If you used almost any form of networked PC in the late 1980s or the 1990s, the chances are that you will at some point have encountered the Novell NE2000 network card. This 16-bit ISA card became a de facto standard for 16-bit network cards, such that very few “NE2000” cards were the real thing. A host of clones filled the market, some of which followed the spec of the original rather loosely. It’s something [Michal Necasek] examines as he takes the reader through the history of the NE2000 and why it gained something of a bad reputation. An interesting read for ’90s PC veterans who battled with dodgy Windows 3.1 network drivers.
The Novell line of network cards were not a primary product of the network server OS company but an attempt to spur the uptake of networked computers in an age when few machines were supplied from the factory with a network card installed. They were largely an implementation of the reference design for the National Semiconductor DP3890 Ethernet interface chipset, and for simplicity of interfacing and drivers they used an I/O mapped interface rather than DMA. The problem with the NE2000 wasn’t the card itself which would work with any NE2000 driver, but the host of “NE2000 compatible” cards that appeared over the decade as that magic phrase became a key selling point at the bottom end of the market. Sure they might contain a DP3890 or its clones, but even minor differences in behaviour would cause them not to work with all drivers, and thus they gained a bad name. The piece reveals the original card as one that might have been slow and outdated towards the end of its reign as a standard card, but maybe one not deserving of the ire directed at it.
If ancient networking kit is your thing, we’ve got some far more obscure stuff to show you.
For artists, technologists, engineers, advertisers and dreamers, augmented reality (AR) is the holy grail of digital experience. This tech promises to make magic real: to manifest whatever we can imagine in physical space.
But we're not there yet. Today, most of what is called AR is not worthy of the name. Rather than being an augmentation of reality, it is a poor facsimile of a powerful idea.
So much more is possible.
In the past few weeks, the world has woken up to the boundless potential of AR to transform how we live, learn, work and interact. Apple's CEO Tim Cook says we will end up wondering how we ever lived without it.
But as we take the first steps into this bright future, it is more critical than ever that we wake up to a fundamental truth: No matter how vivid our digital creations, AR will fall short of its full promise unless and until these can be accurately placed in the real world and, more importantly, fully shareable with others.
It's Not 'Real' if It Can't Be Shared
Imagination is hard-wired into the human psyche. From early childhood, we embellish our outer worlds with elements of our inner lives. But since there is no way for those around us to tap into those private imaginings, they remain wholly subjective and unverifiable.
Whether or not a sensory experience is shared by others has a critical impact on whether we ourselves believe it to be real. If you are the only one in a crowded room to hear a whispering voice, you will feel isolated and strange. You may start to question your own perception — perhaps even your sanity.
But if others around you say they've heard it too, you're back on solid ground. What you've experienced is valid and therefore must be real.
This is what is known as intersubjectivity, the process of sharing knowledge and experiences with others.
Today, the vast majority of AR tech does not support intersubjective experiences. Indeed, it is often little more than gimmicky filters on our solitary devices that are difficult to share.
If I conjure up a fire-breathing dragon in my back garden, there is no way for me to photograph myself with it or to impress you with the breadth of its wingspan. And if I can't share the magic, it becomes no more satisfying than watching a YouTube video that can't be shared or scrolling through Facebook alone.
Shared Magic Is Real Magic
And while AR does have the potential to work real magic — to port the products of our imaginations into the physical world — the examples we have access to today are often no more remarkable than the artificial backgrounds on Zoom.
If we want AR to enable a true augmentation of reality, we need to use tech that supports shared digital experiences in the physical world.
Given AR's potential to transform everything from how we train fighter pilots to how doctors collaborate on cases, it is crucial that we address the issue of shared AR now or important interactive experiences will not be possible.
Positioning, Positioning, Positioning
The answer is surprisingly simple. It all boils down to precise positioning.
Many assume that objects and environments that exist in AR are automatically anchored in a fixed location and that it should be easy for multiple people to experience the same things in the same places. The truth is this is never the case.
There are apps that offer rough estimates of where AR objects are placed in physical spaces but these are nowhere near accurate enough. You and your friend may be viewing the same AR unicorn in all its sparkling detail. But while your device may show it standing solidly by the door, hers may show it floating near the ceiling.
When positioning fidelity is this low, intersubjectivity simply isn't possible. While you may be together, your experience cannot meaningfully be described as a shared reality.
This shortcoming becomes particularly jarring when you and a friend or colleague try to engage in a shared physical activity involving digital equipment. Virtual tennis is an impossibility when the ball is in one place for you and somewhere else for your opponent. The same goes for racing digital cars. The list goes on.
Precise Location Is Key to Shared Experiences in AR
The reason it's been so difficult to position AR objects in physical space until now is that our mobile devices don't share a consistent, precise coordinate system.
