SWITCHED ON
The daily technology series nobody asked for but everyone needed
The Metaverse: Digital Utopia or Billion-Dollar Ghost Town?
Meta spent forty-six billion dollars building the future of human connection. The avatars had no legs. Nobody came. And the lesson is more important than the punchline.
Technology does not determine how people live. People determine what technology they adopt — and they adopt what fits their existing desires, not what engineers find fascinating.
In Episode 5 we established that your face is now a data point being collected in shopping centres, airports, schools, and on street corners without your consent, and that the regulatory response ranges from "fairly serious" in Europe to "what's a GDPR" in most of the United States. If you've been reading this series from the beginning, you will have noticed a pattern: technology moves fast, causes harm, and the frameworks designed to manage it arrive roughly three to five years after the damage is done.
Today we're taking a break from surveillance. Today we're talking about something that was supposed to be the future of everything — the place where work, play, socialising, commerce, and human connection would all converge into a seamless, immersive, persistent digital reality — and has instead become one of the most instructive stories in the history of technology hubris.
Today we're talking about the metaverse. More specifically, we're talking about what happened when the most powerful company in social media spent somewhere north of forty billion dollars trying to build it, announced it with the confidence of someone who has never once been wrong about anything, and then watched the world collectively look up from its phones, squint at a man in a VR headset making hand gestures in a cartoonish digital office, and say: "No, thank you. We're fine."
01 — What the Metaverse Was Supposed to Be
Let's be fair to the vision, because it was genuinely ambitious and not entirely stupid. The concept of the metaverse — a persistent, shared, immersive virtual world in which people could exist as digital avatars, owning virtual property, attending virtual events, working in virtual offices — predates Mark Zuckerberg's rebranding exercise by several decades. Neal Stephenson coined the term in his 1992 novel Snow Crash. The underlying technological ingredients — VR headsets, spatial computing, persistent online worlds, digital identity — were, by 2021, either existing or plausibly imminent.
Facebook's pivot to Meta in October 2021 was a genuine bet on this convergence. Zuckerberg believed — and this is important, because it rules out simple cynicism as the explanation — that the metaverse was the next major computing platform. The same way mobile replaced desktop, the metaverse would replace the flat screen. You wouldn't browse the internet. You would inhabit it.
The presentation he gave when announcing the rebrand is worth watching for the same reason it's worth watching someone confidently explain why a perpetual motion machine is going to work. It is a masterclass in visionary sincerity entirely disconnected from what actual humans want to do with their Tuesday evenings.
02 — What Actually Happened
Here is a number that will help frame everything: between 2021 and 2024, Meta invested approximately forty-six billion dollars in its Reality Labs division. Forty-six billion dollars. More than the GDP of several sovereign nations. More than the entire annual revenue of many Fortune 500 companies. An almost incomprehensible sum of money to spend on something that, by any meaningful metric, was not working.
Horizon Worlds — Meta's flagship metaverse platform — peaked at around 300,000 monthly active users. For comparison, Minecraft, a game released in 2011 with graphics that look like someone pixelated a pixelated thing, has over 140 million monthly active users. Roblox, a platform primarily used by children, had more monthly active users than the metaverse by a factor of roughly 200.
The avatars had no legs. This became, for reasons difficult to fully explain, a symbol of the entire enterprise. In a world where your virtual self was supposed to be an expressive, embodied representation of your digital identity, Meta's avatars famously had no legs.
When this was pointed out, Zuckerberg responded by demonstrating legs — in a presentation that somehow managed to make the situation worse. The legs arrived. The users didn't.
03 — Why It Failed: The Real Reasons, Not the Polite Ones
Nobody had a problem that the metaverse solved. The great technology products of the past thirty years solved problems people actually had. Email solved slow written communication. Google solved finding things online. The iPhone solved carrying multiple devices. The metaverse solved the problem of not being able to attend a virtual meeting as a legless avatar in a cartoonish digital boardroom. The solution was looking for a problem. That almost never works.
The friction was real and the benefit was imaginary. To access the metaverse experience Meta was building, you needed to buy an expensive headset, strap it to your face, navigate a clunky interface, and then exist in a virtual space that was, by general consensus, significantly less pleasant than just being somewhere. The friction was substantial. The payoff never materialised.
The social dimension was backwards. Social technologies succeed when they reduce barriers to human connection. VR fundamentally isolates you from the physical environment while connecting you to a virtual one. You cannot simultaneously be present in a virtual space and present in the room you're sitting in. For a technology whose value proposition was primarily social, this is a significant structural problem.
Corporate interest and human interest diverged catastrophically. The metaverse that businesses wanted — virtual conferences, virtual onboarding, virtual open-plan offices — is not the metaverse human beings find appealing. The corporate metaverse vision was productivity theatre in VR clothing. The world had just spent two years working from home and discovering it was often better than the office. The pitch of "what if we made the home office even more like an office, but virtual" was not well received.
04 — But Wait — Is It Actually Dead?
Here's where the story gets more complicated. The metaverse as Meta imagined it — the universal successor to the smartphone — is, for practical purposes, not happening on that timeline or in that form. The company has pivoted its public messaging substantially toward AI, which is where the credibility and capital currently flows.
But the underlying technologies are not dead. Apple's Vision Pro demonstrated what spatial computing looks like when built by a company that understands product design and human factors. It is still expensive and uncomfortable for extended use, but it is a meaningfully different proposition from what Meta was selling, and the applications being built for it suggest a more plausible future than virtual legless boardrooms.
Gaming has always been the killer application for immersive virtual environments. The gaming metaverse — persistent worlds, virtual economies, digital identity, community — exists and thrives. It just doesn't look like what Zuckerberg was describing. It looks like Fortnite. It looks like Roblox. It looks like games that don't need to call themselves the metaverse. Industrial and professional applications — training simulations, surgical planning, engineering design — are finding genuine value that the consumer market hasn't yet. The metaverse for surgeons practising complex procedures is a real thing with real benefits. The metaverse for attending your company's quarterly all-hands is a punishment.
05 — The Lesson, Which Is Not What You Think
The easy lesson is "tech companies are arrogant and sometimes wrong." True, but not interesting. The more useful lesson is about the relationship between technological capability and human behaviour. Technology does not determine how people live. People determine what technology they adopt, and they adopt what fits their existing desires — with modifications, with friction, with time.
The metaverse arrived assuming that if you built an impressive enough virtual world, people would migrate to it. But human beings are stubborn, embodied, physical creatures who have been building and inhabiting physical environments for several hundred thousand years. We are not waiting to transcend our bodies. We are, most of us, quite attached to them.
The technologies that succeed don't ask people to become different. They meet people where they are and make the things they already want to do slightly easier, more connected, or more enjoyable. The metaverse asked people to become different — and people, very reasonably, declined. That lesson applies to every technology we've discussed in this series and to every technology we're going to discuss going forward. The question is never just "can we build this?" The question is always "does anyone actually want it, and does it fit the way human beings actually live?"
Tomorrow we're going somewhere that most definitely fits the way human beings actually live — uncomfortably, compulsively, and with significant consequences for their ability to think clearly. We're talking about algorithms. Specifically the invisible systems deciding what you see, read, believe, and share — and why they're almost perfectly designed to make the world angrier, more polarised, and harder to navigate. See you then.
Switched On is a daily technology series covering AI, social media, data privacy, and the digital forces reshaping modern life — with no corporate spin, no false comfort, and absolutely no mercy for buzzwords.
