This article is part of a fictional series inspired by reader mail. All names and details have been anonymized and partially fictionalized for privacy.
A Letter from the U.S.
Hi Salt, I really enjoyed your recent article about Apple. So I’m curious—what about Meta? After all, Meta sits on an enormous amount of user data from Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Its ad-driven revenue is still massive. But at the same time, it doesn’t quite feel like Google, Apple, or even OpenAI. Do you think Meta’s growth trajectory can continue?
— from a reader in the U.S. 🇺🇸
Dear Bro,
When I’m someone obsessed with labor costs and operational efficiency. That’s why I spent small money on Google ads for my Pub — but never once on Meta. It never even crossed my mind that I should. So I think it would be fun to think about why I did that.
In the previous piece, I argued that Apple is the only company on Earth that simultaneously possesses:
- Money
- A unified OS across PC, mobile, and tablets
- Hardware design that attaches to the human body almost like an organ
- An app-store–centered service ecosystem
- Manufacturing and supply-chain control
- Brand marketing
- And aesthetic design
From a phenomenological perspective, Apple’s true competitors are not tech companies at all—but Porsche, or perhaps Sony’s PlayStation. (The industries differ, but the logic is similar.) Ironically, most Apple products—Safari, Mail, Maps, Numbers—are individually inferior to Google’s equivalents in raw performance. And yet, Apple has never been in real danger. That’s why Apple competes with Google+ Samsung + Microsoft simultaneously—and why this advantage is unlikely to disappear.
AI will follow the same pattern. Once the “brain spec war” (LLMs and model benchmarks) is over,
the real battle will begin: the Body War. AI will be absorbed as a lower-layer function of the operating system, exactly as Apple intends. Even if OpenAI releases a highly ambitious, dedicated AI object, the eventual winner will still be Apple. I’m not a technical expert, so I won’t attempt a deep engineering analysis of Meta.
Instead, I’d like to examine Meta through a phenomenological framework—which, I believe, offers a more interesting lens.
1. A Company Without a Body — Meta
(1) Meta’s Philosophy: Dopamine-Centrism
When Facebook first launched, it wasn’t image-driven like today. It was primarily text-based, focused on simple social networking. That simplicity built trust—and Facebook spread globally. If you wanted to socialize, you had to join the platform. The business model was also clever. As user data accumulated, Meta developed extraordinary capabilities in matching personal data to targeted ads. Money poured in. Every business suddenly looked easy. Early dominance plus network effects created the illusion of permanent lock-in. Meta succeeded without massive investments in operating systems, hardware, or design—and its stock price soared. User lock-in was engineered around dopamine stimulation. Expectation, anticipation, and variable rewards were carefully designed into the system. High-intensity content that reinforced confirmation bias was queued endlessly. The more users liked and shared, the easier it became to profile them.
Emotionally, the platform stimulated envy, jealousy, and fear. Curiosity and anxiety kept users scrolling. Time spent on the platform increased naturally. Meta became convinced that dopamine equals money. So it set out to build virtual spaces where users could experience the strongest and newest stimuli possible—worlds they could never physically visit, and experiences where even physical movement was replaced by pure neural stimulation.
That vision materialized as VR and the metaverse.
(2) Meta Has No Body
Before going further, we need to define what “the body” means in this article. The body here is not limited to physical hardware. It is the subject that stands at the center of the world—constructing narratives and generating meaning. Any tool or product must therefore dissolve naturally into the user’s daily rhythm, without friction. The highest form of user experience, phenomenologically speaking, is the point at which the user no longer knows whether they are using the tool or the tool is using them. Modern people rarely engage in physical labor and often lack embodied skills. Paradoxically, this makes them obsessed with bodily sensation. The feeling of being alive, of communicating with the world, comes only through the body. That’s why we demand smartphones that feel like extensions of our hands. We romanticize manual-transmission cars. We eat fast food on weekdays, but go fish on weekends. We skip daily walks but suddenly crave golf on Saturdays.
In short, people spend generously to experience “hand feel.” Whether it’s an iPhone, a PlayStation, or a musical instrument—true luxury is defined by how well it delivers tactile rhythm. Meta chose the opposite path. Its products may be efficient, but they lack existential weight. The worlds Meta presents are, ultimately, illusions. Teenagers who obsess over Roblox often abandon it once they enter university. They play League of Legends in dorms, meet partners in person, go clubbing, and hang out at sports bars.
As income rises, people spend more money on directly experiencing the world with their bodies.
And slowly—but inevitably—they drift away from Meta.
(3) Rejection by the Real World
There’s no need to restate the well-documented social harm caused by dopamine addiction through SNS during adolescence. Countless scholars have already done so. Most readers already feel the fatigue induced by Instagram, Facebook, and Threads.
What matters here is this: When a company that already holds vast amounts of private data becomes branded as a fatiguing villain, entering the real world becomes nearly impossible. There is an unspoken social consensus that SNS companies should remain in virtual space. Ads are tolerated—but expansion beyond that line is not.
