Zuck’s metaverse seems to be falling apart, as his company just set a new record for the largest one-day drop in stock market history. Put this into perspective. That’s $230 billion wiped off Meta’s value and a $28.6 billion hit for Zuckerberg himself. That’s certainly not a good day in the office. Lots of people will be cheering this setback for Meta as they fear a world where the metaverse is controlled entirely by Facebook and their interests.
This is understandable as it’s worrying enough how much data they already have on all of us. So, with competition rising and regulation looming, could this be the beginning of the end of Zuck’s metaverse? If we just ignore what’s happening in the shadows, then only the powerful interests will benefit financially from the metaverse, and the everyday person will be left powerless in this next wave of the internet.
So, let’s go through the reasons why I think Meta could have a near-impossible challenge to accomplish and the shady business tactics they’re using to do it. The metaverse is undeniably the future, so it’s no surprise that competition is really heating up in this race to create digital worlds. They’re operating under the belief that whoever controls the metaverse wins the world, all the money, and all the power. $100 billion richer. Competition is bad for Meta. However, it could be fantastic for us, because having more companies and decentralized crypto projects in this race gives us one important thing: choice. This normally leads to better products. Just think about it. If you could only buy your car from one dealership, and you needed one to get around, then that car dealership has little incentive to give you a better price as they know they have the power.
Competition leads to better prices, products, and services for us, the consumers, but who has the power to challenge Zuck’s metaverse? Well, as we know, lots of older people are skeptical of the metaverse, but the younger generation seems a lot more open to it. This is where Tok-Tok has an advantage as 25% of its users are aged between 10 and 19. This is something Facebook struggled to compete with as it’s now seen to be a platform for moms, dads, and grandparents.
In an interesting move to enter the metaverse race, Byte Dance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, has acquired a virtual reality startup called Pico. It might be Pico. I’m not quite sure. Disney has also hired a new executive to focus on this area, and Epic Games have allocated $1 billion to help accelerate its long-term metaverse vision. Now that really is epic, but in my opinion, their most dangerous competitor must be Microsoft, especially after they acquired the huge gaming studio Activision for $70 billion. This is because even though Meta has the first-mover advantage and owns the Oculus range of VR goggles, they still aren’t big in the gaming space, whereas Microsoft is huge.
There is a high likelihood that gaming will play a huge role in spawning the metaverse, so if Meta doesn’t develop new, exciting smash hits or acquire game studios, then they could be in trouble. As the YouTuber John Coogan pointed out, Mark Zuckerberg may have a clear vision for the future, but Bill Gates predicted the smartphone in 1993, which he dubbed the pocket wallet. However, Microsoft was still beaten to the market by nearly all the other tech companies.
This just shows that the one that dreams it doesn’t necessarily execute it because of how their companies are positioned in the market. If you want to benefit from this great race to build the metaverse, then you can always invest in the companies you believe in. if you want to get a free stock from the public worth between $3 and $1000, then I’ll leave the link in the description below. Just remember, investing your capital is at risk. So how does a blue-chip company like Meta that is seen as too big to fail plunge over 25% in a single day and shock the world? This is something we need to discuss further, because if the company starts declining then Zuckerberg won’t have as much money to throw at his metaverse project. Not that he’s going to be in trouble anytime soon. Hey, Mark. Fancy giving me a spare mil. Interestingly, one of the key reasons could be a decrease in users. Facebook lost around half a million daily users in the last three months of 2021. This was a shock to investors as it was the first time, they’d ever seen a decline in users.
Apple has also made some privacy changes that make it harder for platforms and apps to track users. This will potentially cost Meta $10 billion per year in lost ad revenue. If you think about it, this makes sense as most people that use Facebook and Instagram are on iPhones. Yeah, even you have an iPhone, and you’re ancient. Doesn’t everyone? In addition to this, Zuck is so consumed by his metaverse vision that he’s invested $10 billion, which is dragging down Meta’s profits. This has caused some investors to lose faith in the long-term vision of the company as many are questioning the sudden change in name and direction. This downward stock trend is just fueling more negative press, which then causes more losses. Now, I honestly think Zuckerberg has too much control over the company. I’ve always thought it very strange that someone with very little social skills was the leader of the biggest social company in the world.
