I guess one reason might be that they have a pre-existing social network to draw from, so much easier to coordinate social VR with friends.
Not saying that is sufficient, but it definitely helps compared with a startup that has to rely more on having strangers interact or, if meeting with friends, is likely to be higher friction that FB can offer.
Text looks rather pixelated. I couldn't see someone reading a book in VR, but that's not the selling point. VR's advantage is Presence.[1] Current headsets are good enough that you can feel like you are in another world. I've had friends dive onto the ground or flinch because they thought they were going to be shot while playing Superhot VR. It's a visceral sensation that videos of VR can't convey.
I think there's definitely something to VR, but content is lacking right now.
Imo Vive Pro or Valve Index are Good Enough (TM) but YMMV. It really depends what you're doing with the thing, as I can read large text in Gen 1 Rift reasonably well and that's all I need.
I gave Facebook the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but alas I have mostly removed anything Facebook from my life and I am happier because of it.
They are building something that doesn't even need to exist. We can have fully remote work with today's tools that's _way_ better than the average office environment, certainly way more productive per hour spent. You don't need a roomful of GPUs to have it. All that's in the way is organizational inertia and managers who can't justify their own existence without butts in the chairs, herded into an "open" office like cattle.
Wonder if I am only one thinking Halliday being one of the greatest arseholes casted as semigod in fiction? I mean, it is fine to be into 80's, but using your massive wealth to impose that obsession to everyone else does not score high points for me.
Does he impose it though, or just uses it as a filter to find the next game administrator? He doesn't enforces anybody to participate. Perhaps comparable to a requirement list for a job, though it's a bit of a specific requirement.
Facebook already owns your face from a 2D space perspective. Just go ahead and give them literally a high-fidelity 3D pointmap of your face. What could go wrong?
On the Internet, you can be anything you want. Facebook thinks most people will want to be a generic floating body with a cartoon human head. They missed the point - self expression is what people want.
Do you mean "VRChat" maybe? I feel like Horizon will be more like an "Internet" where you can access other games/experiences. Not bare-bones, chat-only like VRChat, but that's just my guess.
Probably means Rec Room or Altspaces. With that said, VRChat is certainly not just bare bones chat. There are rooms for everything with all kind of games. Think Roblox.
The fact that FB can task developers to this, but not the breached servers (of a 3rd Party but who has access to highly confidential material) I’ve reported via their BB page that are online right this second is somewhat insulting to me.
If this comment gets downvoted, be suspicious. It is going to be well written, but it is does contain accusations against Facebook. My real name is in my About Section so I have no fear of libel. I hate to play this card because I am sort of immunizing myself (or trying to) against downvotes, but you can look through my comments and it’s not something I’ve ever done before.
1. The 3rd Party who led to the breach at Doordash is also a Facebook contractor. A significant amount of Facebook data has been stolen because of this.
2. Dashlane, Deliveroo (UK), Netflix, Uber, AirBnB, Quora, EventBrite, BetterDoctor, and about 10 other firms that I know of are also clients of this contractor as their data was also leaking or obtainable through extremely simple exploits.
3. Yes I did file a Bug Bounty with evidence. FB has acted...sort of...but the evidence is still online, at this moment.
4. I have already begun conversations with ISC2 asking for a significant amount of CISSP cert holders at FB to have their certifications revoked for breach of ethics violations via the “good of society” clause and negligent blindness. I absolutely made sure to have a carve out saying they probably were just ignored by management, and in such case for the names I cited to ignore my claim (and I would write a written public apology if asked).
5. I get that everyone here is tired of FB negativity here. Me too. Just a little longer if you don’t mind.
If this comment gets downvoted, it's probably because its kind of off-topic and a little hard to follow. Maybe write a blog post with some of the emails, I guess, instead of a long comment, and then submit that?
I get your comment for sure, but it is not true when you say those on Hacker News would downvote a comment for being off-topic when it is for a somewhat concerning moral issue. Many of the members here are better than that or at least more able to see the larger issues at stake I think.
