People have different opinions on Facebook’s renaming: it’s a “fog piece”


Tencent technology news on October 29, social networking company Facebook announced on Thursday that it was renamed meta, and the company operating the world’s largest and most controversial social network has a new name. People have different opinions on this, and many of them have a negative attitude towards the renaming of Facebook.
On Thursday, Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg hosted a 90 minute online event about the company’s efforts to build an immersive digital world called “metauniverse”. Finally, he said that the company would change its name to meta in the future. Social media services such as instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook will retain their original names, but from December this year, the company will start trading on the stock market with the new code mvrs.
Many observers commented on Facebook’s renaming. Jack Dorsey, CEO of twitter, implicitly criticizes this larger competitor from time to time, and has previously made fun of Zuckerberg’s concept of the meta universe.
Virtual reality enthusiast Robert Scoble was famous for being photographed bathing with Google glasses. “This is the wrong company to sell us the future,” he said on personal social media. Another tweet from scober said Zuckerberg’s speech was full of “fog of fashionable words”.
Others active in the field of virtual reality are not. Matthew ball, a strategist and co head of Roundhill ball metaverse ETF, a fund with the theme of virtual reality and augmented reality, which is listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange, said that Facebook’s new name is in line with its desire to lead great changes in the computing field. “This is not an improvement on the original product,” Bauer said. “What we are talking about is not a new product, but a belief in the new existence of mankind.”
He was not frustrated that Zuckerberg and his fund used the same name. “It’s just a prefix,” he said. “You cannot register a trademark for a prefix.”
However, some people believe that Facebook’s renaming is no different from that of tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris, who was renamed Altria in 2003. Mike Davis, a Facebook critic and chairman of the Internet accountability project, said in a statement: “after the exposure of the negative and fatal impact of the industry on society, Facebook is following the footsteps of large tobacco companies.” “Facebook was found to be attacking children, so they became meta.”
Alexandria ocasio Cortez, democratic representative of New York State, made a similar response: “This is not the first time that large enterprises have reshaped their brands. Some results are better than others. But the reason why many companies change their names is that companies like Facebook are facing severe criticism, regulatory pressure and strong public opposition because of their internal documents.”
Of course, Philip Morris changed his name to divert the public’s inherent impression of his main business, tobacco, and turn people’s attention to his food business. Verizon renamed its AOL and Yahoo businesses oath and Verizon media two years later.
Perhaps the most failed is that the media company Tribune publishing changed its name to tronc in 2016, mixing the words “Tribune” and “online”, hoping to cater to the new era of the Internet, but it attracted so much ridicule that the company changed its name back within two years.
In 2015, Google established its parent company, alphabet, to separate its profitable Internet business from high-cost venture capital. Google co founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin also took the opportunity to appoint Sundar Pichai As Google’s successor and eventually retired. Zuckerberg didn’t seem to do so. In an interview released on Thursday, when analyst Ben Thompson asked Zuckerberg whether he would appoint a CEO for Facebook app, Zuckerberg said he was still “very concerned about the social media part we do.”
Luke wathieu, a professor of marketing at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of business, said that the renaming of Facebook may help to put aside the problems between the company and consumers to some extent, but he doubted the effectiveness of this strategy, or he was not sure whether it was the key to the problem. He said: “I’m not sure if this will reduce any problems they face now.” “they still appear in the same way.”
Colin Sebastian, an analyst at Robert W Baird & Co., an investment bank, said in a report that Zuckerberg’s speech on Thursday was bland. “Jobs really released the iPhone in 2007,” Sebastian wrote. “But it will take us longer to wait for the universe.” (compiled by Tencent technology / Jiao Han)