Hacker News Reader

Comment by danielmarkbruce | Hacker News Reader

Meta is allowed to defend themselves against lawsuits. SimulaVR is a startup in the space. They have a shot in VR, or at least believe they do. SimulaVR a great example for Meta to use to defend themselves against a stupid lawsuit.

The FTC shouldn't be bringing this case. VR is still up for grabs. Defining the relevant market as the "dedicated fitness virtual reality app market" is questionable, and the idea it "proves the value of virtual reality" is nonsense.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/07/...

The idea that meta have some dominant position that can't be overcome is like suggesting Excite or Altavista had a dominant position in search that couldn't be overcome in the 90's, or MySpace in social in the early 00's. It's too early to call this market "won".

View on HN

> VR is still up for grabs

Curious statement, considering the FTC is trying to preserve competition in the space. Excite and Altavista weren't trying to buy up the biggest websites around at the time.

Yes and they are overreaching in response to a perceived miss many years ago when FB bought Instagram. The VR market is so young and small that it doesn't need regulatory intervention. Let's allow it play out a little bit before we get regulators involved who think things like: this app is something which "proves the value of virtual reality to users".

And yeah, they were, and they were being bought and sold, and Yahoo too. There was lots of m&a action in the space. Virtually everyone involved went under despite having a dominant position for a hot minute.

From your link, the FTC says:

> "Meta already owns a best-selling virtual reality fitness app, and it had the capabilities to compete even more closely with Within’s popular Supernatural app. But Meta chose to buy market position instead of earning it on the merits."

I don't buy that VR is so young, we're a couple generations in now on multiple platforms. There are still new entrants in the space, which is good, and they would be negatively impacted if there were less established independent developers. Facebook had a head start, and they're trying their best to lock up the market before Apple/others enter it.

Best selling doesn't mean well selling. Someone is always the best selling in a market. It doesn't mean the market is anywhere at all.

VR might not even exist in 10 years. It's been hyped for 8-9 years now and user growth has been anaemic. Most headsets are shelfware.

Here is an article to read: https://mixed-news.com/en/quest-2-why-meta-isnt-talking-abou...

This isn't speculative nonsense - the usage problem is know across the industry.

Single digit millions of users is either early in the market or late... Either way no interference from a clueless regulator is required.

The Within deal is above $400 million. Doesn't seem like shelfware money.

The end of the article seems pretty consistent with FTC's view: Meta can compete with better hardware and software on it's own.

They do try to build better hardware and software. At this point they are throwing everything they have at it. The FTC are treating them as though it's a big, profitable, won market where Meta isn't playing fair. In reality it's a small, money losing, no winner market where Meta is trying to create something.

This is growth at all costs. Big companies buying up established independent developers to add to their services while consumers have less choice. AB/MS, Figma/Adobe, it needs to stop.

The VR market isn't in that phase. Adobe is in a big market with a strong position, makes a lot of money. That market has been around for decades. VR is default dead right now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com