> IMO Meta is fundamentally built on data collection

Isn’t their whole Metaverse thing a gamble to get away from that? Why does data collection prevent creating a good VR experience. If anything it should align goals well (spend as much time in VR as possible, so as much in VR as possible). Besides, most DataCollection companies offer CollectionFree enterprise contracts… which is where the money for this probably is.

(Btw I’m a huge fan of this sort of product and I hope a respectful company wins.. I’m just skeptical that meta can’t fund their way to success. )

> Isn’t their whole Metaverse thing a gamble to get away from that?

Many of us think Meta is trying to gain as much market as they can early, so they can leverage eye tracking and mm wave tech for very invasive biometric collection and ad targeting in the future. Reasonable minds can disagree on that.

Pretty sure Zuck has said outright that the goal is to own the economy of the metaverse… selling digital stuff and digital places with digital ads and (digital?) media.

It could be a gambit to track your eyes but that seems even harder with worse reward than taking a 30% cut as the next App Store.

Maybe eye tracking is the fallback plan for when everyone figures out NFTs are the strongest known combination of expensive and valueless.

> It could be a gambit to track your eyes but that seems even harder with worse reward than taking a 30% cut as the next App Store.

No these are the same thing. Tracking pupil response to stimuli tells advertisers how a human is reacting to what they see. It lets Meta sell a platform to advertisers where they can target humans in particular emotional states, or at certain times when that individual is more likely to make a purchase.

What? They’re doing VR because they think it’s the basis for the next general computing platform, and owning the platform gives you unlimited access to the user’s data. And in VR, that data includes the user’s gaze, height, physical fitness, high resolution 3D model of their gaming area, and other inferred or measured biometrics. As well as every virtual strip club, naughty video, and indiscreet personal message.

…and access to take a 30% cut when people buy and sell things. Which is probably more profitable and less liable to get legislated away.

Enterprise loves data collection so that's really a perfect fit for their next phase customer base. That's why I think the Meta account system was important for them to get done pre Quest Pro launch (and significantly early too so any issues are worked out before enterprise demos start)

This is similar to saying "Facebook is fundamentally built on data collection, and social networking is just a side effect." Technically true, but not much consolation for all the social networks that didn't go all in on advertising and perished.

Wish you the best of luck either way, this is an exciting area and more competition is great. They definitely are competition though.

Yeah, of course, it's a tough space to be in. Just saying that we need to carve out a niche where Meta can't compete vs try to fight Meta head on.

I am failing to see a separate niche here. There are only so many ways you can break down office productivity focus and still have a market to support you. Your team should accept the facts and stop trying to wiggle out of competing with your--frankly--main rival in this space. It doesn't do any justice to avoid this truth. Honestly, I'd be shocked if you weren't already closely monitoring their work and its reaction in the market.

I think Meta's strategy was the right one. The only execs who would even consider adopting a virtual work model would be gamers who are already familiar with the tool. Gaming was their way to get in the minds of their potential next phase enterprise customers.

Based on comments in this thread, SimulaVR thinks of itself the same way Microsoft did when they made Windows phone.

I totally disagree with this. Early gaming consoles (~70s) took off roughly a decade before early PCs (~80s). Yet many of the people who bought the latter had little interest in the former. They were two completely distinct markets (with some, but clearly not extensive overlap).

We've had many people tell us (often on Hacker News actually) that they're not super interested in VR gaming, but are very interested in VR computing.

(I myself am one of these people BTW; despite working in VR for half a decade now, I have almost no interest in VR gaming, and wouldn't be interested in the field were it not for its enormous potential as a new thinking tool).

Little interest or had they just grown up?

My point is that interest in sci-fi technologies and having some interest (prior or current) in gaming are highly overlapping demographics. Many games explore interactions with future technologies.

Additionally, from a technical perspective of an executive who is looking into VR, "if a headset can provide the fidelity to play games then that would mean it can likely do X and Y complex things my business does"