In October 2021, Mark Zuckerberg proudly announced that the future of human civilisation was a place called the metaverse. With Covid-19 still keeping much of the world indoors, life had migrated online to an unprecedented degree, and the idea of a richer, more immersive digital existence seemed not just appealing but logical.

The idea was simple: instead of sitting at your desk for a video call, you could put on a pair of VR goggles and find yourself in a virtual boardroom, represented by an avatar. You could attend concerts, browse shops, and dress your digital self in clothes from Gucci or Ralph Lauren — purchased with real money. Zuckerberg believed in this so deeply that he renamed his entire company after it.

Such was the hype that McKinsey predicted the metaverse would generate up to $5 trillion in value by 2030. Corporations rushed to appoint chief metaverse officers for fear of being left behind. Virtual real estate was already selling for real money, with prime locations fetching up to $450,000. Then the platform actually opened its doors.

When Meta's metaverse opened in December 2021, early adoption was underwhelming, and many potential users were reluctant to pay $400 for a headset just to get in. The early experience was described as walking through a lonely, uninhabited world. For a time, avatars didn't even have legs, which drew widespread mockery on social media.

By 2022, Meta's metaverse had only 200,000 monthly active users. Vishal Shah, VP of the Metaverse, noted that employees weren't bothering to use it anymore — a glaring red flag that Zuckerberg failed to act upon. By March 2026, the project had accumulated over $80 billion in losses and Meta finally pulled the plug on the idea.

Evidence suggests that consumers simply want technology to augment their real lives rather than replace them. Zuckerberg's glaring misjudgement shows that you cannot get away with failing to carry out market research, regardless of how much capital you have to throw at a product.

The metaverse also suffered from what analysts call a cold start problem: a virtual world needs people in it to be appealing, but people only join when it is already appealing. Zuckerberg overcame this masterfully with Facebook, but failed to get the metaverse off the ground. Potentially through complacency after previous successes, he discovered that $80 billion is not enough.

Another flaw in the project was the VR headsets — awkward and bulky. However, they have since found a loyal following among gamers, and the technology has been repurposed in the slimmer Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses. In other words, the metaverse could be seen as an expensive pivot towards something more valuable. Zuckerberg has now set his sights on "personal superintelligence." The technology has changed. The ambition has not.

Match each word to its definition and complete the example sentences. Full Business English lesson with the exercise can be found in the downloadable PDF.

What were two reasons why early adoption of the metaverse was underwhelming when it launched in December 2021?

What is the "cold start problem" and how did it affect the metaverse?

True or false: the article suggests that the $80 billion spent on the metaverse was entirely wasted. Explain your answer.

What does Zuckerberg's shift from the metaverse to "personal superintelligence" suggest about his underlying business ambition?

Was the metaverse ahead of its time — or does its failure say something fundamental about human nature?

When a company loses $80 billion on a project, who should be held accountable?

Can you think of a technology in your own industry that failed because it changed human behaviour rather than enhancing it?

I am a passionate linguist with over 14 years' experience with high level professionals.  In this lesson you will learn:

Want to work through this lesson with me?