Again though I still see your point and those claims, if situation was a little more mundane, are absolutely true.
Is the identity of the breached third party public knowledge? Is there a way for other startups to determine if they may be at risk as well? If it has that many high-profile clients it is likely a popular service.
Yeah its a clever design decision, which is hard to appreciate with the intensely bubbley (frothy?) lady talking way too loud for what seems to be 9am on a Sunday.
There's something slightly unnerving about Horizon's avatars. While it's more or less understood that floating avatars are the best match for current modes of VR locomotion, thus the lack of legs, there's an important difference between something like Rec Room VR's floating avatars and Horizon's: The former's are far more abstract, and thus look more natural in their omissions.
Rec Room's avatars consist of floating hands, a floating head, and a floating torso, all disconnected. It doesn't seem odd that they don't have legs, because their other features are more removed from the human form. Facebook's, on the other hand, are fully-formed cartoon characters from the waist up, more on the order of XBox Live avatars. This greater detail makes the lack of detail elsewhere look out of place, and even slightly disturbing given its imposition on a human figure.
People can get used to anything. In college I got a glance at the totally normal cartoons my little sister was watching and I was horrified -- it looked like borderline body horror to me. But she thought that the cartoon characters of my childhood were equally creepy. (In retrospect she was right; Courage the Cowardly Dog was some really messed up shit.) In comparison, a floating cartoon torso is going to be nothing for an adolescent to assimilate.
This is right out of the premise of the book "Ready Player One" that has a similar virtual world called OASIS. Mark Zuckerberg is a huge fan of the book in general and It just seems Oculus is trying to create a similar world with Horizon launch.
Is it just me or is their intro video disturbing? A world where your significant other is next to you but deep in their own virtual world? Hasn't Facebook done enough to disconnect people from the real world? Given the lengths Facebook has gone through to keep users engaged and addicted to their platform, what's stopping them from doing the same with Horizon?
My first thought was, "what does this cost?" Not per month, what am I giving up if I participate? What personal data of mine will be collected, and for what purpose?
Is this information even available?
ps. yes that video was creepy FB is awful at marketing.
i regularly sit next to my s.o. on the couch, both with a headset. no problem here, it's just like watching television but noe the whole room is transformed and friends can join in so ee can watch star trek together on the 'big screen' or play bridge crew
Frankly, we are already in our own virtual worlds, with our own thoughts and experiences. We all perceive reality differently and many of us can feel extremely alone even in the presence of those we love. I'm not sure this technology is going to emotionally isolate people even more than we already are.
Maybe it is just me getting old but when I was watching that part when she was talking about "getting out there, trying new things, making your mark", something really deep in me was screaming NOOOO!, this is not right :-/
I was always into tech but this video makes me want to throw all my devices away, move to some old house in abandoned Spanish village and grow my own tomatoes. And the disturbing part is that I am not even sure why - on its face value it seems great, you get to talk to people from all around the world and that is cool, right? But my intuition tells me that we are not wired for this and if it gains traction, something terrible will come out of this.
> something really deep in me was screaming NOOOO!, this is not right
I though the same. I mean there are some things that can easily exist in virtual world, and it may even be enabling for people who can't leave their houses in a literal way (for many different reasons). But as a default? You can likely try new things in person - but the ad made it seem to be a new thing rather than an alternative experience. I guess I'm opposed to that framing.
> And the disturbing part is that I am not even sure why - on its face value it seems great
And that is exactly the reason why it is not the right direction. Think about it. Why would one choose a virtual world over the new one? Because apparently the real world is not good enough. On the surface the virtual looks better, but if you engage in it, I think you will probably find out that it is as boring and hard as the real one.
People have lived for centuries without it. In those years there have both been plenty of fulfilled lives and unfulfilled lives. Clearly, the shiny happy virtual world is not a prerequisite for a fulfilled live. Now think about what made those lives fulfilling. Whatever the answer, it can be done in the real world. It probably is also not superficial and also not shiny. So trading the current world for the shiny virtual world is not the ultimate solution to whatever it is that you are looking for. It can be a tool, like the telephone is. But not more.