It's true that smartphones come equipped with GPS, which does make it possible to establish shared geographical parameters to some degree. But for a host of reasons, GPS is far from exact enough for true intersubjectivity.
GPS may be able to establish that an AR object is in a given house, but not whether it is in the bedroom or bathroom. Never mind whether it is sitting on top of a table or under it.
The logical solution to this would be a more precise version of GPS. That, however, would mean a system that is completely unaffected by those factors that hinder GPS fidelity, which range from signal blockage by physical obstacles to poor weather or even solar storms. Smartphone GPS is usually accurate to within a 4.9-meter radius, but only under a clear sky and away from buildings, bridges and trees.
The near-term fix for AR's location problem is much simpler, and billions of dollars less expensive. Rather than spending years on creating a hyper-accurate coordinate system, we should move away from geographical anchors altogether.
Instead of two devices trying to pinpoint their respective locations on a map, they merely need to establish where they are relative to one another. In other words, rather than relying on a fixed set of coordinates, devices should be equipped with technology that can create shared, one-off coordinate systems on an as-needed basis.
Say you and I want to race our digital Ferraris along a beach. With this technology, all we'd need to do is synchronize our devices so they "agree" on their relative positions. Once they have an accurate sense of where they are in an ephemeral space, shared reality is possible.
The larger-scale, more complex AR environments I foresee in the future may well one day require a universal 3D positioning system that uses powerful consensus algorithms and persistent location anchors.
But for today's augmented reality to be more than a buzzword, we need to focus on precise positioning and the technologies we can use right now to precisely share location and invite others into our enhanced reality. With these tools, we can transform AR from a gimmick into a technology that enhances all of our lives.
(Johannes Davidsson is the Head Of Business Development at Auki Labs, an AR tech company creating a decentralized protocol for collaborative spatial computing.)
Cwm LLC lowered its holdings in shares of Getty Realty Corp. (NYSE:GTY – Get Rating) by 2.2% during the second quarter, according to its most accurate disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The institutional investor owned 47,796 shares of the real estate investment trust’s stock after selling 1,081 shares during the quarter. Cwm LLC owned approximately 0.10% of Getty Realty worth $1,267,000 at the end of the most accurate reporting period.
Other hedge funds also recently bought and sold shares of the company. New York State Teachers Retirement System lifted its position in shares of Getty Realty by 8.6% in the first quarter. New York State Teachers Retirement System now owns 49,365 shares of the real estate investment trust’s stock valued at $1,413,000 after acquiring an additional 3,900 shares in the last quarter. State of Alaska Department of Revenue lifted its position in shares of Getty Realty by 6.2% in the second quarter. State of Alaska Department of Revenue now owns 51,294 shares of the real estate investment trust’s stock valued at $1,358,000 after acquiring an additional 3,015 shares in the last quarter. Exchange Traded Concepts LLC lifted its position in shares of Getty Realty by 17.6% in the first quarter. Exchange Traded Concepts LLC now owns 183,616 shares of the real estate investment trust’s stock valued at $5,255,000 after acquiring an additional 27,460 shares in the last quarter. Martingale Asset Management L P lifted its position in shares of Getty Realty by 3.5% in the first quarter. Martingale Asset Management L P now owns 41,517 shares of the real estate investment trust’s stock valued at $1,189,000 after acquiring an additional 1,401 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Genesee Capital Advisors LLC lifted its position in shares of Getty Realty by 9.6% in the first quarter. Genesee Capital Advisors LLC now owns 34,711 shares of the real estate investment trust’s stock valued at $993,000 after acquiring an additional 3,026 shares in the last quarter. Hedge funds and other institutional investors own 72.19% of the company’s stock.
Getty Realty Price Performance
GTY stock opened at $27.09 on Monday. The business has a fifty day moving average of $28.98 and a two-hundred day moving average of $27.92. The company has a quick ratio of 2.16, a current ratio of 2.16 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.82. The stock has a market cap of $1.27 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of 15.84, a price-to-earnings-growth ratio of 2.10 and a beta of 0.83. Getty Realty Corp. has a 52-week low of $24.66 and a 52-week high of $33.35.
Getty Realty (NYSE:GTY – Get Rating) last issued its quarterly earnings data on Wednesday, July 27th. The real estate investment trust reported $0.64 earnings per share for the quarter, beating analysts’ consensus estimates of $0.48 by $0.16. Getty Realty had a return on equity of 11.05% and a net margin of 50.94%. The business had revenue of $40.81 million during the quarter, compared to analysts’ expectations of $41.26 million. During the same period in the previous year, the firm posted $0.49 earnings per share. As a group, research analysts anticipate that Getty Realty Corp. will post 2.28 earnings per share for the current year.Getty Realty Dividend Announcement
The company also recently disclosed a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Thursday, October 6th. Stockholders of record on Thursday, September 22nd were paid a $0.41 dividend. The ex-dividend date was Wednesday, September 21st. This represents a $1.64 dividend on an annualized basis and a dividend yield of 6.05%. Getty Realty’s payout ratio is presently 95.91%.