As a result, Meta finds itself trapped: unable to meaningfully evolve, yet unable to retreat.
2. Can Meta Acquire a Body?
(1) Apple’s Decisive Strike
There was a moment when Apple delivered a devastating blow to Meta. Meta’s primary revenue source is advertising. Before 2021, Meta freely collected data on what iPhone users searched, viewed, and listened to—and leveraged it for highly effective ads. Then Apple introduced App Tracking Transparency (ATT). Users were given a choice: allow tracking, or not. iPhone users tend to trust Apple and care deeply about privacy. Most interpreted ATT as Apple protecting them—and opted out. Meta’s ad efficiency collapsed. Advertising revenue fell sharply. This was the moment Meta realized it could not survive confined to virtual space alone. It needed to own a body.
So it began investing in devices and operating systems.
(2) Meta Ray-Ban vs. Apple Vision Pro
Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses have been received positively. They integrate Meta’s AI, are manufactured by Luxottica, and run on Android-based systems. Meta entered the “body market” through the eyes. Product demos often claim Meta has already won the smart glasses race. From a fashion and street-level perspective, embedding AI this closely is a bold move. But Meta’s “eye feel” still cannot match Apple’s “hand feel.” Integration isn’t seamless. Latency and buffering remain noticeable. In practice, navigation, information retrieval, and translation are still faster and simpler on smartphones—especially on the street, where information density is high and interpretation must be instant.
Without Apple-level chip design, architecture control, and manufacturing integration, replacing the human eye and brain is extraordinarily difficult. Apple entered the space later—but demand immediately shifted with the launch of Vision Pro. Even so, Apple itself acknowledged limitations. Vision Pro cannot yet replace eyes and brains at street level. So Apple separated contexts:
- Outdoors: naked eyes + iPhone
- Indoors: Vision Pro for spatial experience
At home, information density is lower and posture is stable. For short indoor sessions, Vision Pro’s resolution, immersion, and tracking feel remarkably natural. Apple has decades of biometric data from Watches, iPhones, and Macs—yet even Vision Pro does not fully “disappear” into the body.
What does “disappear” mean? Consider headphones. Sony headphones emphasize isolation. Sound is pushed close to the ear, highs sharpened, bass amplified. Notes blur together. They work well on the street. Sennheiser headphones, by contrast, reduce isolation. Sound feels distant, spatial, and separated. Over time, the sensation of “wearing a device” fades. The sound feels attached to you. Sennheiser excels indoors—for listening and focused work. Vision Pro still reminds you that you’re wearing it. It’s heavy. Neck fatigue, eye strain, and nasal pressure are common complaints.
Yet among tech-leading users, the consensus is clear: If the price drops, Apple will still dominate smart glasses. As spatial computing and immersive media mature, devices will eventually dissolve into the body—becoming something you forget you’re wearing.
AI capability is currently limited compared to Meta or Google, but that’s not a real concern. Once the AI spec race ends, integration will follow naturally. Google is also expected to enter the street- and office-level smart glasses market with Gemini. But both Google and Meta miss a crucial point.
The deciding factor is not AI performance. AI improves quickly. What matters more is:
- Chips that can rapidly process massive visual and auditory input
- Hardware that attaches without friction, like real glasses
- Architectural integration that makes users forget the device exists
From a body-centered perspective, this matters far more than AI.
Summary: Meta focuses on eyes and AI. Apple focuses on bodies and space.
(3) Meta Quest vs. Sony PlayStation 5
Meta Quest is a VR headset. Like smart glasses, it is fundamentally a “vision-first” gaming device.
Hand movements, jumping, and basic physical gestures are involved, but they don’t come close to the embodied experience of jogging, hiking, or even walking. The visuals are flashy, but there is no heavy resistance—no weight when you strike a monster, no real physical feedback.
In this space, Meta’s true competitor is Sony’s PlayStation. Meta Quest games are largely app-based, which pushes them toward simplified controls and short-form experiences. Sony’s PlayStation, on the other hand, starts from a completely different place: content.
Games like Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon Forbidden West, Elden Ring, and Final Fantasy operate on an entirely different level—world-building, narrative depth, graphics, sound design, combat systems, skill trees. The density is incomparable.
I personally love the Final Fantasy universe—I’ve gone so far as to study storylines dating back to the late 1990s. PlayStation is full of titles where players actively research lore, strategies, and histories. These are not disposable games.
Sony takes a very interesting stance: It largely leaves “visual tuning” to the user. But when it comes to hand feel, Sony is obsessive. In Ghost of Tsushima, the vibration you feel while galloping across Tsushima Island, or the tactile shock when an enemy strikes, is rendered directly into your hands. That resistance in the palms creates a sense of physical reality.
