Meta spent $4.3 billion on its VR division in three months, and made checks figures $440 million in return
Meta spent $4.3 billion on its VR division in three months, and made *checks figures* $440 million in return
I'm surprised they made 440m. However, investing in r+d is not unusual. This amount is not a huge investment for them based in overall revenue.
If you report a loss you don't pay taxes. Or something like that I'm not an accountant.
Bezos actually was refunded tax $ one year
Write-offs are entirely misunderstood by people. Writing off losses doesn't magically make loss profitable.
I'll use myself as an example. I teach underwater photography at a university as a side gig. Last year I made about $3,000 teaching the class, and I also spent about $1,000 on underwater camera gear for the class. Because of that I get to reduce my taxable income by $1,000, so it's as if I made $2,000.
At my tax bracket a write-off reduces my income taxes by 22% of the expense. So on a thousand-dollar purchase I'm still losing nearly 800 bucks.
Yeah. Come back in 10-15 years when half the world is using it or a successive product and people will be posting articles like these laughing at them like they do with the ones saying the internet or cell phones will never catch on and surprisingly no one will open up and admit they were the ones denying it would come. Meta has the money, they don't care how much they spend, as long as they can get in and corner the market early they will make it back many times over in the years to come... assuming climate change or nukes don't make it impossible of course.
So what? R&D expenses aren't supposed to turn an immediate profit. Developing a new technology can take years before it's earning money, and some never do. I'm all aboard the "hate meta" train, but that's nothing.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but these companies need to pay more taxes. Losing $3.9 billion dollars on a stupid vanity project because they have nothing else to spend it on is ridiculous. Higher taxes would at least force them to be more efficient.
You're not really talking about higher taxes, you're talking about reworking the corporate tax system. As things stand now higher taxes would encourage more of this sort of behavior, not less.
Corporations only pay taxes on profits, so money spent on business activities, re-invested back into the company, paid to employees, etc. is not taxed. In this system, taxes are kind of a penalty paid for taking money out of the business; the higher taxes are the less incentivized profit-taking is.
If your company made $100 million in profits at a 20% tax rate you get to take home $80 million as opposed to re-investing $100 million back in the company and not paying any taxes, so the incentive to re-invest isn't very high. But if your company made $100 million in profits at a 40% tax rate now you can only take home $60 million as opposed to re-investing $100 million, which becomes a much better value proposition on re-investment.
Whether VR works for Meta or not, they have invested in technology and built careers for employees. This is why we should have corporate taxes. I'd rather see corporations keep employees and advance technology instead of giving dividends to the wealthiest people in the world. While the product might not work out, I bet there are many people who worked on it that will take those skills to new projects.
Many people have no clue how taxes work, but darn it, they wanted them raised. It just encourages other behaviors, such as offshoring money, as many companies do. We really need a complete write of the tax code to encourage paying workers well, creating jobs, etc and less focus on avoiding paying the taxes. I don't care if a company makes billions in profit if their workers are all paid well, treated well, etc. We will make it up with them having money to spend in the economy.
I am still not convinced VR is a worthy technology outside of a few niche uses. I went to the verge when that was open and that was pretty cool. At home is nothing like that.
But VR is cool
Investment is good. Public policy is usually designed to encourage it that's why investment has good tax avoidance that is exactly what the government wants.
As others have said, the implication in this article's title is silly... Surely an r&d phase start easily explains this
What I'm curious about is how you spend that much money in such little time? Was that money actually spent or just committed?
$1900 per second is a hell of a burn rate for anything outside the US military
indeed... you'd expect big bucks on the D part... new factory, going for mass production, etc... and even then, you can only build so fast
You reckon Apple made money on it's VR division either?
Almost nobody is making big money on VR, because nobody wants to work together to make it into a widely compatible common standard. If you could have one headset that worked on all platforms, for a reasonable price, you'd get a lot more take up, and nicer headsets costing more would make more sense.
Meta is valued at 1.12 Trillion, which, sure, is only ~1/2 of Apples 2.6 Trillion... but Meta could invest in VR for the next 20 years without feeling the pain.
I do love my Q2 and Q3, and hope they keep pushing VR forward, which is the main (maybe only) reason i was happy to see apple join the competition.
Take a look at Meta revenue numbers, they can afford billions in R&D investment just fine. I'm not sure what market share you're talking about but there's plenty of money for them to afford the VR research they do.
It's maybe unpopular, but I agree that if you're going to leverage your success to make a bet on the next big thing, VR/AR is a great choice. I agree it's inevitable that many computing interfaces will eventually become a personalized virtual space, and AR will eventually become a permanent way to add our "computer brains'" data to our vision.
Obviously we're not there yet. And there's always going to be a contingent that thinks that future will never come. But I do think it'll come, when that one thing or things we need VR/AR to do and can't seem to imagine life without are eventually found. Zuck doesn't know where the inflection point is going to happen but he's positioning Meta to be in the ideal place to own the space. He seems to know it may not happen for a long time. He's gambling he can afford to wait for it, which is a bet I'd take.
Business lesson, : never build a factory because it won't pay for itself in the first year.
And yes I know it's hard to hear but Meta's vr is doing really well in the areas they targeted, industry, academia, and special use. This is likely to end up a profitable part of their business for a long time.
Yeah unfortunately I agree, as much as I dread knowing Meta's going to be behind a lot of the VR/AR developments as it gets more common, this isn't really an indication that they screwed up. They're not the first company I'd want to lead the VR market but it looks like they will be regardless.