Wall Street Analysts Forecast Growth
GTY has been the Topic of several research reports. Redburn Partners initiated coverage on Getty Realty in a research report on Thursday, August 25th. They issued a “neutral” rating on the stock. Royal Bank of Canada lifted their price objective on Getty Realty from $27.00 to $30.00 and gave the stock a “sector perform” rating in a research report on Tuesday, August 2nd. StockNews.com downgraded Getty Realty from a “buy” rating to a “hold” rating in a research report on Friday, October 7th. BTIG Research reduced their price objective on Getty Realty from $36.00 to $30.00 and set a “buy” rating on the stock in a research report on Friday. Finally, Bank of America upgraded Getty Realty from an “underperform” rating to a “neutral” rating and set a $33.00 price objective on the stock in a research report on Wednesday, August 24th. Four analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and three have issued a buy rating to the company. According to data from MarketBeat, Getty Realty presently has an average rating of “Hold” and an average target price of $31.80.
About Getty Realty
See Also
Want to see what other hedge funds are holding GTY? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for Getty Realty Corp. (NYSE:GTY – Get Rating).
Receive News & Ratings for Getty Realty Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Getty Realty and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.
In this piece, we will take a look at the 11 best virtual reality stocks to buy. For more stocks, head on over to 5 Best Virtual Reality Stocks to Buy.
Advances in semiconductor fabrication and manufacturing have enabled chip makers to squeeze unthinkable amounts of computing power into pieces of silicon the size of a human thumbnail. This growth has also spurred industries of its own, and one such sector is the virtual reality segment of the broader technology industry.
Virtual reality, as the name suggests, refers to technologies that create an artificial representation of reality for users to immerse themselves into - whether for entertainment or productivity needs. This is achieved through headsets, processors, and software, with different companies providing different technologies for the processes.
The virtual reality industry was estimated to be worth $4.4 billion in 2020, and through a massive compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 44.8%, the segment can be worth a whopping $84 billion in 2029, according to a research report from Fortune Business Insights. Driving this growth will be several factors, such as the demand for virtual training platforms in industries, that let firms prepare their employees for complex tasks without investing in physical infrastructure. This allows companies in industries such as automobile manufacturing to reduce worker injuries and conduct factory personnel training safely.
Another research report, this time from Valuates Report, analyzes both the virtual and augmented reality markets. Augment reality is a subset of virtual reality that serves as a 'bolt on' to existing reality instead of rendering a completely new environment. This research firm believes that the markets were worth $14 billion in 2020 and through a strong CAGR of 41%, they will grow to sit at $454 billion by the end of 2030.
Therefore, looking at these estimates, it's clear that virtual reality has a bright future ahead of it, despite the bloodbath in technology stocks this year. Today's piece will look at the key players in the industry and some well known firms in the list are Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMD), Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META), and Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT).
Photo by mahdis mousavi on Unsplash
Our Methodology
We took a look at the virtual reality industry and current trends to pick out which firms are currently offering creative products and services in the industry. We preferred companies with strong financial performance, technological advantages, and relevance to current industry dynamics. These stocks are ranked via hedge fund sentiment gathered through Insider Monkey's 895 fund survey for this year's second quarter.
11. Tencent Holdings Limited (OTCMKTS:TCEHY)
Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 2
Tencent Holdings Limited (OTCMKTS:TCEHY) is a Chinese conglomerate that owns several companies including the video game developer Epic Games. The firm is headquartered in Shenzhen, the People's Republic of China.
Epic Games is one of the most well known game developers in the world, which rose to fame due to its Fortnite gaming brand. The company, like other game developers, is also targeting the metaverse industry which is seeing strong interest from large firms. Sony and The Lego Group invested a whopping $2 billion in Epic Games in 2022 to spur metaverse development.
Additionally, Epic Games' Unreal Engine, which is used by video game developers to develop their products, is capable of developing assets that support 3D visualization and augmented and virtual realities. Insider Monkey's Q2 2022 survey of 895 hedge funds revealed that two had invested in Tencent Holdings Limited (OTCMKTS:TCEHY).
Along with Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META), Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMD), and Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT), Tencent Holdings Limited (OTCMKTS:TCEHY) is a top virtual reality stock.