> People have lived for centuries without it. In those years there have both been plenty of fulfilled lives and unfulfilled lives. Clearly, the shiny happy virtual world is not a prerequisite for a fulfilled live.
One could say the same about anaesthetic - but I'd still prefer to have the choice! But I won't be rushing to sign up for this. I don't use FB, and think they (& Google for that matter) are a malign force in the world.
Yes, I would prefer the anesthetic too. The difference between the two that it is very clear that the anesthetic is a tool. It makes it easier to accomplish something, but that something does not change whether you use the aid or not. Whereas the virtual world is often confused with being a new something that replaces the old one. That's why I said it could be useful as a tool, but not more.
On the A16Z podcast, Marc Andreessen (IIRC) said something like "VR is not for Silicon Valley where you wake up every day thinking of all the awesome things you can do. VR is for all the people whose everyday life is terrible."
When you think about it in those terms it gets seriously dystopian. You put your AR goggles on for your 10-hour shift at the Nike factory, then you pop a protein pill and put your VR goggles on for the rest of the day, spending your meagre income on whoever bid most for your eyeballs on Google.
> "VR is not for Silicon Valley where you wake up every day thinking of all the awesome things you can do. VR is for all the people whose everyday life is terrible."
I do think there are some merits to VR (a better gaming experience) but framing VR as a new worldly experience feels wrong to me. There are some arguments for Horizon being beneficial for people whose lives aren't great and they get to let off in a better, virtual environment. How is that different than opioids though - both are temporary escapes from real world problems, and that's just what it is which is an escape and not a solution.
I don't get this type of visceral reaction personally, even though I wouldn't use this type of app, but I understand why some older people would never touch it.
I like to keep up with new tech and I was looking at the viral Houseparty [1] and Airtime [1] apps the other day. While I'd never do anything like that with my friends, when I checked the reviews it was mostly 12yr kids (some say their age in the review for some reason) and I could imagine myself at a younger age loving this stuff.
The kids could use it when they are stuck in their bedroom and want to to 'hang out' with friends after school. Watching Youtube videos or simple games combined with live video chat and texting.
I could see a similar use case here with VR.
The whole 'spectator culture' watching people playing vide games is a massive phenomenon among kids. But sitting watching a "zany" perpetually hyper guy playing a video game for hours seems foreign to most adults.
The social lives of kids are already heavily intertwined with technology. They don't mind jumping into a multi-party video chat with some friends from school. Doing the same in a VR world sounds just as fun.
There's also always naysayers for every tech launch on HN/internet so it's safe to take it with a grain of salt. Sometimes it's just not meant for you and that's totally fine.
Me, an old fart, looks at Houseparty/Airtime: That's nice! I could see myself doing that with friends. I haven't really thought of how important It's to see peoples faces. The kids are alright!
Me looks at a VR world run by facebook: Screeches and sees the worst imaginable dystopian future marching towards me.
One of the most exciting things I remember about first getting the Internet in the 90s was (especially as a socially-anxious introvert) being able to jump on an IRC server and chat mostly anonymously with just a nickname, to people I didn't know, without the awkwardness that real-life interactions could bring me at the time.
As a high-school kid, I could be on the same footing as a distinguished scientist. Or I could make friends in other countries.
Even my parents, who aren't technically-inclined, were excited by that and thought it was amazing.
I sometimes feel like the Internet went from being a place that you explored to find new people and new viewpoints, to one where many people just stay in their own bubbles.
No, this is not a bug. How did we get from there, to here? :(
Certainly, but at the same time -- it wasn't a free-for-all. I was lucky that I'd been taught to be suspicious and to have boundaries long before the Internet. Of course that doesn't preclude anything from happening and luck does play a part. It just means I wouldn't have engaged in some risky behaviours - I wouldn't go giving strangers my phone number (this was before mobiles, so my phone number was my parent's phone number) or home address, for example. This was at a time when people hadn't even warmed up to the idea of using their credit cards online; my folks using their credit card to pay the monthly Internet bill was a way out-there thing at the time.