These narrative-driven games typically demand 2–3 hour play sessions. If visual stimulation is pushed too hard, players quickly experience fatigue and lose focus. Sony’s solution is counterintuitive but effective: relax the eyes, maintain a comfortable posture, and let the hands carry the rhythm.
This dramatically deepens immersion. At its core, this reveals a philosophical divide between Meta and Sony:
- Meta: Focuses on visual stimulation. Short bursts of immersion into the device. The game itself feels secondary → Theme-park participation (no physical resistance)
- Sony: Focuses on tactile feedback. Long-form immersion into the game world. The device fades from awareness → Becoming the protagonist of a new world (with physical resistance)
(4) The Strongest Competitor: Google
Ironically, the company most similar to Meta in lacking a “body” is Google. Both companies generate a significant portion of revenue from advertising. I won’t attempt to judge which AI model is technically superior, or whether open-source or proprietary strategies are correct. But we can talk about operating logic.
Google is an infrastructure model. Email, YouTube, search—Google services are used daily by people all over the world. Even grandparents who don’t know what Google “is” still turn on YouTube. Google does not assert presence aggressively. Instead, it quietly occupies the entire infrastructure of everyday life. Its services are designed to help without getting in the way. Google doesn’t try hard to lock users in—but once you use it, lock-in happens naturally. The data Google accumulates is deeply three-dimensional, embedded in real life. As long as ads aren’t overly intrusive, the system works almost automatically.
Meta, by contrast, is a network model. Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp—none are strictly necessary. You can simply stop using them. So Meta must constantly assert presence. If users don’t click, they must be made curious or anxious. Even viewing content often requires registration.
Google provides value directly from Google. Meta provides value indirectly through friends and social connections. As a result, Meta must constantly fight for lock-in—producing user fatigue along the way.
- Google: Daily-life essential, function-centered. Used automatically. Product becomes invisible → Stronger control
- Meta: Network- and identity-centered. Optional. Product is highly visible → Higher user churn
Personally, I find Facebook easier to browse than YouTube Shorts, and its AI recommendations feel more precise. 👉 But YouTube is default. Facebook is a choice. If Meta’s metaverse had become a true necessity—a new world—it might have claimed Google’s position. At present, that seems unlikely.
3. A Korean SNS Company That Acquired a Body — KakaoTalk
(1) KakaoTalk’s Evolution
KakaoTalk began as an SNS messaging app, much like Meta’s services. Early on, it gained enormous trust through a strong free-platform policy and became Korea’s national app. Unlike Meta, Kakao deliberately avoided advertising revenue and sustained losses for years. This was driven by the founder’s belief—and strong social consensus—that messaging apps should not monetize via ads. Paradoxically, this public-interest image increased trust. And Kakao leveraged that trust to build a body in the real world. Kakao repositioned itself not as an SNS company, but as an IT platform: Banking, payments, webtoons, ride-hailing, shopping, identity verification, character IPs, maps, search portals. It absorbed real-world infrastructure.
Frankly, I still believe allowing bank licenses and the separation of banking and payments into public companies was politically questionable—but the government supported it. Today, removing Kakao from Korea would severely disrupt economic and social activity. Kakao has also attempted to follow Meta’s path—launching coins, experimenting with Instagram-style feeds—only to face public backlash and partial rollbacks.
Did they foresee the backlash? Almost certainly. But Kakao could afford bold moves because it already possessed a real-world body: finance and infrastructure.
(2) Why Meta Cannot Follow This Path
Meta cannot replicate Kakao’s trajectory. Ads can run on Instagram and Facebook, but real-world payments and delivery ecosystems remain disconnected. Payments are already dominated by Apple and Google. Banking licenses will never be approved globally for a company that holds such vast private data. Meta already tried—and failed—with the Libra project. This isn’t a technical limitation. It’s a trust problem.
Meta knows too much.
4. The Future of Meta
Tech narratives often claim that early dominance plus network lock-in guarantees victory. In virtual spaces, this appears convincing. History disagrees. AOL. Yahoo. Once dominant. Now gone. They failed not because they lacked users, but because they never acquired a body in the real world. They pushed products, not infrastructure. True standards emerge when tools stop interfering with the body. Network lock-in alone does not create standards. People migrate toward tools that extend their world without friction—toward new jigs that feel natural. No one can predict the future precisely.
Meta succeeded too well as an SNS company—and that success now constrains its evolution. Even so, Meta must eventually choose: build a real-world body like Apple or Samsung, or dissolve into infrastructure like Google.
If it remains trapped in virtual space and virtual networks alone, it will never be perceived as meaningful world expansion. And anything without meaning can be replaced. This applies not only to Meta, but to people like me—writers, small business owners, creators.
Are we genuinely helping people in the real world? Are we offering worlds that AI alone cannot provide?
Ultimately, people do not choose more features. They choose worlds that interfere less with their lives. Because everyone wants to judge, assign meaning, and take responsibility— to become a god within their own world.
From Saltnfire
Sincerely
If you enjoyed this article, you can support the project – thank you!