10. MicroVision, Inc. (NASDAQ:MVIS)
Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 4
MicroVision, Inc. (NASDAQ:MVIS) is an American company that develops sensors used in automobiles. Additionally, it also develops a scanning technology that enables the creation of large images for a full field of view. It also develops displays concepts, designs, and modules that are used in augmented and virtual reality headsets. The firm is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.
MicroVision, Inc. (NASDAQ:MVIS)'s lidar systems scored a big win in September 2022, when chip giant NVIDIA Corporation announced that the MAIN DR dynamic view system would be supported by NVIDIA's Drive AGX platform. This will Boost highway safety for vehicles.
By the end of its second fiscal quarter, MicroVision, Inc. (NASDAQ:MVIS) had $93 million in cash, which is important given the company's weak operating income profile. The firm has invested some of this into treasury securities, and its latest quarterly operating costs stood at $9.7 million - giving it plenty of runway room. Four out of the 895 hedge funds polled by Insider Monkey for their June quarter of 2022 portfolios had invested in the company.
MicroVision, Inc. (NASDAQ:MVIS)'s largest investor in our database is Daniel S. Och's Sculptor Capital which owns 572,200 shares that are worth $2.1 million.
9. Matterport, Inc. (NASDAQ:MTTR)
Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 7
Matterport, Inc. (NASDAQ:MTTR) is an American company that caters to the front end of the virtual reality space. Its software applications allow developers to capture the depth and imagery of a physical space to create a virtual reality environment. The firm is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.
Matterport, Inc. (NASDAQ:MTTR) reported a strong second fiscal quarter earlier this year, which despite negative revenue growth, saw the firm expand its presence in the market. At the earnings, the firm announced that its subscribers grew by a massive 52% annually to stand at 616,000 during the quarter.
Matterport, Inc. (NASDAQ:MTTR) also counts some of the largest companies in the world as its customers, with firms such as Proctor & Gamble, Sealy, and Netflix part of the 23% of the Fortune 1000 firms that use the company's products. Additionally, the firm's latest quarter also saw it grow its services revenue by 74% and its subscription revenue by 20%.
Insider Monkey took a look at 895 hedge funds for their second quarter of 2022 holdings to discover that 7 had invested in Matterport, Inc. (NASDAQ:MTTR).
Matterport, Inc. (NASDAQ:MTTR)'s largest investor is Chase Coleman and Feroz Dewan's Tiger Global Management LLC which owns 3.6 million shares that are worth $13 million.
8. Unity Software Inc. (NYSE:U)
Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 23
Unity Software Inc. (NYSE:U) is a software platform provider whose products allow its customers to develop 2D and 3D content for a wide variety of gadgets and devices such as smartphones, tablets, computers, gaming consoles, and virtual and augmented reality platforms. The firm is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
Unity Software Inc. (NYSE:U) is also aggressively targeting growth, with its research and development expenses during its second fiscal quarter representing close to 73% of its revenue. This opens up a large opportunity for explosive growth in the future, should these investments bear fruit.
Needham set a $50 share price target for the company in October 2022, stating that its software platform is one of the best in the world and will benefit from the strong growth in the demand for 3D content. 23 out of the 895 hedge funds polled by Insider Monkey during the second quarter of this year had invested in Unity Software Inc. (NYSE:U).
Out of these, Jim Davidson, Dave Roux, and Glenn Hutchins's Silver Lake Partners is Unity Software Inc. (NYSE:U)'s largest investor. It owns 34 million shares that are worth $1.2 billion.
7. Roblox Corporation (NYSE:RBLX)
Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 26
Roblox Corporation (NYSE:RBLX) is an online operating platform operator and developer whose studio allows developers to create and operate virtual 3D environments. The firm is headquartered in San Mateo, California, the United States.
Roblox Corporation (NYSE:RBLX) posted record high revenues of $600 million in its second fiscal quarter, which enabled it to cross $1 billion in revenue for the first half of this year. The company's extreme focus on its products led it to develop a voice chat feature for months before it finally rolled it out to users. Additionally, it has a creative advertising strategy, which creates a unique environment that lets users interact with the ad and then make potential purchases.
Roblox Corporation (NYSE:RBLX)'s platforms are also attractive for advertisers since they provide a large user base of young users that are yet to cement their buying preferences. Needham reduced the company's share price target to $53 from $55 in September 2022, stating that its advertising platform is one of a kind. Insider Monkey's Q2 2022 895 hedge fund survey saw 26 having held a stake in the company.
Roblox Corporation (NYSE:RBLX)'s largest investor is Jim Simons' Renaissance Technologies which owns 11.5 million shares that are worth $380 million.
6. Sony Group Corporation (NYSE:SONY)
Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 26
Sony Group Corporation (NYSE:SONY) is a Japanese multinational platform that designs and sells consumer electronics products and owns video game development platforms. The company is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.