I also wasn't _that_ young - I don't think I touched IRC until I was around 15 or 16.
I remember the first in-real-life 'meetup' was a big thing; it was with members of an IRC chat group from our local area. I was real-life friends with some of the people already, so it wasn't an entire group of strangers. I don't think that even happened until I was out of high school.
> it should take time and effort to talk to people all over the world
No, it shouldn't, that was the whole point of the global Internet (ignoring its origins), to drill into people's thick skulls that in the end we're all very similar, that most of the "local culture" crap it's just that, CRAP, and deep inside we're all driven by the same fears and desires. That ANY kind of war means just fighting against other people that are just like you and that in the end it's not worth fighting. That we can have the global village, and keep our special tribal/nationa/race identities too, there's no contradiction there.
Hope AR, VR and later neural implants get implemented and deployed in ways that empower this vision instead of the opposite, that they manage to push further in the one-world-interconnectedness direction of the 90s internet.
I used to dislike corporations like Facebook... but now I'm pretty sure I'd rather live in a globalized world ruled by such corporations, than in a separated and restricted one ruled by governments representing "nations"! I'd swallow the AI-powered-corporate-surveillance part as a minor inconvenience if it manages to deliver the "one world" dream... I'm just afraid that most corporations aren't truly powerful and globally distributed enough, in the sense that they could at least in theory overpower the governments of most of most of their base countries if push comes to shove and they need to fight them for more freedom and connectivity. Maybe if they'd drop central control and organize themselves more into "cells" or something similar... there's got to be something in the whole Ethereum and distributed systems experiment that can become successful and power this. Heh, maybe once Libra gets traction more can be built on top. Go Facebook!
Don't pay attention to unimaginative people who pretend to be imaginative and creative (because its part of some job description and quarterly kpi) and you will be fine.
A well programmed Corporate Robot knows not to act like a visionary. Their job when they do it right, is to keep the factory lights on and set the stage up for the visionaries.
But some of these robots have bugs and end up getting up on to the stage and wasting everyones time.
Showing VR users awkwardly ignoring friends who are right next to them does run face-first into a talking point I've heard repeatedly from people who reject VR out of hand.
While, I agree with you 100% that it was a poor choice of theme for the video, I've never been impressed with the talking point. It has always been presented to me as if they were arguing that the telephone was an isolating, anti-social device.
"Imagine you were hanging out with someone, having a good time. And, out of nowhere they pull this little 'device' out of their pocket and press it against the side of their face. Then they start walking around, looking around at nothing, acting you aren't even there and having a conversation with nobody! What kind of jerk would do that? Not me! Not ever!"
You would be a jerk if you suddenly cut off a conversation to call someone else out of the blue. That's why people don't do that! With phones, stepping out to take a call is considered situationally OK. But, that's not (yet) a user story for VR. Instead, the common story is that you have some time to yourself, maybe you'll watch TV or browse the internets. But, instead you go into VR where it is very convenient and easy to hang out and do wacky stuff with random people all over to the world. Hopefully, when VR becomes more common, it will be somewhat less random people and somewhat more friends and family that you'd like to see more often but don't because of physical inconveniences (like being located in a separate cities/countries/continents).
who would ever sit next to their partner on the couch in complete silence while you both mindlessly scroll through mediocre content on your phones and once you find something of above average quality you give a smile or nose exhale and then without even looking up continue back to the scroll??
In my opinion it's not the supposedly ignoring friends part.
It's the fact that replacing then non virtual world with a virtual one means that you are giving your life entirely to a commercial entity. You basically lose all freedoms humanity achieved for the individual. Because this new space is not public, it's entirely owned.
If it would be opt in and an individual choice than I wouldn't care much.
