Nvidia’s GTC conference is over, but if you want to see what’s coming with AI, including generative AI like ChatGPT, robotics, autonomous electric cars and the metaverse, it’s worth watching the keynote by CEO Jensen Huang. Is.

A large part of Nvidia’s success comes from its work on Metaverse, which comes at a time when Facebook, which has changed its name to Meta, has largely failed to bring a successful Metaverse product to market.

Let’s take a look at why Nvidia’s metaverse effort was wildly successful, while Facebook turned out to be one of the costliest failures in tech history. We’ll end with our product of the week, a Chromebook from HP that just might be the best Chromebook ever.

Nvidia’s Metaverse Success

Nvidia has been working on elements of the Metaverse for about 28 years. It has focused almost exclusively on the commercial market as the business sector would derive significant financial benefits from the Metaverse. Not only is the commercial market more willing to pay for an expensive device, but the resulting potential savings will also substantially offset the initial high price of any new technology.

After all, to begin with, there were corporate devices on PC volumes. Initially due to their high cost, the consumer market for PCs did not emerge until much later. Microsoft did something similar with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and HoloLens, which initially allowed it to outperform peers like Google Glass.

Nvidia – whose metaverse tool is called Omniverse – also quickly realized that it could not build its own metaverse tool alone, so it partnered with several companies to build both specialized workstations and servers and deploy the results. critical services required for

Whenever Nvidia talks about its ubiquitous success, the conversation involves the vast number of partners that were, are and will be necessary to ensure positive results for an offering that is highly integrated with the real world.

Mainly through its GTC events, Nvidia has fueled interest and training in this area. Over time, it has built a comprehensive set of tools that help developers create their own metaverse instances and populate them with content. Regarding that material, Nvidia has piloted a universal design language to enable high-speed creation of virtual objects to fulfill Nvidia’s Metaverse vision.

Facebook’s Metaverse Failure

Facebook didn’t really start to ramp into the metaverse until 2019, nearly 25 years after Nvidia began its effort. Facebook seems to be focusing more on consumers than businesses with its approach. Consumers are very cost- and material-oriented. You can deploy a corporate tool with some uses, but consumers want value and breadth, and unlike businesses, they can’t offset the cost of the product with the cost savings, at least not in this area.

To be successful, Facebook will need to be more comprehensive in terms of content, cheaper in terms of price and related services, and better than Nvidia in terms of ease of use compared to those used by consumers. more for those who are interacting as part of the technology. their job.

Facebook mostly tried to go it alone and quickly incurred the exorbitant costs associated with building a metaverse, which appeared to drive down Facebook’s valuation and eventually led to mass layoffs.

The company demonstrated that the cost of creating a new market is too high for any company to go it alone, even one that was once as profitable as Facebook. You need partners, developers, and others to help cover development costs because no single company has the resources or money needed to build an ecosystem, and the metaverse requires a deep ecosystem.

Since Facebook is primarily funded through advertising, it should be, but it is not a marketing specialist. It doesn’t seem like it’s been able to create demand for its products, which should be a huge red flag for other advertisers because it means Facebook isn’t good for marketing. It is like a toolmaker who never used the tool he made.

This lack of capacity not only crippled efforts like Facebook’s Metaverse, but it also hurt related efforts like VR headsets. What amounts to a marketing superpower but not understanding how or when to use it would be uniquely silly of Facebook if it weren’t for the fact that Google has the exact same problem.

While companies that don’t use their own technology are anything new, they usually fail, but even when they underperform, these companies make crazy profits.

wrapping up

So, nvidia was successful, and facebook/meta not. Nvidia worked on the effort for decades, building a strong and deep partner system encompassing all aspects of the product, co-developing with the customers who would use it, and using it heavily during the development process itself. Thus, when the Omniverse came out, it was a winner because the company had rigorously developed a foundation for that success.

Facebook’s failure resulted from the company trying to go too fast and alone. It never felt like it tried to offer a product that would be acceptable to its consumer audience, development costs overwhelmed the company’s resources, and it seemed to be losing track of its destination .

Launching a marketplace isn’t quick or easy. It may seem like it in the end, but it takes decades of work to ultimately ensure success. It took Nvidia time, effort, and an ecosystem-building strategy that resulted in its massive success. Facebook missed that meeting, and even though it knew better than it did for a more consumer-oriented metaverse, it failed to execute.

Comparing the two companies shows a long-term strategic plan, partners and a clear idea of ​​where you want to be. It also shows that for technologies like the metaverse, the commercial market is a far better place to start than the consumer market.

tech product of the week

hp dragonfly pro chromebook

Last week I talked about the HP Dragonfly Pro Windows notebook, but today, I want to talk about its counterpart, the HP Dragonfly Pro Chromebook.

This Chromebook is arguably the successor to the older Google Pixelbook, which didn’t sell well, but focused on providing a premium Chromebook for those who wanted a more Apple-like experience, but with ChromeOS, not macOS.

Created in close collaboration between Google and Intel, this Chromebook is a one-of-a-kind offering. It’s an Intel Evo device which means fewer problems and higher reliability due to the extra quality control steps the Evo promises.

HP Dragonfly Pro Chromebook, ChromeOS, 14-inch, Touch Screen, Intel Core i5, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, WQXGA, Sparkling Black

The HP Dragonfly Pro Chromebook in Sparkling Black features a 14″ touch display, 16GB of memory, and a 256GB SSD. (Image credit: HP)

Externally, the sparkling black colored Chromebook looks almost identical to the Dragonfly Pro Windows product we covered last week. It’s got a similar finish, built with a heavy focus on sustainability, as well as:

  • long battery life;
  • Good performance – although the Windows AMD-based offering has more power;
  • a high-quality, backlit keyboard;
  • fingerprint recognition;
  • 1,200-nit outdoor viewable display; And
  • The same new high-performance charger seen on Windows laptops. (Be aware that these chargers work poorly on airplanes, and you’ll want a three-prong extension cord for use on an airplane.)

HP’s Dragonfly Pro Chromebook has longer battery life and a far brighter display than its Windows peer, but lacks facial recognition, which is common in most mid- to high-end Windows laptops.

This device is for those who really like the ChromeOS experience but are tired of the cheap hardware that surrounds that platform. As a result, the HP Dragonfly Pro Chromebook, with a list price of $999.99, is my product of the week.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ECT News Network.