In addition to Apple, Snap is currently one of the most important companies on the planet in delivering products that move increased reality to the commonplace. Therefore, it is not surprising that Facebook, which also focuses on AR and tried to acquire the company for $ 3 billion several years ago, duplicates many of the smaller business features.
But while many in Silicon Valley whispered loudly about Facebook's Snapchat What comes as a surprise is that Facebook's founder, Chris Hughes, is now leveling the same charge at the company, in a very public way.
In a scrubbing editorial published in The New York Times on Thursday, Hughes, who shared a dorm room and later lived with Zuckerberg during the time of Facebook, requires Facebook to be broken up by the US government. The breakup, which Hughes predicted, would separate Facebook from Instagram (home to many of Snapshot's Facebook copies) and WhatsApp.
"As a result of [Facebook̵7;s dominance]competitors would not be able to cash in on Facebook. Investors realize that if a company gets traction, Facebook will copy its innovations, shut it down or acquire it for a relatively modest amount" writes Hughes.
"So, despite an expanded economic expansion, interest in high no benefit from social networking companies has been founded since the fall of 2011."
Although Hughes comments can be applied to many smaller startups with Facebook, the best example of Hughes's claim is Snapchat. After Snapcat's founder, Evan Spiegel, demonstrated the $ 3 billion Facebook purchase option, Facebook gradually began copying many of Snaphat's features for its Facebook and Instagram products. And while Snapchat is still in business, the company has nevertheless experienced increased pressure in the wake of its decision to weaken Facebook's offer.
Some have cited corporate culture and strategic blunders as part of the problem, but when the largest social network on the planet starts copying your core functions, many of which revolve around making enhanced reality simple and fun for ordinary users, who must be part of a part of the equation that can handle the company's struggles.
"Facebook's version of Snapcat's stories and disappearing messages proved to be successful at Snapcat's expense," Hughes writes. "At a meeting in 2016, Mark told Facebook employees not to let their pride get in the way of giving users what they wanted. According to Wired magazine, Zuckerberg's message became an informal slogan on Facebook:" Don't Be so proud to copy. " "
] But the thing missing from Hughes editorial – who has rocked Silicon Valley because of his intimate familiarity with and a direct hand in building Facebook – is no mention of Facebook's Oculus. There is no mention of VR or AR at all in the editorial or Hughes media flash today. Sure, Oculus does not have the number of users present on Facebook Instagram or WhatsApp, but it has the potential to affect as many, if not more, users in the future. Currently much about the external speaker about Oculus about VR, but Facebook has repeatedly shown that its Oculus team is developing an AR
If you thought personal data and data participation in Zuckerberg's companies were worried about non-immersive apps like Facebook, Insta grams and WhatsApp, these concerns are likely to explode with several orders of magnitude when Facebook users have on AR smartglasses developed by Oculus. Combined with AR-cloud technology, the possibility for Facebook to utilize its now sophisticated data extraction and data utilization of practices is significantly more important in the AR arena.
Since Hughes left Facebook well over a decade ago, he can excuse himself for not being so aware that Oculus acquired Oculus for 3 billion in 2014 and what it means. But insiders in AR space are aware of what is developing on Facebook, and one thing is clear: If Facebook is allowed to behave in the portable AR space it has with its existing core products, the data utilization will be outstanding.
So far, Facebook's integrity and data management of its Oculus users in VR seems mostly over the board and unharmed, as far as we know. But at a certain level, the niche group of enthusiastic VR users (myself among them) is just beta testers for what will be possible on a wider scale with Oculus AR software and hardware products.
Given that Oculus is not even in Hughes sights, much less government If a Facebook breakup occurs, there is a good chance that Oculus may be unaffected. It is noteworthy, since this is where Facebook's longer term can be very significant growth over the next few years, as we all begin to slip on a few AR smartglasses daily.
During a 2017 speech, Zuckerberg said he wanted to help bring in 1 billion people in VR. If you are familiar with VR, it is worth considering what this statement really means . Like VR, new and enthusiastic users are growing and continuing to grow. But as it is a technology that (even with Oculus Quest), like laptops, requires you to remain relatively stationary during use, there is a roof on its scale compared to mobile devices such as smartphones and yes, AR smartglasses, which eventually becomes easier to use for long distances than even smartphones.
So if Zuckerberg is looking for 1 billion VR users, how many mobile AR users do you think he is planning? Since about 96% of Facebook's approximately 2.38 billion users are mobile, he is probably looking for more than 1 billion users for his mobile AR product.
What happens when the data collection snake that is managed by Facebook does not point to your browser or smartphone, which you sometimes go away from or put down, but on your eyes and face through AR smartglasses? Facebook recently showed a fantastic demonstration of virtual avatars that can mimic your facial expressions in real time in VR. As a tool for social connection, the possibilities are amazing. As a data acquisition tool that delivers millions of pieces of information about the user's intent, emotional state, desire and taste, it is basically the sacred advertising campaign, which is how Facebook makes its money.
It would be naive to think of these Avatars will not eventually be introduced into Facebook's AR platform. To be obvious, these problems are not limited to Facebook's AR efforts. As I have written recently, AR clouds have been offered by a wide range of starters and institutional players will challenge our ability to handle privacy and data security as never before.
Overall, Hughes is editorially a shocking punishment from a person best qualified for to lob such criticism on Facebook. But there is no central component in Facebook's future that will have far greater scope than the web or smartphones – enhanced reality.
Is the breakup of Facebook the answer to the many privacy and data management issues facing the company? Perhaps. But if you ignore the future that Facebook is cooking on Oculus Research (also Facebook Reality Labs), it will not do anything in the long run.
Zuckerberg is investing in his first vision of the future of social networking on the web over his the desire to complete their Harvard training. Then, Zuckerberg is spending $ 3 billion on the future of in-depth computing, long before most of them have ever experienced AR or VR. So, in that regard, whether or not rules and divestments come about, if Hughes & # 39; and others & # 39; pushing for a broken up Facebook does not include Oculus, Zuckerberg still wins.
The only question now is how this profit will play out – with the scrutiny of state regulators or in relative obscurity, since many of the key players in the government and Silicon Valley are still not aware of the upcoming wave weight of data such as AR smartglasses will deliver.