But these things, if they are engaging enough will tend to attract a critical mass of people that might make the old non virtual space obselet in many ways.
This will effect me weather I like it or not.
At every advance in communications and information exchange there's that "this isn't right" feeling shared by half of the people from generations that didn't grow up with it.
Not that I disagree with you. There are going to be all kinds ugly side effects when VR worlds go mainstream (maybe not Facebook's but eventually). Remember the height of MMORPGs when people were dying of dehydration, murdering each other in the real world and other craziness?
But putting the future of the human race aside for a sec... this is some of the most tone deaf advertising I've seen in a while.
It's almost as if they listed all the major issues that turn people off of VR and then tried to make them selling points.
"People will accept anything if we do low hanging Pixaresque jokes!"
It is a little, but to me mostly because of the apparent time of the day (morning/noon).
Me and my SO often immerse in different things while in the same room. Could be as simple as both reading fiction, or I could be playing video games while she watches TV.
It's not what we do over breakfast, though! If the video showed couples doing their own thing while it's already dark outside, it would be more natural. VR to me is no more escapist than playing an intense team based FPS online.
what certainly doesn't help is the graphics of the game which looks exactly like something out of a movie 20 years ago when people where making tons of VR dystopia sci-fi flicks
A good relationship is one where you can be close to each other, each doing their own thing, and feel "close" and connected. From that perspective, playing a game (possibly in a virtual world) isn't really that different from reading a book.
Let's be honest, virtual world games have always appealed to people who are not doing so well in the real world. From a pure business perspective, that is the problem, and virtual worlds are the convenient solution.
Yeah, this almost seems like satire from a dystopian scifi movie. The actual presented ideas were fine but the tone and jokes landed far from where FB marketers presumably intended.
Not to mention it's very cringey, as well as the somewhat implicit messaging where "the kitchen is not only for women", see we have a progressive man here who's preparing a meal for his wife.
I haven’t played with VR sets too much, but I think one practical limitation is whether it gets physically tiring over a shorter amount of time vs traditional video games or doing something on your phone? I mean, do people actually spend hours with a VR set like they might playing Fortnite etc?
232 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 291 ms ] threadNot saying that is sufficient, but it definitely helps compared with a startup that has to rely more on having strangers interact or, if meeting with friends, is likely to be higher friction that FB can offer.
Screen door effect and all.
I’m waiting for 4K per eye, then I’ll be into it
I think there's definitely something to VR, but content is lacking right now.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_(virtual_reality)#Pr...
I highly recommend people checkout Michael Abrash's keynote discussing some jaw dropping "social teleportation" research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCB_mfGmh9w&t=1h47m12s
Source: I work remotely.
https://www.oculus.com/blog/introducing-michael-abrash-oculu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
I laughed at the legless avatars. So many memes in the making.
If this comment gets downvoted, be suspicious. It is going to be well written, but it is does contain accusations against Facebook. My real name is in my About Section so I have no fear of libel. I hate to play this card because I am sort of immunizing myself (or trying to) against downvotes, but you can look through my comments and it’s not something I’ve ever done before.
1. The 3rd Party who led to the breach at Doordash is also a Facebook contractor. A significant amount of Facebook data has been stolen because of this.
2. Dashlane, Deliveroo (UK), Netflix, Uber, AirBnB, Quora, EventBrite, BetterDoctor, and about 10 other firms that I know of are also clients of this contractor as their data was also leaking or obtainable through extremely simple exploits.
3. Yes I did file a Bug Bounty with evidence. FB has acted...sort of...but the evidence is still online, at this moment.
4. I have already begun conversations with ISC2 asking for a significant amount of CISSP cert holders at FB to have their certifications revoked for breach of ethics violations via the “good of society” clause and negligent blindness. I absolutely made sure to have a carve out saying they probably were just ignored by management, and in such case for the names I cited to ignore my claim (and I would write a written public apology if asked).