I was happy and now I am sad.
What is “really well”?
Why that’s a 10% return on investment!
Zuck read Ready Player One and wants so badly to be James Halliday. He just wants to be loved. 🤣
Well he's missing the point then. He wants to be on the software side of things not the hardware side.
They need to actually create a decent experience and then make it accessible to everyone. That's how you make money.
The quest probably has the best experience though, it's really easy to setup and works both standalone or connected to PC via cable or wifi 6, there really isn't anything as easy and accessible as it.
I know it's apples to oranges and what not, but there's a lot of life changing things you could do for a lot of people with that kind of money.
As a society the way we allocate resources is stupid.
its like they have too much money and they're burning it away on bad ideas. Imagine how much public housing that money could have built.
I mean, you do understand that this money isn’t just vanishing right? It’s being spent on people, manufacturing, materials. It doesn’t just vanish into nothing.
yeah it gets distributed in the economy and gets absorbed in the system. at least it's not being hoarded or funneled outside the country.
the other poster is just parroting things they do not understand.
Its also drawing real resources away from other things. The real estate used on these luxury failures had other potential buyers and raises costs across the board as it competes for chip factory space, marketing, etc.
If the money was taxed out of circulation it actually does essentially vanish, increasing the value of every remaining dollar if the state budget remains unchanged - its the easiest way to reduce inflation.
These big corporations with lots of money do affect everyone when they make big stupid decisions - resources get misallocated and costs go up. Money doesn't exist in a void, the things people do with it have real world effects.
I doubt public housing would have made a fantastic return either.
If all you care about is money, then yeah sure. If you actually give a shit about humanity the return would be absolutely immense for society.
They shouldn't have that amount of disposable income in the first place, and a good portion should have been tax money. If that money were invested in public housing the return would be massive.
Really? You don't think that building solid foundations for people to get on their feet and start making more money themselves, money that they can turn around and spend on more products, would have a fantastic return? The benefit for the economy would be immense but corporations can't write that into their spreadsheets changing their bottom line so it "doesn't count"
Honestly love to see Meta losing money. Zuck is a parasite on this nation. A cancer.
Yeah, that happens sometimes.
You guys do this like every quarter lol
I thought OP wrote the headline himself but no, PCGamer "journalists" just spend way too much time on Reddit
Hahahahaha
Business are business.. sometimes you win sometimes you lose but not always it's about winning in the short term..
They "lost" 4 billion dollars like the Pentagon "lost" 12 billion dollars in Iraq?
I guarantee you that Meta has become the biggest Top Secret spying agency for the US government.
All that money got "lost" into straight up spying programs.
It's sort of like how YouTube ran at a loss for a long time. The idea is to get ingrained in the market and make up the money later.
Right now Meta has the best VR / AR that is easily accessible. If some new idea or technology catapults VR into a more popular position, then Meta is in a prime position to take advantage.
Will that happen? I don't know, but Meta seems to think so.
Too bad the company is absolute garbage. I'm not even willing to look at their 'products' anymore.
Particularly with articles like this around:
https://observer.com/2024/03/meta-facebook-compete-snapchat-class-action-document/
Yep. I will never use any VR product by Meta. Mark can go zuck himself.
Meta is the only reason I’m staying away from their AR/VR headsets. If it was any other company, I would have jumped in by now.
I don't think the technology is there yet. As long as people need to wear big bulky goggles and headsets it's not going to take off. Make something that's about as cumbersome as sunglasses and less than $1000 and there might be mass adoption.
March 2023 they sold 20M Quests. Half as many as PS5. That counts as "taken off" in my book.
VR is already great today, and lots of us are enjoying it. I know several people with VR systems.
I agree that the tech isn't there, but unless we figure out some new physics it's going to be impossible to put enough battery, computing power, and cooling capacity in something the size of sunglasses. So the tech for VR like we really want is at least 20 years away, if not more.
I'm waiting for more Bigscreen Beyond class weight headsets. 127 grams.
But it's tethered and the headset itself is ~1000, and you need the stations and controllers as well.
See also: Meta's recent opening of their vr headset OS to other hardware manufacturers.
They don't give a shit about profit at this stage as long as they control it and can use it to suppress the development of any kind of competitors.
There are a lot of problems keeping VR from going big and I think Meta's strategy of cornering the market is one of them. They think if they get all the exclusives they'll be the next iPhone but I think instead they're fragmenting an already tiny market which really needs a bunch of impressive experiences (and there still aren't a ton right now, even after years of VR development). I feel like the reverse would win them more users - they should win on hardware AND software but make their software available for any VR headset to use. Because right now they need to help create a market for VR because there really isn't one worth cornering yet.
They just announced that they opened up the OS for other manufacturers to use. I know Asus/ROG is supposed to have a headset in the works using the OS.
YouTube still runs at a loss
Valve index better
The index is better overall and I love mine, but I can't help but feel jealous that someone can just grab their quest, put it on and get into VR immediately. I have to cart my PC downstairs, turn the base stations on, find the index and wire it all up, troubleshoot why Windows has decided to mess up the drivers and now nothing works, and maybe half an hour later finally get into a game or completely give up and try again another time.
The quest gains a lot in portability and ease of setup, and that does result in a lot of other features being sacrificed but to most people the downsides don't matter as much.
Its not just YouTube. Pleant of companies lose money on their product Loss leader