Sony Group Corporation (NYSE:SONY) operates in the hardware side of the virtual reality ecosystem, as it designs and sells the PlayStation PS VR headset. This headset has two modes, 3D and 2D modes. The former lets users view content in HDR resolution at 90Hz or 120Hz, and the latter lets them play games in HDR at 24Hz, 60Hz, and 120Hz.
When compared to some other virtual reality companies that have weak financials, Sony Group Corporation (NYSE:SONY) is an established player that has sold millions of units of its gaming consoles and brings in close to $100 billion in revenue each year. By the end of this year's second quarter, 26 of the 895 hedge funds surveyed by Insider Monkey had bought the company's shares.
Out of these, Sony Group Corporation (NYSE:SONY)'s largest investor is Mario Gabelli's GAMCO Investors which owns 1.7 million shares that are worth $146 million.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMD), Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META), and Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT), Sony Group Corporation (NYSE:SONY) is a VR stock you must look at.
Click to continue studying and see 5 Best Virtual Reality Stocks to Buy.
Suggested Articles:
Disclosure: None. 11 Best Virtual Reality Stocks to Buy is originally published on Insider Monkey.
We live in divided times, when the answer to the question 'what is reality?' depends on who you ask. Almost all the information we take in is to some extent edited and curated, and the line between entertainment and reality has become increasingly blurred. Nowhere is that more obvious than the world of reality television. The genre feeds off our most potent feelings – love, hope, anxiety, loneliness – and turns them into profit... and presidents. So in this episode, we're going to filter three themes of our modern world through the lens of reality TV: dating, the American dream, and the rage machine.
In one year, net lease giant Realty Income (O -3.49%) is highly likely to be a bigger company. That's not exactly an Earth-shattering prediction, given that real estate investment trusts (REITs) grow by acquiring more properties. However, what's notable here is that there's an important deal in process for just one property that clearly sets Realty Income apart from the pack.
Here's what you need to know about this REIT's growing portfolio and what it might mean for the stock.
A big net lease portfolio needs to keep getting bigger
Net lease REITs like Realty Income own single-tenant properties for which their tenants are responsible for most of the operating costs of the assets they occupy. Any single property has material risk since a vacancy would quickly push rent collection from the building down to zero.
However, the ability to shove operating costs onto tenants reduces risks for the landlord, which is notable today, given high inflation rates. And when you spread that benefit and risk balance over a large portfolio, the benefits quickly start to outweigh the negatives. Realty Income has one of the largest net lease portfolios in the world, with over 11,000 buildings.
Image source: Getty Images.
Being so large is both good and bad because there are really just a few ways REITs can grow. Rent growth can come from annual increases or the signing of new leases at higher rates. That's typically a small number when it comes to overall growth. Larger benefits come from building new assets from the ground up or buying buildings and portfolios of buildings (including acquisitions of other companies). Smaller REITs can see meaningful growth by adding just a few new buildings, but larger REITs need to do bigger deals. Realty Income is at a point where it needs to go big or go home.
Through the first six months of 2022, Realty Income bought 340 properties: 289 in the United States and 51 in Europe. Juxtaposed with that were 104 asset dispositions, leaving the company with around 236 properties added. And Realty Income has another 83 properties under development. These are pretty sizable numbers, and there are still six months left in the year. The REIT is projecting $6 billion in property acquisitions for the full year.
So it's easy to see that a bigger portfolio will likely be in the cards over the next 12 months. But there's one deal that stands out.
One supersized deal for Realty Income in 2022
For the most part, Realty Income owns retail properties (nearly 80% of rents). These tend to be fairly generic boxes that aren't all that large and are easy to release or sell should the need arise. But it also has industrial properties and a collection of vineyards it picked up some years ago. While just a small piece of the portfolio, the vineyards show that Realty Income's management team is willing to think outside the retail box.
That showed up in a big way earlier in 2022 when it announced a $1.7 billion deal to buy a casino in Boston. Once the deal is completed, this single property will account for around 3% of Realty Income's overall rent roll. That's not a small number, considering the REIT generated $1.6 billion in rent through the first six months of the year. Casino operator Wynn Resorts will instantly jump into Realty Income's top 10 tenant list. So assuming this deal closes as expected, Realty Income will see a big jump in the size of its portfolio with the addition of just one property. That makes the call about where the portfolio will be in one year (bigger) much easier.
Yet, very little will change, really. Realty Income's portfolio diversification won't be altered in a materially negative way with regard to tenant or industry. Few others in the net lease space could have pulled off a deal of that size without upending their business model. Yes, some net lease REITs are dedicated to casino properties. Still, they aren't really direct competitors with Realty Income (though Realty Income is now a competitor for the casino REITs to worry about). Realty Income is, basically, charting a new course within the broader net lease space.
