It is currently Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:55 pm



Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Yeah, another FB+Oculus thread, but hold the rage 
Author Message
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
Sorry, another one of these threads, but I felt we needed more where the positive was extolled rather than simply provided as a comment to a dump of negativity.

It's amazing(though I suppose, depressingly not surprising) how hyperbolic the whole internet has been since the Facebook announcement.

Okay, I'll admit, it initially knocked the wind out of me. I think that's natural as I'd be amazed if ANYONE not on the inside saw this coming.

However, I did what so few people on the internet appear to ever do: read up on it.

Anyone claiming they want "Oculus to fail" because of this or that "VR is now dead" should please, and I say this as respectfully as I can, calm down and take a breath or bugger off.

*takes breath*

Anyways, as Oculus was previously, using only Kickstarted funds, there is no way they could have mass marketed this device in the way most of us would have wanted them to. So they sought investment. And they found it. A number of wealthy venture capitalist threw in money, sensing the investment opportunity. This allowed Oculus to court the likes of Carmack away from Id, build hype at a number of trade shows, consult with Valve, share details and tech at conferences, build DK2 and develop new tech to make the thing far more palatable and practical.

Major problem, of course, is most of the money they were burning through was not theirs. I'm not talking about KS money, I imagine most of that went into the manufacture and shipment of the DK1 and the initial round of trade show appearances.

Nah, most of the money belonged to a number of VCs. These people, in the end, had the leash. They were letting Palmer do his thing, Carmack do his code, etc... because it was currently working. But make no mistakes, any of these people had the ability and right to derail the whole thing if seen fit.

Now, with the Facebook deal, Facebook buys off all these angel investors. They no longer have any say. Facebook has wisely seemingly decided to let Oculus run itself independently. This means that Oculus is now technically a more independent company than they had previously been.

Beyond the consolidation of multiple overlords with multiple ulterior motives, we now have the one overlord who's taking a long view. People claim that the match is terrible because Facebook(the site) is slowly dying. It likely is, however, that's what makes this investment work. Facebook is likely branching out to secure themselves, hedging against the possible(nay likely) demise most social media sites before it have eventually succumbed to, in much the same way that Apple moved to digital media sales and consumer hardware, or how Google is investing in everything from space exploration to wearable AR kit.

If that is the case, the odds they'd tangle too deeply in what already was seeming like a good investment are severely mitigated.

Now, lets look at some other benefits the sale will bring:


* Oculus can now custom order hardware made specifically for the Rift rather than rely on cellphone leftovers. This is HUGE.
* Despite we knowing lots about this and it being popular on tech and game blogs, it's amazing how few people out there, even among those who count themselves as gamers, know about it. The exposure will be massive.
* Zuckerberg has a storied history, some of it rather...creepy. But he also tends to be a futurist. I honestly don't think he's that disaligned with Oculus' views.
* This may lead to subsidies in supply management. That is great news.
* Of all the companies rumoured to buy Oculus, let's face it, Facebook has the cleanest track record of all of them(yes, Google is included in this math).


Until we see any evidence of Facebook destroying things, we can't assume they will. We should watch and see. Neither Palmer nor anyone at Oculus have been shown to be idiots. Haven't they earned our trust by now?

As an aside, anyone jumping ship to Sony for 'ethical' reasons obviously doesn't remember half a million rootkit infected computers, the attempt to destroy the mp3 and the mp3 player market, the contributions to HDCP, the proprietary tie-in practices, the PSN security fiasco, the crackdown on any website showing a HEX string and the twisted tale of George Hotz, among others in Sony's rather long history of unethical behaviour.

Anyone wishing Google would have bought them appear to forget Google's acquisition track record.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:35 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:13 am
Posts: 42
Location: USA
Reply with quote
But the big question remains the same as it was on day one: what's the business model? I'm not saying there isn't one, but I've not seen anyone take pencil to paper and show numerically how a $2B+ valuation is justified. Some suggest FB will derive revenues from in-HMD advertising, but given the level of risk on this acquisition FB needs 20%+ ROI per year, $400m in added profit per year. That's something like 10m helmets, each producing $40 of advertising revenue (assuming zero costs... unlikely.)

The point is: for VR to have some sort of mass adoption it needs to be profitable in the long run. Don't know if I'm blind or not, but I'm not seeing it.

