Is the FTC unjustly targeting Meta? Or are they on to something with their monopoly claims? The truths emerge in the FTC claim versus the business previously called Facebook. Their objective is clear, to obstruct Meta from obtaining Within Unlimited, developers of the popular Supernatural app. “The agency’s complaint notes that according to Within’s co-founder and CEO, “Fitness is the killer use case for VR,” so this is necessary.
“The Federal Trade Commission is seeking to block virtual reality giant Meta and its controlling shareholder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg from acquiring Within Unlimited and its popular virtual reality dedicated fitness app, Supernatural. Meta, formerly known as Facebook, is already a key player at each level of the virtual reality sector.”
At very first appearance, the case may even appear unimportant. Keep reading and get the FTC’s entire argument prior to choosing, however. They may have a point.
What Else Does The FTC Have On Meta?
Meta notoriously obtained Oculus VR, Inc, makers of the most popular headset. They likewise own the Quest Store, “a leading U.S. app platform with more than 400 apps available for download.” Plus, they’ve up until now purchased “seven of the most successful virtual reality development studios, and now has one of the largest first-party virtual reality content catalogues in the world.”
Not just that, among those 7 VR advancement studios is the developer of the Beat Saber app, the Supernatural app’s direct rival. According to the FTC, letting them purchase Within Unlimited would moisten “future innovation and competitive rivalry.” To show this point, the Federal Trade Commission’s news release quotes John Newman, Deputy Director of the FTC Bureau of Competition.
“Instead of competing on the merits, Meta is trying to buy its way to the top. Meta already owns a best-selling virtual reality fitness app, and it had the capabilities to compete even more closely with Within’s popular Supernatural app. But Meta chose to buy market position instead of earning it on the merits. This is an illegal acquisition, and we will pursue all appropriate relief.”
Is Meta attempting to monopolize the VR area? CNBC released the business’s main response.
“A Meta spokesperson said in a statement the case “is based on ideology and speculation, not evidence. The idea that this acquisition would lead to anticompetitive outcomes in a dynamic space with as much entry and growth as online and connected fitness is simply not credible.”
Is Meta’s reaction reliable? Is the FTC on to something?
META rate chart on Nasdaq | Source: META on TradingView.com
The VR Space Is Not The Metaverse
In the Metaverse front, Meta’s total supremacy appears much more difficult to achieve. Still, as evidenced by the name modification, that’s where the business’s genuine goals are. Recently, Meta exposed just how much this dream has actually cost them up until now.
“The business reported on Thursday that its section, called Reality Labs, which concentrates on the metaverse experienced quarterly losses of $2.81 billion. The department’s year-to-date losses are therefore a massive $5.78 billion.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg identified the metaverse as a “huge opportunity” for a range of factors, specifying that developing platforms in the digital world will “unlock hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars over time.”
What does this relate to the FTC claim? The VR area is not the metaverse, however they may fuse together one day. That day may be in the far future, however Meta is plainly playing the long video game. Is Meta developing an unjust monopoly, though? That’s for the FTC to show and for the courts to choose.
Featured Image by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash | Charts by TradingView