5. I get that everyone here is tired of FB negativity here. Me too. Just a little longer if you don’t mind.
Again though I still see your point and those claims, if situation was a little more mundane, are absolutely true.
Rec Room's avatars consist of floating hands, a floating head, and a floating torso, all disconnected. It doesn't seem odd that they don't have legs, because their other features are more removed from the human form. Facebook's, on the other hand, are fully-formed cartoon characters from the waist up, more on the order of XBox Live avatars. This greater detail makes the lack of detail elsewhere look out of place, and even slightly disturbing given its imposition on a human figure.
Is this information even available?
ps. yes that video was creepy FB is awful at marketing.
I was always into tech but this video makes me want to throw all my devices away, move to some old house in abandoned Spanish village and grow my own tomatoes. And the disturbing part is that I am not even sure why - on its face value it seems great, you get to talk to people from all around the world and that is cool, right? But my intuition tells me that we are not wired for this and if it gains traction, something terrible will come out of this.
I though the same. I mean there are some things that can easily exist in virtual world, and it may even be enabling for people who can't leave their houses in a literal way (for many different reasons). But as a default? You can likely try new things in person - but the ad made it seem to be a new thing rather than an alternative experience. I guess I'm opposed to that framing.
And that is exactly the reason why it is not the right direction. Think about it. Why would one choose a virtual world over the new one? Because apparently the real world is not good enough. On the surface the virtual looks better, but if you engage in it, I think you will probably find out that it is as boring and hard as the real one.
People have lived for centuries without it. In those years there have both been plenty of fulfilled lives and unfulfilled lives. Clearly, the shiny happy virtual world is not a prerequisite for a fulfilled live. Now think about what made those lives fulfilling. Whatever the answer, it can be done in the real world. It probably is also not superficial and also not shiny. So trading the current world for the shiny virtual world is not the ultimate solution to whatever it is that you are looking for. It can be a tool, like the telephone is. But not more.
One could say the same about anaesthetic - but I'd still prefer to have the choice! But I won't be rushing to sign up for this. I don't use FB, and think they (& Google for that matter) are a malign force in the world.
When you think about it in those terms it gets seriously dystopian. You put your AR goggles on for your 10-hour shift at the Nike factory, then you pop a protein pill and put your VR goggles on for the rest of the day, spending your meagre income on whoever bid most for your eyeballs on Google.
An earlier Facebook VR demo infamously managed to twist up both, with the Puerto Rico tragedy demo. CNET report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8q2BQOGRGE
I like to keep up with new tech and I was looking at the viral Houseparty [1] and Airtime [1] apps the other day. While I'd never do anything like that with my friends, when I checked the reviews it was mostly 12yr kids (some say their age in the review for some reason) and I could imagine myself at a younger age loving this stuff.
The kids could use it when they are stuck in their bedroom and want to to 'hang out' with friends after school. Watching Youtube videos or simple games combined with live video chat and texting.
I could see a similar use case here with VR.
The whole 'spectator culture' watching people playing vide games is a massive phenomenon among kids. But sitting watching a "zany" perpetually hyper guy playing a video game for hours seems foreign to most adults.
The social lives of kids are already heavily intertwined with technology. They don't mind jumping into a multi-party video chat with some friends from school. Doing the same in a VR world sounds just as fun.
There's also always naysayers for every tech launch on HN/internet so it's safe to take it with a grain of salt. Sometimes it's just not meant for you and that's totally fine.
1. https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/houseparty/id1065781769
2. https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/airtime-watch-videos-together/...
Me looks at a VR world run by facebook: Screeches and sees the worst imaginable dystopian future marching towards me.
But it’s true, Facebook ruins everything don't they? If it was anyone else I'd be more inclined to support this otherwise.
i would say this is a bug not a feature. it should take time and effort to talk to people all over the world.
As a high-school kid, I could be on the same footing as a distinguished scientist. Or I could make friends in other countries.
Even my parents, who aren't technically-inclined, were excited by that and thought it was amazing.
