Watching CEO Jensen Huang’s keynote at Nvidia’s GTC conference is worthwhile if you want to see what’s in store for AI, including generative AI like ChatGPT, robotics, autonomous electric cars, and the metaverse.
Nvidia’s success is largely attributed to its work on the metaverse, which it has done at a time when Facebook, which changed its name to Meta, has largely failed to commercialize a successful metaverse product.
Let’s look at why Nvidia’s metaverse initiative has been so successful while Facebook’s has turned out to be one of the most costly failures in tech history. My pick for Product of the Week this week is a Chromebook from HP that might be the best Chromebook ever created.
The Metaverse Success of Nvidia
For about 28 years, Nvidia has been developing components of the metaverse. Since the business sector would benefit significantly financially from the metaverse, it has largely concentrated on the commercial market. A costly tool is not only more acceptable to the commercial market, but also the resulting potential savings would greatly reduce the initial high cost of any new technology.
After all, PCs were initially used by businesses as tools in large numbers. PCs were initially very expensive, so the consumer market didn’t develop for many years. By partnering with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the HoloLens, Microsoft was able to significantly outperform competitors like Google Glass in the beginning.
Nvidia, whose metaverse tool is called Omniverse, also realized early on that it couldn’t develop its metaverse tool alone, so it partnered with numerous businesses to develop both specialized workstations and servers as well as the necessary critical services needed to deploy the result.
Every time Nvidia discusses the success of Omniverse, a sizable number of partners are mentioned as being necessary to ensure a successful outcome for an offering that must integrate closely with the real world in the past, present, and future.
Nvidia generated training and interest in the market primarily through its GTC events. It has developed a complete set of tools over time to assist developers in building their own instances of the metaverse and filling them with content. In order to realize its vision for the metaverse, Nvidia has developed a universal design language that will allow virtual objects to be created quickly.
Failure of Facebook’s Metaverse
Nearly 25 years after Nvidia started its initiative, Facebook only really began to ramp up into the metaverse in 2019. Facebook’s strategy appeared to be more geared toward individuals than organizations. The focus of consumers is primarily on content and price. You can use a corporate tool that has limited applications, but consumers want value and breadth, and unlike businesses, they are unable to reduce the price of a product through cost savings, at least not in this case.
Facebook would need to outperform Nvidia in order to succeed because consumers place a higher value on usability than professionals who use technology as part of their job. Facebook would also need to be more comprehensive in terms of content, more affordable in terms of price and related services, and better than Nvidia.
Facebook largely tried to go it alone and incurred astronomical costs related to quickly building a metaverse, which appeared to tank Facebook’s valuation and ultimately resulted in massive layoffs.
The business proved that, even for a business as profitable as Facebook once was, the cost of creating a new market is simply too high for any company to undertake on its own. No one company has the funding or resources necessary to build an ecosystem, and the metaverse requires a deep ecosystem, so you need partners, developers, and other people to help cover the development costs.
Facebook ought to be a marketing expert given that this is how it is primarily funded. It appears unable to generate demand for its goods, which must be a major warning sign for other advertisers because it suggests Facebook isn’t effective for marketing. It is comparable to a toolmaker who has never used the tools that they produce.
The VR Headsets and other initiatives like Facebook’s metaverse were both hampered by this lack of capability. If Facebook didn’t share the same issue with Google, having what amounts to a marketing superpower but not knowing how to use it or even when to use it would be a uniquely stupid move.
Companies that don’t use their own technology are anything but new, and they frequently fail. Despite this, these businesses still make enormous profits even when their operations are subpar.
Finishing Off
Thus, Nvidia achieved success while Facebook/Meta did not. Over the course of several decades, Nvidia developed a strong and comprehensive network of partners that covered every facet of the product, collaborated with end users on its development, and made extensive use of the product itself. Because the company painstakingly built a foundation for that success, Omniverse was a winner when it was released.
Facebook’s attempt to grow too fast and by itself led to its demise. The expenses incurred in the development process swamped the company’s resources, and it appeared to lose direction. It never even seemed to try to arrive at a product offering that would be acceptable to its consumer audience.
Starting a market is neither simple nor quick. Even though it might seem that way in the end, success frequently requires decades of work. Nvidia’s metaverse success can be attributed to the time, effort, and ecosystem-building strategy it invested. Facebook missed that meeting, and while it appeared to have a better idea than most of what needed to be done to create a metaverse that was more focused on the needs of its users, it did not follow through.
Comparing the two businesses highlights the value of partners, long-term strategic planning, and a distinct vision for your goals. It also demonstrates that it is far better to start in the commercial market rather than the consumer market for technologies such as the metaverse.
Chromebook Dragonfly Pro from HP
While I discussed the HP Dragonfly Pro Windows Notebook last week, I’d like to talk about its sibling, the HP Dragonfly Pro Chromebook, today.
Though it didn’t sell as well, the previous Google Pixelbook was arguably replaced by this Chromebook, which was designed to offer a high-end Chromebook for those who preferred an Apple-like experience but with ChromeOS rather than macOS.
This Chromebook is a special product that was developed in close cooperation between Google and Intel. Because it is an Intel Evo device, which promises additional quality control steps, there should be fewer issues and greater reliability.
Like the Dragonfly Pro Windows device I reviewed last week, the Sparkling Black Chromebook has an almost identical exterior. Additionally, it is built with a strong emphasis on sustainability and has a comparable finish.
extended battery life.
decent performance, albeit it seems to have more power than the Windows AMD-based alternative.
A top-notch, backlit keyboard.
recognition of fingerprints.
1,200-lumen visible display outside; and.
The identical new high-capacity charger that was found in the laptop running Windows. (Note that these chargers don’t function well on airplanes; for on-air travel, you might want to use an extension cord with three plugs. ( ).
HP’s Dragonfly Pro Chromebook lacks facial recognition, a feature found in most mid-to high-end Windows laptops, but it has a brighter display and a longer battery life than its Windows counterpart.
This gadget is intended for people who enjoy using ChromeOS a lot but are sick of the subpar hardware that usually goes along with it. Thus, my Product of the Week is the HP Dragonfly Pro Chromebook, which retails for $999.99.