I don't exactly know what "metaverse" means, but what is clear is that nobody really does right now. Here is an excerpt from a recent article by Benedict Evans:
If the narrow definition of ‘metaverse’ is that VR and AR will be the next smartphone, the broad definition is that there’s going to be a whole new internet. Our experience will be 3D, but much of that will be layered onto the real world as we see it through glasses. Games will become a much larger part of daily life - instead of the current split between a few hundred people playing deep and rich AAA PC and console games and several billion playing much lighter-weight smartphone games, Roblox and Fortnite point to a growing middle ground of persistent, open, accessible and expressive environments that are much more about social and identity than games per se, and that can become platforms and ecosystems for developers. Many of these experiences will blur into each other, and digital goods (skins, avatars and other models of self-expression in digital form) will be portable and interchangeable between these worlds, rather like the characters in Wreck-it Raph could pass between games.
Some people, namely Mark Zuckerberg, believe that VR is going to be the next smartphone. But Benedict raises an interesting point: the direction of travel for tech seems to be toward less immersion, rather than
I don't exactly know what "metaverse" means, but what is clear is that nobody really does right now. Here is an excerpt from a recent article by Benedict Evans:
If the narrow definition of ‘metaverse’ is that VR and AR will be the next smartphone, the broad definition is that there’s going to be a whole new internet. Our experience will be 3D, but much of that will be layered onto the real world as we see it through glasses. Games will become a much larger part of daily life - instead of the current split between a few hundred people playing deep and rich AAA PC and console games and several billion playing much lighter-weight smartphone games, Roblox and Fortnite point to a growing middle ground of persistent, open, accessible and expressive environments that are much more about social and identity than games per se, and that can become platforms and ecosystems for developers. Many of these experiences will blur into each other, and digital goods (skins, avatars and other models of self-expression in digital form) will be portable and interchangeable between these worlds, rather like the characters in Wreck-it Raph could pass between games.
Some people, namely Mark Zuckerberg, believe that VR is going to be the next smartphone. But Benedict raises an interesting point: the direction of travel for tech seems to be toward less immersion, rather than
greater
immersion. We used to have giant computers that filled rooms. Then computers got smaller. And now we just carry one around in our pocket and pull it out when we're standing in a line and bored. Portability and casual usage are what won out. And so is it reasonable to assume that billions of people are going to want to immerse themselves in VR goggles all day?
I don't see it. Here's my working thesis:
I am an urbanist. I love cities. And I believe that our deep desire to interact meaningfully with other humans is not going to go away. For this reason, I believe in the less immersion over greater immersion argument.
At the same time, blockchain technologies have made it possible for us to own, collect, and trade digital assets -- everything from digital fashion to digital art. I think this trend is only going to continue.
And as this trend continues, we are going to continually look for ways to display and experience these elements of our digital identity. So how do we make that happen? This is an important part of the conversation around "the next smartphone."
My view is that it's going to be some version of augmented reality, and that we are going to end up with a continuous blurring of the line between physical and digital.
The New Consumer, in collaboration with Coefficient Capital, just published its latest Consumer Trends report, which you can download for free over here (registration required). There's a lot in the report to flip through, but I thought I would share these two slides:
Generation Z and Millennials now make up ~40% of the US population and they are soon entering their prime consumer spending years. What's noteworthy about these charts, but perhaps not surprising, is the extent in which self-expression and a sense of community have shifted from offline to online.
Very few Boomers, at least according to this report, feel like themselves online. But nearly half of Gen Z feel most like themselves online. What it means to be part of a "community" has also shifted dramatically, with more if it happening online or at least partially online.
All of this ties into what happened earlier in the week with Nike announcing the acquisition of RTFKT Studios. As I mentioned in this post, the so-called metaverse doesn't necessarily have to mean VR goggles and living in video games. It can simply mean placing value on the parts of our lives that are now digital. The above two charts suggest that many are already doing this.
Of course, what all of this means for our physical lives is an important question. Josh Stephens recently argued, over at Planetizen, that the metaverse is going to be really bad for cities. The more we focus on seductive virtual worlds, the less we will focus on our physical spaces. I get this logic.
