Three Fundamental Flaws in Meta’s Vision for the Metaverse

There’s a new long essay on Meta’s vision for the Metaverse from Nick Clegg, formerly a UK politician and now President of Global Affairs at Meta. (He was the company’s point person when Facebook and Instagram’s many failings were brought under harsh public scrutiny.) Given his position at the social media giant, Clegg’s essay has deep insights into Meta’s vision and strategy for the Metaverse. Give it a read, we’ll be here when you come back.

There’s actually much about it that I agree with, but with Meta putting the most money into Metaverse development of any company by far, it’s more important to point out key flaws which suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of how metaverse platforms work (and don’t work).

For starters:

Assuming that immersive 3D interaction is a “logical” evolution of text, voice, and video:

Clegg writes:

We don’t communicate through written words alone, so text-based internet services would never suffice. Static images are an important part of how we communicate, as are sounds and moving images. But we interact in three dimensions. We use multiple senses, body language, spatial awareness. We signify our intention to trust one another by looking each other in the eye, smiling, or warmly shaking hands. We express our feelings towards loved ones not only by saying what we feel but by expressing it physically. We show joy, sadness or anger through nonverbal cues that are embodied and experienced rather than written down.

Advances in speed and availability of connectivity have now reached a point that begins to make many of these three-dimensional interactions possible virtually. It is therefore logical that the next step in the evolution of the internet is one that reflects this.

Note the jazz hands employed to cover that last non sequitur. While it’s true that immersive 3D interaction is now much more feasible and affordable, it does not follow that it’s by and large more desirable than video or even text. Facetime was launched for the iPhone in 2013, but 75% of Gen Z and Millennials still prefer to text. And despite its affordable price point, the slow sales of Meta’s own Quest 2 headset should undermine any confidence that immersive communication is the next inevitable step. (As opposed to a successful niche.)

More questionable assumptions:

Confusing enterprise VR applications with metaverse applications 

The search for real world use cases of metaverse platforms beyond entertainment and socialization continues, so it’s understandable when we confuse a VR-based application for a metaverse one. For instance (as Clegg writes):

Another area where metaverse technologies have the potential to be transformative is healthcare. There are endless possibilities for training healthcare professionals — from practicing surgeries without risk to patients or training first responders without putting them in dangerous situations, to making med school more accessible by removing geographical and other barriers. Recent studies have also looked at the ways virtual reality can be used for pediatric pain management, children with autism, and depression.

Augmented reality also has the potential to be transformative. This article suggests nine ways that AR could be utilized: saving lives by showing people where nearby defibrillators are; assisting surgeons during operations; helping new mothers with breastfeeding; helping patients better describe symptoms; helping nurses find veins more easily; showing people how drugs work in 3D; helping medical students visualize anatomy; teaching kids about the human body; and even motivating runners by having them chased by virtual zombies.

The educational applications have potential, for sure. But I have pitched metaverse technology to major organizations. And the first serious question they ask is: “Can we put this behind our firewall?” And if you are talking with a medical organization, which has incredibly strict standards around patient privacy, that question will keep coming up.

And a metaverse platform that’s behind a firewall is not a metaverse platform at all.

Final immediate eyesore:

Assuming that interoperability is key

I can’t quite blame Clegg for saying this, as it’s a common misconception even among longtime metaverse advocates:

The common theme across [the metaverse stack] is interoperability — the interconnectedness of standards, systems and applications that enable people to travel seamlessly between one part of the metaverse and another. It isn’t an absolute — not every element of metaverse experiences needs to be, or will be, compatible with others. But without a significant degree of interoperability baked into each floor, the metaverse will become fragmented and broken into silos, each impenetrable from the other.

As has been the case throughout the internet’s development, interoperable standards and protocols will be developed by different people and companies over time, and will often be settled by institutions like the US-based National Institute of Standards and Technology or international multi-stakeholder organizations like the Internet Engineering Task Force or the World Wide Web Consortium.

While many advocates will strenuously disagree with me here, metaverse interoperability as a prime goal continues to seem like a solution in search of a genuine problem. ROBLOX is not interoperable with Fortnite Creative, yet each of them have tens of millions of active users -- the very number envisioned by Neal Stephenson, when he conceived of the Metaverse.

More key, talk of interoperability, in my opinion, misses a crucial point: A metaverse platform is first and foremost a virtual community, not architecture. Which takes me to my personal perspective on this:

Only Community Must Be Interoperable. 

As long as denizens of one metaverse platform users are able to export contacts to their friends and colleagues there, all other interoperability questions become quite secondary. Social media has largely accomplished this already, with or little or no oversight by metaverse companies -- virtual world friends tend to quickly connect with each other on Discord, TikTok, and other platforms, and often spend as much or more time with each other there, than in the actual virtual world.

I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. (Indeed, I’m planning to talk directly with Meta for an upcoming project.) Until then, my fear is that billions of dollars are being spent on a vision that doesn’t fulfill the promises made by the original Metaverse -- or for that matter, what I’ve seen in its first incarnation, Second Life -- while Meta’s vision only sets us all up to fail.