I also believe that his robotic approach to introduce in the metaverse caused a lot of people to worry about a future where Zuck was in total control like an overlord. If he’d found someone like Elon Musk to be the face of the company, then it might have been received with more excitement. So, I’d blame the stock crash on a mixture of things, including Apple changing their privacy policies, the big Meta name change, and Mark Zuckerberg’s public perception. I often wonder why Zuck bothers as he gets so much negative press when he could be just chilling on the beach somewhere with his robotic girlfriends. Meta, like any powerful company, has a dark side. They employ some questionable business tactics to dominate, but these could soon be coming to an end. So, let’s uncover how they’re crushing many small, promising companies. One of their favorite tactics is the Copy, Acquire, Kill strategy. Whenever there is an up-and-coming company that can challenge them in the future, they first try and buy it. And secondly, if that fails, they copy its features. A good example of this is when Facebook acquired Instagram for $1 billion back in 2012 when the photo-sharing startup had a dozen staff and no revenue, but a fast-growing user base.
It now has more than one billion users. They also tried to acquire Snapchat, as their story feature really set them apart in the social media landscape. Snapchat said, “No thank you, Mr. Zuckerberg.” So, Facebook went ahead and completely copied the feature with Instagram stories in order to slow Snapchat’s growth. And guess what? It worked. With minimal backlash, to be honest. Big tech companies have been using this strategy for years as it allows them to minimize competition and shut down their rivals. This isn’t just bad for smaller companies, but also for us, the consumers, as it means we have little choice but to use their platforms if we want to stay connected, and I want to stay connected. No. No, just please don’t do that, Dad. Facebook is using the same tactics when it comes to the metaverse by firstly acquiring Oculus, a leading VR goggle brand, and secondly, undercutting the market and selling their products at a loss. Let me clarify that. It’s actually cost them more money to make these googles than what they’re selling them for. They’re actively losing money. Companies often slash prices or give away free things, and initially, this can be great for the everyday person. This is kind of like when I tell you that Coinbase is currently giving away $10 worth of free Bitcoin when you open an account using a link in the description.
Meta is counting on the fact that no other company can afford to lose money selling headsets. They know if they can get people to use their products, then they can dominate the growing VR market and squash any competition. A good example of this is a virtual reality company called Lynx. They are selling their headsets for $700, whereas Oculus, which is of similar quality, is blowing them out of the water with a price tag of only $299. This may seem like a good thing. However, if small companies are purged from the market, then it just means that Meta will be able to charge whatever they want in the future. That’s why I always make an effort to support startups, even if it means paying just a little bit more. The CEO of Lynx has also said that Meta tried to steal his staff with promises of higher wages, but they turned these offers down in favor of working for an up-and-coming company. “I don’t want to be just a number working for your huge corporation, Mr. Zuckerberg. I want to make a name for myself. You can stick your job.” So by looking at all the facts, it looks like Meta could be planning on gaining a monopoly on the metaverse. And that’s easy for me to say. Try saying that 10 times! A monopoly is defined as a dominant position of an industry or a sector by one company to the point of excluding all other viable competitors. It’s also a board game. The telecoms industry in the UK used to be entirely controlled by BT, as they owned all the phone lines and internet exchanges. This is the perfect example of a monopoly, but as you can imagine, after many complaints of poor service and conflicts of interest, the company was split up, and now tons of other companies are supplying internet in the UK using BT’s existing network.
Between 1984 and 2014, BT’s market share fell from 100% to just below 40%. If you think about it, other companies are just piggybacking on BT systems and software. If they succeed in gaining a monopoly, prices will certainly rise, and we will be left with little choice but to pay. Meta currently has a rumored 52,000 data points on every user. With control of the metaverse, they could 10 X that. By then, they’d know you better than you know yourself. With that all said, regulators, are starting to take notice, which is bad for Meta but could actually be good for us as consumers and investors. And if you like the sound of that, smash that thumbs-up button. You’ve got this far, so it’d be nice if you did. And it doesn’t cost you a penny. It looks increasingly likely that politicians will call for tighter regulation on America’s big tech firms. The issue is that the current laws in place are extremely outdated as they don’t consider this new age of free-to-use social media platforms. Zuck has managed to evade these laws for so long by letting us use his social media platforms for free and charging advertisers to reach us, effectively turning the users into his products. As it’s clear they can crush any direct competition they face, the only thing standing in their way is regulation. How lawmakers deal with Meta will have repercussions for all the big tech companies. When it comes to the metaverse, the tactic of selling their headsets at a loss could be described as predatory pricing. This is when a company lowers its prices in order to intentionally put other companies out of business. But it’s very hard to prove this is the case as currently, the law states that it’s only illegal to do this if the company is already dominant in the space and not just entering it. It could be argued that low prices are a good thing for the everyday person.
News: The new york Time