Good conversation over Philip Rosedale's pretty surprising comments last week, positing that the Metaverse may "never be for everybody", and that in any case, Meta/Facebook definitely shouldn't succeed at making the Metaverse. (Well, knowing Philip, that last point isn't all that surprising.)
"What a journey," Alex D observes, then surveys the current state of things with an expert eye:
One thing is clear from decades of VR and virtual world product innovation (failures and successes): you can't make people use/buy something unless it solves real 'jobs to be done.' No matter how much we love the connections that are unique to virtual worlds, or the immersion<>empathy correlation, the platform doesn't solve all problems for everyone. It's shocking that Facebook is bucking decades of Silicon Valley new product development wisdom with a top-down PR push.
When Philip says "I hope they don't [succeed]" I read that as a statement about creativity and freedom, almost a throwback to the original vision of a beloved public utility, open, ubiquitous, one that supported unlimited expression and connection. If Facebook's metaverse becomes ubiquitous, what does that say about what the Internet has become and who controls our experiences on it?
Worth keeping in mind that IBM devoted tremendous resources trying to solve the "jobs to be done" challenge in Second Life, even building a whole corporate campus that thousands of employees held regular meetings in, but gave up on it after a few years. (Though that virtual labor protest on IBM's campus was fun.)
Kaylee West, longtime Metaverse advocate for education, one of the thousands of educators who used (and still use) Second Life as an education platform, echoes this "jobs to be done" challenge with a campus point of view:
As sad as it makes me to say it, none of my colleagues at the university see the metaverse (whatever form that might take) as being a "place" that that they would carry out any of their duties as academics in. It is a novelty that they are curious about, but once their initial curiosity has been satisfied they are generally not interested in returning. The same seems to hold for my students, many of who actually say they enjoy our lessons in Second Life, but mostly never return once the lessons are over. I am guessing that unless employers mandate the use of the "metaverse" for work, there won't be widespread adoption beyond enthusiasts. I hope this won't slow down the amazing developments going on with all of the technologies associated with the "metaverse".
I think this may be drawing too general a conclusion from Second Life's failure to take hold with college-level educators -- contrast that, for example, with the 50 million education-related downloads related to Minecraft: Education Edition, but mainly for elementary-level educators.
Beyond that, the core problem seems to me a hidden premise that the Metaverse must become the next generation of the Internet -- as opposed to part of the next generation. That, and the hidden premise that the Metaverse must be for every application, as opposed to some applications. Because like I alluded to last week, since 1 in 8 people in the entire world are already active in Metaverse-ish platforms, spending much of their entertainment/socialization activity in them, isn't that enough for the Metaverse to be worthwhile?
People just want to get stuff done efficiently. Which is easier, a Zoom meeting or logging into a virtual world? Why am I looking at avatars when I could be looking at real people? Always a Zoom meeting. Which is more efficient using web services like banking, paying for your phone, ordering something, or logging into a virtual world to do the same thing? Always the vendor's web service. Which is more sociable, video calling your friends or your mom on your phone or logging into a virtual world and voicing with their avatar? Give me a break! The video call every time. There is a long list of why real-life trumps virtual worlds almost every time. Now, what makes for a fun hobby? Or a fun way to make some money if you have the skillset? Or if you are single and got nothing to do tonight but watch old TV reruns, isn't a virtual world better than that? Of course, it is. I've been almost daily in SL since my first avatar eighteen years this January 2022. Maybe I don't understand what the future holds. It seems to me that most humans understand that to get their life things accomplished, it's easier in real life. And to enjoy their downtime, they can try virtual worlds. So, I don't understand how your sell a virtual world as a got-to-use important service.
Posted by: Luther Weymann | Tuesday, December 07, 2021 at 01:41 AM
As a counterpoint to Luther's comments about efficiency (and sociability), I believe the written conveyance of information is still vastly more efficient than the spoken. If it's an actual meeting of substance, I would 100x rather have it done via text in a virtual world, even an IRC channel, than via voice in Zoom. It's more efficient, it's less stressful, and it's more accessible. When did Indira say the new product deployment was? Isn't that going to conflict with what Rolf is proposing right now? Do I interrupt Rolf and derail the entire meeting for two minutes for no good reason, or just frickin' scroll the chat back thirty lines? Doesn't seem like a difficult choice, to me.
More sociable? Imagine you're in a virtual class in the metaverse and can sit next to your friends, and then walk together to the next class/an arcade/whatever. Imagine sitting at a desk or a table with two or three dozen poses and animations you can select as appropriate, instead of having to feign interest and emotion for the webcam. Imagine (your avatar) always having neat hair and clean clothes to wear. Imagine (your avatar) not having bags under your eyes from working 14-hour days for seven months straight. SL's annual resident-vs-Lindens snowball fight is, I think, next weekend? I'd gladly do something like that as a "teambuilding exercise" once a week at work (employees-vs-management?) instead of the usual IRL social horror shows that people inflict on others, and I say that because it sounds fun, not (just...) because there are many days I'd love to ding my manager in the earhole with an icy sphere.
Posted by: lkosov | Tuesday, December 07, 2021 at 09:49 AM
While Ikosov's points are well taken, I disagree strongly and published a couple of pieces about SL a decade ago, mostly about the failure of Gen Y kids to get interested.
College kids just do not want to be in-world sitting next to "friends" and classmates. Because (at least pre-COVID) they already lived richly social lives in-person, and they did not want or need avatar-based learning. SL takes a LOT of undivided time to enjoy fully, and they live fragmented, hectic lives on mobile devices, not desktops or even laptops (those are for school work).
SL was clumsy and to many, "creepy" because of SL's anonymity and sexual content.
Besides, SL is not just a communications app, or even a particularly good one: it's a world where ordinary users (until Mesh) could build things collaboratively that interact with visitors. That original vision of Philip's was what got a lot of educators stoked.
Unless one builds things, there's nothing for virtual meetings that Zoom and similar cannot do better.
As for Meta? FB is "mombook" for my current students. It's not their thing, and thus, Zukerberg wants to remain hip while mining our data and pushing ads at us. His VR will be more of same. To hell with that; it's nothing like the original promise of SL or, for that matter, the Internet of the 90s.
Posted by: Iggy 1.0 | Wednesday, December 08, 2021 at 06:44 PM
Good post
Posted by: Benjamin Evans | Wednesday, May 04, 2022 at 01:28 AM