Comments

[Martin K.]

Maybe the most interesting aspects of that essay are the things that Meta is doing today but Nick Clegg is not talking about.

For example, regarding "Economic opportunity — how we can give people more choice, and maintain a thriving digital economy."

The evolving metaverse crypto-scene is full of scams, fraud, rug-pulls, Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes, bubbles without any real value, etc. What is Meta doing to protect their users? They just introduced NFTs on Instagram this month.

Or regarding "Equity and inclusion — how we can make sure these technologies are designed inclusively and in a way that’s accessible."

Contrast this with all the people who are excluded from using Horizon Worlds today:

• To use Horizon Worlds, you need a Oculus Rift or Quest 2, but Meta still requires a Facebook account to use a Quest 2. In fact, they don't sell the Quest 2 in Germany, because bundling products in this way is probably unlawful in Germany.
  
• Even Quest 1 users cannot use Horizon Worlds (unless they run the app on a PC)
  
• Users outside Canada and the U.S. must not use Horizon Worlds.
  
• Users below the age of 18 years must not use Horizon Worlds.

Is it fair to complain about these limitations of a beta version? Horizon Worlds has been announced in 2019. At the age of 2 years and a bit, competitor Rec Room has been available on HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, Windows Mixed Reality, and PlayStationVR with a special COPPA-compliant "junior" mode for players under(!) the age of 13 years (and more platforms following soon after).

Or regarding "interoperability — the interconnectedness of standards, systems and applications that enable people to travel seamlessly between one part of the metaverse and another."

• One form of interoperability of HTML is that you click a hyperlink and get to a website. In Horizon Worlds, you cannot set up a portal to another world without explicit permission by the owner of that world. It's like you have to ask a website owner for permission to set a hyperlink to their website.
  
• On Meta Quest, the most successful metaverse competitors for Horizon Worlds are VRChat and Rec Room. But Meta Quest users wouldn't know about them when looking at Meta's lists of "Most Popular Apps" ( https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/section/1453026811734318/ ), "Essential Quest Games" ( https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/section/1217821775263989/ ), or "Games to Get You Started" ( https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/section/1494568464069495/ ). Their own app store does not properly inform their own users about the most popular apps on their own platform. That's how far interoperability goes for Meta when it comes to interoperability with competitors.

As always: It's actions, not words, that matter.

[Martin K.]

The biggest mistake in Meta's vision for metaverse applications might be their bet on web3 as laid out by Meta here: https://medium.com/@skasriel/where-the-metaverse-can-take-fintech-a936e6bd6987

Contrast this with the down-to-earth approach of Valve: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/gabe-newell-interview-steam-deck-crypto . Quote: "... the actors that are currently in this NFT space, they're just not people you really are wanting to be doing business with. That doesn't say anything about the underlying technology, it's just a reflection of the people right now who are viewing it as an opportunity to rip customers off, or engage in money laundering, or other things like that."

The competing ideas about the role of web3 for metaverse applications might become one of the most controversial issues in the development of metaverse technologies in the coming years. With Meta and Valve at opposite ends, it will be interesting so see where other big players will position themselves and who will pay which price for the lessons to be learned about web3.

[Luther Weymann]

I don't know how many more decades of tech advancement it's going to take in order to have something approaching a real-life experience in a virtual world. But only then will people have something that lives up to the media and tech company hype of the current so-called Metaverse. We are a long way off from that day. Until then we will remain cartoon characters who mostly use a computer mouse to get any satisfaction at doing things and getting around in "The Metaverse".

[Martin K.]

I find it somewhat amusing how many gamers and journalists are waiting for VR versions of their favourite (usually single-player) flat-screen games that are "better" in the same sense that today's flat-screen games are better than the flat-screen games from a few years ago. My advice: if you enjoy the wait, then just keep waiting - it's unlikely to happen.

[Martin K.]

Just to elaborate why it is probably pointless to wait for VR games to become "better" than flat-screen games as long as you apply the same criteria as for flat-screen games:

• continuous locomotion in VR is an unsolved problem for players who get motion sick
  
• graphics in VR will always be worse than on flat screens because stereo rendering, higher frame rates, and larger field of view require considerably more rendering performance
  
• controls for flat screen games allow players to perform complex actions with pre-canned animations with very little effort, while many full-body actions in VR (e.g. turning around, dodging, swinging melee weapons, etc.) may lead to considerable physical exertion
  
• using other devices, eating, and drinking usually will be easier while playing flat-screen games
  

These differences are unlikely to change any time soon. What might change are expectations and priorities of players.

[Judas]

People who wouldnt spend a day in a world like secondlife telling people how great the metaverse is going to be.
To make it work there has to be a point to logging in
standing around talking to strangers dosent cut it.

why would people use vr when it has no functional purpose

[Iggy 1.0]

Stand around talking to strangers? Go to a bar.

Build your own sailing ship or replica of Tut’s tomb? That is what attracted me to virtual worlds and would get me interested in VR. Making your own content without needing a CS degree or off-world professional tools.