Realty Income is proving its unique position
In the end, the casino purchase is adding an interesting new segment to Realty Income's portfolio that's outside the norm and could offer additional growth avenues in the future. It will notably increase the company's size, but not in a way that is detrimental to the existing portfolio. And it shows why the REIT stands out from the pack and is often afforded a premium valuation on Wall Street. The roughly 4.4% dividend yield on offer from this Dividend Aristocrat isn't as large as you can find from other net lease REITs, but sometimes it pays to pay up for quality. The growth that's in the pipeline for the next year, driven by that Boston casino, is evidence of Realty Income's industry-leading position and the growth opportunity that it offers the REIT and its shareholders.
Hello and good morning to my fellow Bach Nation snobs and Reality Steve stans, because today we finally (!!) have a spoiler for who the next Bachelor will be. AHEM, IF YOU CHOOSE INNOCENCE OVER VIOLENCE TODAY, PLEASE READ NO FURTHER! However, if you absolutely, positively need the scoop now (hi, me), then get a load of Reality Steve’s prediction below—but not before looking at this truly *chef’s kiss* GIF that perfectly encapsulates me running to all my group chats with the news:
🚨 I repeat: Spoilers on the next Bachelor are beyond this point! 🚨
Earlier today, Reality Steve posted on his Twitter, “As we know, plans can always change last minute and it won’t be ‘official’ until next Tuesday on the ‘ATFR,’ but I feel confident in reporting that the next Bachelor is going to be Zach Shallcross.” *massive pause for dramatic effect*
This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
Have you recovered? Not really?! Okay, same, it’s all good.
A refresher: This week’s episode picked up with Zach asking Rachel Recchia to talk ahead of the rose ceremony after a preeeeetty rocky overnight date where he told the colead that he didn’t think he was seeing “the real Rachel” but rather the “Bachelorette version” of her. Oof!
“I felt like the ‘concerns with the age part’ was a complete blindside,” the tech executive mused. “It’s kind of hard to wrap my head around it. I did really love you. I saw a future with you, but I need to go.” Rachel then said that although she wished the two could’ve “gotten there,” they both knew it was pretty much over, and she sent Zach packing before handing out final roses to Tino Franco and Aven Jones. Oof x 2!
This content is imported from Instagram. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
After the devastating elimination, Zach said the response “felt so cold. I thought, maybe, that I meant more.”
“One of the things I fell in love with was she made me feel, like, special. And I cared for her and I question if any of that was real or if that was just an act,” he added before the show cut to Rachel live alongside Jesse Palmer, as the two waited to see Zach for the first time since his exit. Luckily, he didn’t pull a Hayden and immediately apologized for suggesting the pilot wasn’t being authentic.
“I just want to say that I do apologize for ever making you feel like I called you out for your character,” he began. “That’s the last thing I wanted. I was kind of in shock and disbelief in what was happening between us. I am so sorry.” Rachel responded by saying the goodbye “was really hard for me to watch back” because her feelings for Zach were “real.”
And if the episode couldn’t be any more of a tearjerker, when asked whether he had any regrets about how it all went down, Zach said no because he’ll “never forget” his memories with the Bachelorette: “I really just hope you are happy and I want the best for you, always.” Tear ducts: activated.
I really and truly cannot WAIT to see whether Reality Steve is right (although ya gotta deliver it to him, he usually is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) and the 26-year-old *actually* ends up becoming the next Bachelor. Honestly though? Would also be kind of intrigued if it were Meatball, just sayin’!
A year after changing its name, the company formerly known as Facebook has revealed its plans to deliver the metaverse legs – literally.
Mark Zuckerberg’s virtual reality project is getting a raft of additions including a $1,499 (£1,356) “pro” headset, integration with Microsoft Office and the sitcom The Office, and, yes, the ambulatory appendages.
Legs join shoulders and knees, though not yet toes, as part of an upcoming visual overhaul of the avatars in Meta’s Horizon virtual worlds, Zuckerberg revealed. Currently, other users simply hover slightly above the ground, with heads, arms and torsos rendered in a cartoony style but bodies ending at the waist. As a result, legs are “probably the most requested feature on our roadmap”, the chief executive and co-founder said. “But seriously, legs are hard, which is why other virtual reality systems don’t have them either.”
The company’s systems will now try to guess the position of users’ legs and feet using a number of inputs, from direct visual tracking using front-facing cameras to more advanced attempts to predict their movement with just the motion of the head and hands, based on models of human anatomy.
Derision of Horizon’s avatars has prompted irritation from Zuckerberg in the past. In August, a post from the Facebook founder of his glassy-eyed figure standing in front of a virtual Eiffel Tower went viral on social media, with people mocking the vaguely soulless appearance of the virtual world. In response, he shared a render of a more realistic version of his virtual face a few days later. “I know the photo I posted earlier this week was pretty basic – it was taken very quickly to celebrate a launch,” he said. “The graphics in Horizon are capable of much more.”
