So the idea is that Facebook essentially wants to distance itself from … well, Facebook. The company will be named Zuckplex let’s say and then it has a range of products of which Facebook is just is one. It has the feel of a mobster trying to move assets into legit enterprises.
2/Or simply one of many companies that began as makers of something obscure or tawdry and then tried to moonwalk their way into something classy and respectable. For some reason I’m reminded of Banana Republic’s transition from kitsch safari gear brand to midrange clothing brand.
3/ Not really the same thing but somehow seems related. Google obviously did this. So there’s precedent. But two big issues stand out. The first is that Google was already far more diversified than search by the time of the alphabet rebrand. Maps, gmail, self-driving cars …
4/ android, YouTube and these aren’t even the more obscure lines. In any case, are all connected by networks of data. But they’re pretty varied. Facebook is still mostly Facebook. But it’s other big brands like Instagram and WhatsApp are also social networks or adjacent to them.
5/ And mostly they were bought to manage competition with Facebook or control a comparable business model in other demographics or mediums. Oculus is the odd man out here. Not only are these acquisitions tied to protecting the core enterprise. But it’s also notable …
6/ how little Facebook has created as opposed to acquired. Google bought YouTube. But pretty early. It also bought Doubleclick which was a critical acquisition in the creation it’s ad ecosystem. But these were relatively early acquisitions which were thoroughly assimilated …
7/ into the google collective to the point of being almost unrecognizable. In any case, interesting contrasts with google. But the key is Facebook is mostly just Facebook and to the extent it’s not it’s overwhelmingly social media-centric. So disassociating itself from the …
8/ toxic Facebook brand will be a challenge.The second point is that Zuckplex says it’s really now a company creating the “metaverse’, whatever it’s obscure origins in a shady social network. And what is the metaverse? Well, no one including Facebook seems entirely clear on that.
9/ But the gist seems to be a big virtual alternative world that you can hang out in as opposed to being in the real world. So a lot of Virtual reality, augmented reality and whatever else. So here’s the question. To the extent there’s a metaverse thing that involves …
10/ operating in a virtual space in which you receive all sensory input from the company that runs it, do you really want that company to be Zuckplex? I mean that sounds terrifying. The questions are so vast it’s not like other potential players,google or Apple are white knights.
11/ But Facebook is in a class of its own in terms of terrible and sleazy brand reputation and not the kind of operation you’d want controlling access to your sense perceptions. And it’s not just reputation. As I’ve explained in articles at @tpm in recent years …
12/ bad acting is deeply rooted in facebooks corporate culture. It’s core business model is inherently more predatory on the rest of the web than google. And google itself is insanely predatory. In any case, this seems pretty clearly a rebrand of desperation, with …
13/ a new purported corporate slogan that’s still only half way between buzzword and being any actual thing. And if it does becoming a thing, is there any company you’d trust less to augment your reality or pump stimuli into your sense than Facebook? Sorry, Zuckplex.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
