what's going on, the rest are just trying to capitalize on hype.

One thing that could be interesting to look at are the announced/speculated plans of the (currently) 41 assets of the META ETF, which currently has just about half a billion dollars invested in "the future of the Metaverse". Some are predictable - FB, Google, Nvidia - and some are rather less obvious. Bilibili, for example - a mainland Chinese equivalent of Twitch? Bentley Systems, which makes software to design and manufacture utility infrastructure and publishes textbooks? Matterport, who make 3d cameras? Disney's among the holdings as well - though I'm not sure if that was before or after their announcements.