Ask HN: How is the “metaverse” concept different from the Second Life boom?
Conceptually speaking, the difference with AR&#x2F;VR is that you can have a truly immersive experience, which really does give you more possibilities than just Second Life, which was always just a 3D game world on a 2D screen. The pitch from Meta and with AR&#x2F;VR is that with the ability to use 3D space, you can actually turn Second Life-style virtual worlds into something useful with actual tangible benefits. For example, VR&#x2F;AR sense-of-presence totally outclasses video calls, if the intent is to feel like you&#x27;re really in a room with someone. VRChat is already one of the most popular VR apps for a reason.<p>Long term, I think that you have to look at it like this: most desktop computing is very very 2D centric and touch centric. If you want to, e.g., buy a product on Amazon, you&#x27;re dealing with photos and imagery of a product, and reviews. But if you had a &quot;Metaverse equivalent&quot; you could view a 3D model, see it in action, and physically size compare it to other objects in your house much easier than manually checking dimensions.<p>Obviously the applications and benefits aren&#x27;t as clear cut right now. I&#x27;m not sure that the windowed operating systems we have today would have been the obvious way that computers would be used if it weren&#x27;t for constant iteration on keyboard centric UI and experimentation over many years. That same innovation trend hasn&#x27;t happened with AR&#x2F;VR, and &quot;the metaverse&quot; that people talk about now will likely be totally different 20 years after it becomes a thing, post-iteration and innovation.