I share your skepticism on VR goggles, and your trouble with the name Meta for the same reason. Immersive 3D experiences are a niche market and definitely not a new Metaverse.
The console game market serves as a proxy for TAM. It could be expanded to sports and rock concert viewing. But even these and other niches remain marginal, limited by age, gender, and affordability. Since VR goggles are not do-all products like SmartPhones or SmartWatches, the cost cannot be amortized across other end-user benefits.
Ironically, Apple has the best, by a wide margin, chip and software technology plus 23 million developers in their ecosystem. But will they release such a non-mainstream device?
I think that's the right question re Apple. Seems like some evidence that they might, but that doesn't seem in character unless they're approaching the headset in a totally unique way that we haven't considered
Pretty sure Tesla is a meaning company as well. Evidence: public awareness of its mission, its social media following, its brand strength, its attractiveness to employees and customer loyalty. All of which have been quantified.
I think there's a fair argument. The biggest companies often morph between categories. Apple started as a time company, somewhere became a meaning company (late 90s), and now I think is back to a time company mainly. Brand still matters but the more widespread a brand the less power it has to convey meaning because it's so commonplace. Meaning companies have a hard time maintaining on mass adoption. Tesla has some meaning qualities, and arguably had that as maybe its core before. I think looking forward Tesla needs to really solve the money problem to stand out and reach its potential
Hi - I think you underestimate the “meaning” component in Tesla’s value. Elon Musk represent a one stop shop for improving the human condition wholesale. The future of Tesla is in a similar place as Meta but Elon is moving way from the current core product before a crisis point unlike Zuckerberg. . Musk=(ai/robotics/energy/neuro)combinatorial genius
And that’s not even factoring Space X whose potential literally touches everything- ex: he who controls the high ground controls the battle. What’s higher than space?
Thanks for the nice write-up. The VR usefulness appears to be debatable. I believe VR solves both time and money problem. First of all, we will for sure get an immersive (high-fi) experience that people want, and it won't be as late as 2030 if you examine the progress of silicon, display and graphic rendering. Such desirable experience could be very costly and time consuming for people to pursue in the physical world (reference: vacation, team building etc.), not to mention in many cases these experiences are simply not possible (e.g. space travel) or too dangerous to even try physically, which probably also fit into the "meaning" category of yours?
I share your skepticism on VR goggles, and your trouble with the name Meta for the same reason. Immersive 3D experiences are a niche market and definitely not a new Metaverse.
The console game market serves as a proxy for TAM. It could be expanded to sports and rock concert viewing. But even these and other niches remain marginal, limited by age, gender, and affordability. Since VR goggles are not do-all products like SmartPhones or SmartWatches, the cost cannot be amortized across other end-user benefits.
Ironically, Apple has the best, by a wide margin, chip and software technology plus 23 million developers in their ecosystem. But will they release such a non-mainstream device?
I think that's the right question re Apple. Seems like some evidence that they might, but that doesn't seem in character unless they're approaching the headset in a totally unique way that we haven't considered
Pretty sure Tesla is a meaning company as well. Evidence: public awareness of its mission, its social media following, its brand strength, its attractiveness to employees and customer loyalty. All of which have been quantified.
I think there's a fair argument. The biggest companies often morph between categories. Apple started as a time company, somewhere became a meaning company (late 90s), and now I think is back to a time company mainly. Brand still matters but the more widespread a brand the less power it has to convey meaning because it's so commonplace. Meaning companies have a hard time maintaining on mass adoption. Tesla has some meaning qualities, and arguably had that as maybe its core before. I think looking forward Tesla needs to really solve the money problem to stand out and reach its potential
Maybe that’s the reason Elon is always pitching new pie the sky ideas - it’s provides meaning.
Hi - I think you underestimate the “meaning” component in Tesla’s value. Elon Musk represent a one stop shop for improving the human condition wholesale. The future of Tesla is in a similar place as Meta but Elon is moving way from the current core product before a crisis point unlike Zuckerberg. . Musk=(ai/robotics/energy/neuro)combinatorial genius
And that’s not even factoring Space X whose potential literally touches everything- ex: he who controls the high ground controls the battle. What’s higher than space?
Thanks for the nice write-up. The VR usefulness appears to be debatable. I believe VR solves both time and money problem. First of all, we will for sure get an immersive (high-fi) experience that people want, and it won't be as late as 2030 if you examine the progress of silicon, display and graphic rendering. Such desirable experience could be very costly and time consuming for people to pursue in the physical world (reference: vacation, team building etc.), not to mention in many cases these experiences are simply not possible (e.g. space travel) or too dangerous to even try physically, which probably also fit into the "meaning" category of yours?