While legs may have been the most-requested feature, the star of Meta’s Connect event was the Quest Pro headset, a new business-focused device that will sell for $1,499 and push what is possible in virtual reality forward. The headset introduces two new headline features to Meta’s VR lineup: eye tracking and “passthrough” mixed reality.
The former uses tiny cameras mounted on the inside of the headset to track where in the virtual world a user is looking. That lets developers offer experiences that respond to a user’s attention, from virtual characters that react to being looked at to interfaces that can be activated with a glance. But it also enables whole new levels of surveillance, with advertisers potentially able to assess exactly who has looked at what promotions for how long.
Passthrough mixed reality attempts to offer a similar experience to devices such as Magic Leap and Microsoft’s HoloLens AR glasses, layering a virtual experience on top of the real world. But rather than experimenting with holographic lenses like those two devices, the Quest Pro uses high-resolution front-facing cameras to simply record the real world and then display it on the interior screens. That turns a display technology challenge into one of computing speed, since the device needs to be able to process and display the live footage rapidly enough to have zero lag, or users would get horrible motion sickness.
Neither feature is cheap, and Zuckerberg implied the Quest Pro will be sold at a loss despite costing $1,100 more than its mainstream Quest 2 headset. “The strategy overall is not to make money on the hardware,” he told tech site The Verge, though “there are lots of different ways to basically do the accounting on this.”
But the market for the Pro is professional users. “If I could deliver all of our engineers a device and have them be 3% more productive, I’d deliver them a $1,500 device, for sure,” he added. To that end, the company announced new deals with partners including NBC, which will bring experiences based on The Office sitcom to the platform, as well as Microsoft, which is a version of Office, Teams and even Xbox Game Pass for the Quest platform.
All reality television competitions run on drama. That’s what casting directors look for in participants; a show of calm, broad-minded, flexible folks certainly wouldn’t be compelling for audiences (and the ratings would be snoozy as well).
But accurate headlines suggest a change may need to happen. While these reality TV competitions are entertaining and contribute to enormous viewership, a number of contestants push the envelope excessively — backstabbing, gossiping, and revealing outrageous behavior. The latest example was Sunday night, on the history-making live finale of CBS’ “Big Brother,” when fan favorite Taylor Hale overcame numerous adversities to become the first Black female to ever win a non-celebrity version of the game, taking home $750,000.
In a house with several other contestants who severely bullied her, Hale, a former pageant queen, was made fun of and unfairly ostracized for weeks, becoming the underdog for viewers to root for. Outraged and very vocal on social media, fans voted for her to also be named America’s Favorite Houseguest (meaning additional prize money).
But despite the happy ending, the popular social experiment series, now in its 24th season, was deeply disturbing for viewers to watch at times. Said Twitter fan @PopCultureBits: “This season has been pretty sad actually. #bb24 sad in a depressing way. The racial tensions – bullying…pretty heartbreaking to watch and after being in a pandemic- I don’t need that…my last season of watching.”
Former “Amazing Race” contestant turned casting producer Jodi Wincheski described these ensemble reality series as a scenario that is similar to high school.
“Not everyone we cast is going to get along,” the CBS reality star acknowledged. “People can be cruel. These shows are a direct reflection of what’s happening in the real world and perhaps viewers can learn to become more compassionate when it’s right in front of their face.”
That would be nice, but in the meantime, IndieWire spoke to several former reality TV contestants about how competition shows could better set them up for success — and what should be done in advance to weed out more problematic individuals.
More Diversity
CBS’ “The Challenge’s” Kyland Young and Azah Awasum, members of “The Cookout,” the all-Black alliance which dominated “Big Brother” last year, watched what happened this season closely.
Young’s hope is that casting directors will take additional time with their contestants to make them more aware of the emotional, psychological and mental hurdles they will face in the game, acclimating them to what it’s like to be with a bunch of strangers, and closely watched by millions of people on television.
“In talking to my friends who have been on other reality TV competitions, more conversations should be had with the casting directors from the very start,” Young said. “I don’t think that anybody’s given enough of a warning as far as like, ‘Hey, this is a high pressure, intense situation. You will be looked at with immense scrutiny–more than you have in your entire life. We are not lawyers, we are so excited in signing up for this, we overlook things. There is very little to lose for casting teams to add in that extra step; I truly think it is a missed opportunity.”
Awasum thought the casting directors from Netflix’s “Love is Blind” did a terrific job in finding all sorts of different people from various cultures to come together.
