Hacker News Reader

Comment by samwillis | Hacker News Reader

Both Apple and Google have successfully “owned the platform” they rely on for revenue, Google with Chrome, Apple with iOS. Facebook have tried but never succeeded in owning the platform, it’s the biggest risk to their position.

Their strategy to owning the platform now seems to me not to be “owning” the legislative and political platform through lobbying. If they can’t own the OS/Browser they are running on, then they want to “own” the legislation that governs it.

If your competitors own the platform better to leapfrog them and attempt to gain control though lobbying for legislative limitations.

Having your no2/3 in the company being a former Deputy British Prime Minister, only shows how important the political and legislative situation is to the long term stability of them as a company.

View on HN

It also shows, how fearful they are of becoming irrelevant in people's lives. They try to entrench themselves everywhere they can, but if Google disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't even notice for quite a while, except for web pages not showing up in uBlock Origin as loading Google trackers.

You are in the minority of Western internet users, and I am sure many websites you visit would notice the loss in ad revenue.

> Google with Chrome

Or, you know, Android.

Quite right, where I live, among the people I know, Apple have maybe 95% of the market. That’s obviously not true globally or even nationally (I’m in the UK). But it does lead to carelessly forgetting the size of the Android market share globally some times. Thanks for the nudge!

Because you live with young(er), rich, white, college-educated people - most likely. Android has great market penetration but that cohort has firmly fallen to Apple.

Let me guess, 95% of the people around you also have Apple laptops? :-)

Strangely, I have no idea. I work from home (and have for 10 years) and so the only other person I regularly see using a laptop is my wife, who does use a MacBook... so 100% of people around me use a MacBook...

>Facebook have tried but never succeeded in owning the platform, it’s the biggest risk to their position.

They're certainly trying their hardest with the Oculus Quest, and they're doing a good job of providing the cheapest headset out there, and arguably the best in some ways. I wouldn't count them out of the picture on that just yet.

I think that’s why they have gone all in on VR, it’s the only platform that’s still up for grabs. I suspect they are quite worried what Apple will come out with when they enter the market.

However I don’t believe the market in VR/AR is as large as they think it could become. Unless I’m missing something obvious.

Just like everything else, you need a killer app/feature. Smart phones was basically internet everywhere first and then all the apps followed after. I have no idea what will drive the masses to want VR. Games in the space have mostly been lackluster, and the only app type that sounds interesting to me (but not enough to warrant the price nor having the headset on) would be the recreation of large movie experience.

I suspect it'll actually be that you're even more connected with your friends, all the time. Which is already the business that FB is in, so that makes sense for them to try to get there first.

With proper AR glasses, people (especially young people) could be constantly in contact with their friends without having to pull their phone out. Reading certain muscles could be used to control it, or maybe even direct brain interface.

Add in games that could be literally everywhere a la Pokemon Go, but better, and it'll be a very compelling experience for pre-teens, teens and young adults, and even many middle-age people.

It's going to be a hard sell for my age group, unless we're already really inclined towards tech, like me.

I highly recommend this video I watched today about platform capitalism.

THE METAVERSE: A Guide to the Future of Capitalism

https://youtu.be/TM00M-dRMBk

Should note that Tom Nicholas is extremely political in all of his videos and his content - that's the point. There's nothing wrong with that, but treating opinions as good sources of information just because somebody knows how to edit a video isn't a good way to do things.

It's food for thought. It's up to the viewers to decide whether what he saids makes logical sense and filter his political bias.

I do agree with his argument here about Facebook wanting to own the platform. I don't think that part is political as it makes business sense that Facebook would want that. And Facebook isn't exactly trying to hide their ambitions either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com