I sometimes feel like the Internet went from being a place that you explored to find new people and new viewpoints, to one where many people just stay in their own bubbles.
No, this is not a bug. How did we get from there, to here? :(
I also wasn't _that_ young - I don't think I touched IRC until I was around 15 or 16.
I remember the first in-real-life 'meetup' was a big thing; it was with members of an IRC chat group from our local area. I was real-life friends with some of the people already, so it wasn't an entire group of strangers. I don't think that even happened until I was out of high school.
No, it shouldn't, that was the whole point of the global Internet (ignoring its origins), to drill into people's thick skulls that in the end we're all very similar, that most of the "local culture" crap it's just that, CRAP, and deep inside we're all driven by the same fears and desires. That ANY kind of war means just fighting against other people that are just like you and that in the end it's not worth fighting. That we can have the global village, and keep our special tribal/nationa/race identities too, there's no contradiction there.
Hope AR, VR and later neural implants get implemented and deployed in ways that empower this vision instead of the opposite, that they manage to push further in the one-world-interconnectedness direction of the 90s internet.
I used to dislike corporations like Facebook... but now I'm pretty sure I'd rather live in a globalized world ruled by such corporations, than in a separated and restricted one ruled by governments representing "nations"! I'd swallow the AI-powered-corporate-surveillance part as a minor inconvenience if it manages to deliver the "one world" dream... I'm just afraid that most corporations aren't truly powerful and globally distributed enough, in the sense that they could at least in theory overpower the governments of most of most of their base countries if push comes to shove and they need to fight them for more freedom and connectivity. Maybe if they'd drop central control and organize themselves more into "cells" or something similar... there's got to be something in the whole Ethereum and distributed systems experiment that can become successful and power this. Heh, maybe once Libra gets traction more can be built on top. Go Facebook!
Evolution works best in a diverse population: when the environment shifts, some varieties will be quicker to adapt than others.
A well programmed Corporate Robot knows not to act like a visionary. Their job when they do it right, is to keep the factory lights on and set the stage up for the visionaries.
But some of these robots have bugs and end up getting up on to the stage and wasting everyones time.
While, I agree with you 100% that it was a poor choice of theme for the video, I've never been impressed with the talking point. It has always been presented to me as if they were arguing that the telephone was an isolating, anti-social device.
"Imagine you were hanging out with someone, having a good time. And, out of nowhere they pull this little 'device' out of their pocket and press it against the side of their face. Then they start walking around, looking around at nothing, acting you aren't even there and having a conversation with nobody! What kind of jerk would do that? Not me! Not ever!"
You would be a jerk if you suddenly cut off a conversation to call someone else out of the blue. That's why people don't do that! With phones, stepping out to take a call is considered situationally OK. But, that's not (yet) a user story for VR. Instead, the common story is that you have some time to yourself, maybe you'll watch TV or browse the internets. But, instead you go into VR where it is very convenient and easy to hang out and do wacky stuff with random people all over to the world. Hopefully, when VR becomes more common, it will be somewhat less random people and somewhat more friends and family that you'd like to see more often but don't because of physical inconveniences (like being located in a separate cities/countries/continents).
But it is!
Not that I disagree with you. There are going to be all kinds ugly side effects when VR worlds go mainstream (maybe not Facebook's but eventually). Remember the height of MMORPGs when people were dying of dehydration, murdering each other in the real world and other craziness?
But putting the future of the human race aside for a sec... this is some of the most tone deaf advertising I've seen in a while.
It's almost as if they listed all the major issues that turn people off of VR and then tried to make them selling points.
"People will accept anything if we do low hanging Pixaresque jokes!"
Me and my SO often immerse in different things while in the same room. Could be as simple as both reading fiction, or I could be playing video games while she watches TV.
It's not what we do over breakfast, though! If the video showed couples doing their own thing while it's already dark outside, it would be more natural. VR to me is no more escapist than playing an intense team based FPS online.
Not that I am fan of the idea of a Facebook MMO!