“I also think ABC’s ‘The Bachelor’ and ‘The Bachelorette’ made strides to turn the tide in casting more diverse faces. It’s important to continue those discussions.”
Having a diverse, authentic cast that doesn’t get represented onscreen was vital for veteran casting agent Lynne Spillman, who most recently worked on Amazon’s “Lizzo’s Watch Out For the Big Grrrls.”
“Time and time again, we see beautiful, thin women all over the media,” Spillman said. “‘Lizzo’s Watch Out For the Big Grrrls’ shows the world that you don’t have to have a specific body type to be perfect. With the very few roles given to curvy and diverse women, they would be hard pressed to find agents, managers etc. to represent and advocate for them. That’s exactly what Lizzo did by introducing these beautiful women (inside and out) to the world. I hope this show (and others that follow) will inspire the next generation to be more accepting of their own bodies and other people that look different from them in general.”
Lizzo at ‘Lizzo’s Watch Out For The Big Grrls’ Watch Party in Los Angeles.
JC Olivera/Getty Images for Amazon Studios
Improving the Casting Process
Kate Casey, host of the podcast “Reality Life with Kate Casey,” sees these competition shows facing the same plight as other programming. “How do you make each season stand out? The stakes are higher for casting producers, who have a difficult time managing over-the-top contestants. You can do so much vetting, but you can’t always anticipate how someone will cope with cameras and isolation. The last thing a network wants is a problematic person, but unfortunately it happens.”
Netflix contestant Trevor St. Agathe, who was on “The Circle,” described the reality TV competition casting process as a “tricky” one.
“For ‘The Circle,’ I had three interviews with casting, a psych evaluation, and background checks in the USA and Canada,” he said. “I don’t know if that’s standard for reality TV, but I thought that was pretty thorough. However, a person can tell you whatever they think you want to hear in order to get on TV. Then once the cameras are rolling, they’re a completely different person.”
St. Agathe said that these competition shows select their cast based on who is going to deliver them the best show.
“While I do think they want most cast members to be likable, mission objective number one is to group personalities that will conflict. I think shows would much rather put out fires as opposed to play[ing] it safe. For a lot of series, the drama is a bigger focus than naming a winner of the competition.”
Racism presents another, unfortunately recurring, issue in reality TV casting.
“I feel like when the production companies have a set of diverse people casting, they try to sprinkle everything,” explained Tiffany Wilson, a Black casting producer who worked on “Divorce Court”. “When you have an all-white Caucasian casting company, they’ll look for people they think look like them. And that’s because they’re told by the network to cast more Caucasian people. It makes it hard being a woman of color, thinking you have a seat at the table, when you are there to meet the same quota that they are, looking for 5 percent African American.”
“RuPaul’s Drag Race” alumni Laganja Estranja can see “huge room for improvement” when it comes to multicultural casting.
“Racism definitely plays a part in casting, and often we see too much typecasting for stereotypes,” she said. “Sure, every show needs its bully, but why is it that often more times than not minorities have to play this role? I do think some reality TV competition shows have identified these issues and are working to diversify their casts and roles. But overall, American television and producers have it down to a science that many don’t want to change or veer away from.”
What’s Next?
“Big Brother”
CBS
If reality TV competition series can “step their game up” when it comes to taking care of contestants’ basic needs a little better, that might ease tensions in the game, suggested “FBoy Island’s” Garrett Morosky.
“When you put a diverse group of people together and the potential of fame or ‘clout’ or money is on the line, especially when the majority of the people on the show come from small towns and don’t have much going on in life… well, some people tend to do whatever it takes,” he said.
“As humans we adapt and when money and fame is on the line some people will get scared and some people will break the matrix and put on a show,” Morosky said.
His suggestion is to have producers and casting executives work with contestants after the show.
“They should have an agency or something that helps with taking a contestant’s career to the next level,” Morosky said. “They would make money off of those individuals. However, [right now] producers pigeonhole people and say ‘you can’t work with anyone but us for another year after the date of air.’ That stops people from being able to achieve careers in entertainment.”
Morosky, whose next project (along with St. Agathe) is appearing on “Reality of Love,” with relationship coach Nicole Moore, a new BSpoke TV series, also thinks it would be smart for casting producers to take into account contestants’ mental state after doing competition series like this. “A lot of people can’t handle it. And they should deliver each individual a counselor at their disposal till the next season airs.”
It remains to be seen whether the broadcast and streaming networks will spend significant time re-evaluating the casting process on reality TV competitions. While there have been numerous complaints on social media from viewers, viewership for these series remains robust, which means less impetus for change. Barring boycotts, it’s likely that the way reality TV is made now is unlikely to change much in the near future — but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement.
Sign Up: Stay on top of the latest breaking film and TV news! Sign up for our Email Newsletters here.