But again, I think it depends on how you define the metaverse. And I think VR headsets are a pretty narrow definition. I am both a lover of technology and a lover of cities. And throughout this pandemic I have been fairly consistent in writing about the resiliency of cities. Nothing in this post changes that for me.
greater
immersion. We used to have giant computers that filled rooms. Then computers got smaller. And now we just carry one around in our pocket and pull it out when we're standing in a line and bored. Portability and casual usage are what won out. And so is it reasonable to assume that billions of people are going to want to immerse themselves in VR goggles all day?
I don't see it. Here's my working thesis:
I am an urbanist. I love cities. And I believe that our deep desire to interact meaningfully with other humans is not going to go away. For this reason, I believe in the less immersion over greater immersion argument.
At the same time, blockchain technologies have made it possible for us to own, collect, and trade digital assets -- everything from digital fashion to digital art. I think this trend is only going to continue.
And as this trend continues, we are going to continually look for ways to display and experience these elements of our digital identity. So how do we make that happen? This is an important part of the conversation around "the next smartphone."
My view is that it's going to be some version of augmented reality, and that we are going to end up with a continuous blurring of the line between physical and digital.
The New Consumer, in collaboration with Coefficient Capital, just published its latest Consumer Trends report, which you can download for free over here (registration required). There's a lot in the report to flip through, but I thought I would share these two slides:
Generation Z and Millennials now make up ~40% of the US population and they are soon entering their prime consumer spending years. What's noteworthy about these charts, but perhaps not surprising, is the extent in which self-expression and a sense of community have shifted from offline to online.
Very few Boomers, at least according to this report, feel like themselves online. But nearly half of Gen Z feel most like themselves online. What it means to be part of a "community" has also shifted dramatically, with more if it happening online or at least partially online.
All of this ties into what happened earlier in the week with Nike announcing the acquisition of RTFKT Studios. As I mentioned in this post, the so-called metaverse doesn't necessarily have to mean VR goggles and living in video games. It can simply mean placing value on the parts of our lives that are now digital. The above two charts suggest that many are already doing this.
Of course, what all of this means for our physical lives is an important question. Josh Stephens recently argued, over at Planetizen, that the metaverse is going to be really bad for cities. The more we focus on seductive virtual worlds, the less we will focus on our physical spaces. I get this logic.
But again, I think it depends on how you define the metaverse. And I think VR headsets are a pretty narrow definition. I am both a lover of technology and a lover of cities. And throughout this pandemic I have been fairly consistent in writing about the resiliency of cities. Nothing in this post changes that for me.
Deadmau5
concert, which was cool, though not quite the same as a live show. But I have no doubt that all of this is a big deal and that I'll probably end up at another virtual concert at some point. JP Morgan, for example, just opened up a virtual banking lounge in Decentraland's Metajuku district, called the
talking about how the metaverse is probably a $1 trillion market opportunity (based on their projected yearly revenues).
Here are some other figures. In 2019, about $54 billion was spent on virtual/digital goods. These are things like game skins. This is compared to $42 billion at movie theaters and $30 billion on recorded music. So things that are purely digital (and have a very low marginal cost) are already a huge deal and people are spending a lot of money on them. Last year, the market cap of NFTs also surpassed $40 billion. The naysayers will tell you that you can just "right-click, save as" instead of spending any crypto on NFT images, but clearly something broader is underway.
JP Morgan is of the opinion that it is only a matter of time before the metaverse infiltrates every sector of the economy in some way, shape, or form. Would you agree?
concert, which was cool, though not quite the same as a live show. But I have no doubt that all of this is a big deal and that I'll probably end up at another virtual concert at some point. JP Morgan, for example, just opened up a virtual banking lounge in Decentraland's Metajuku district, called the
talking about how the metaverse is probably a $1 trillion market opportunity (based on their projected yearly revenues).
Here are some other figures. In 2019, about $54 billion was spent on virtual/digital goods. These are things like game skins. This is compared to $42 billion at movie theaters and $30 billion on recorded music. So things that are purely digital (and have a very low marginal cost) are already a huge deal and people are spending a lot of money on them. Last year, the market cap of NFTs also surpassed $40 billion. The naysayers will tell you that you can just "right-click, save as" instead of spending any crypto on NFT images, but clearly something broader is underway.
JP Morgan is of the opinion that it is only a matter of time before the metaverse infiltrates every sector of the economy in some way, shape, or form. Would you agree?