_________________
VRtifacts.com


Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:10 am
Profile WWW
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:44 am
Posts: 323
Location: Connecticut
Reply with quote
You think people are being negative just to be negative? C'mon now, there are serious, and I mean SERIOUS concerns raised about this entire situation. One of the main ones being that the purchaser of the tech doesn't even have a viable product of any sort themselves and rely completely on ads and obtrusive tracking in order to turn a profit.

Its akin to Ford Motor Company selling out to Johnson and Johnson talcum powder company so that Johnson and Johnson can have control of the new car scent industry. WTF. What does facebook have any clue about any of this other than to turn it into an ad generating system, tracking, etc.

We all hope our fears are unfounded but if you follow history at all you'll know that they will take this technology and morph it into something that benefits FACEBOOK, not the gamer.

You say people being critical are being naive? Its actually the other way around. In the end, Facebook looks at this as a tool to grow their business. Last I checked, Facebook wasn't in the business of creating compelling games or entertainment.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:17 am
Profile
Sharp Eyed Eagle!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:22 am
Posts: 450
Location: UK
Reply with quote
The point you make about them not having a viable product is probably one very good reason to buy Oculus in the first place to quickly acquire some physical product.

Also yes it's $2bn in total but the cash that's changed hands is *only* $400m which isn't an over the top valuation for a company that has nearly $100m invested in it in one way or another and has pretty good prospects.

The few that are slamming this, and in the main they are a loud minority, would for the most part probably have never contributed anything of worth to the VR community so their loss is minimal. Once they've got bored with ranting and jump on some other bandwagon where they can feel betrayed and self righteous about something else then Palmer and the Oculus team can get back to doing what they do best creating something worthwhile.

To be honest I think the fact that Palmer took the time to answer posts and deal with some serious abuse on Reddit last night shows he does care and as far as I'm concerned it shows his integrity is intact.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:27 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:53 pm
Posts: 54
Reply with quote
mayaman wrote:
You think people are being negative just to be negative? C'mon now, there are serious, and I mean SERIOUS concerns raised about this entire situation. One of the main ones being that the purchaser of the tech doesn't even have a viable product of any sort themselves and rely completely on ads and obtrusive tracking in order to turn a profit.

Its akin to Ford Motor Company selling out to Johnson and Johnson talcum powder company so that Johnson and Johnson can have control of the new car scent industry. WTF. What does facebook have any clue about any of this other than to turn it into an ad generating system, tracking, etc.

We all hope our fears are unfounded but if you follow history at all you'll know that they will take this technology and morph it into something that benefits FACEBOOK, not the gamer.

You say people being critical are being naive? Its actually the other way around. In the end, Facebook looks at this as a tool to grow their business. Last I checked, Facebook wasn't in the business of creating compelling games or entertainment.


Bad analogy, the future of online social interaction is VR, lucky has even talked about making such programs before! Besides the tech needed for a good VR social app, will make for good VR gaming! Low persistence, high fps, low latency etc. a virtual environment is a virtual environment! Both kinds of software needs the same type of hardware!


Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:40 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
Quote:
...the purchaser of the tech doesn't even have a viable product of any sort themselves and rely completely on ads and obtrusive tracking in order to turn a profit


Right, so how do they go about fixing that? Right! Invest in an alternative business model! Seriously, just because their revenue to date is based on tracking and ad revenue does not mean all future investments are for the same. They very well could be setting themselves up for money in both hardware sales and licensing.

Quote:
But the big question remains the same as it was on day one: what's the business model? I'm not saying there isn't one, but I've not seen anyone take pencil to paper and show numerically how a $2B+ valuation is justified.


I don't suspect the business model will change much, at least in the short term. They put a bet they could sell 2B worth of hardware, licensing and publishing deals. That's about it.

And come on, guys. Do you really expect "in-HMD advertising?" The Rift, in the end, is a computer display. It'll only have "in-HMD advertising" if the game/application in question has it.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:42 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 6:49 am
Posts: 117
Reply with quote
I think people should have confidence in the product, not the people behind it, because people can be corrupted and bought off but, if the product has real power to change the world and a foundation of new tech can be build upon it, it will stand true.

Notch is kind of an idiot for not backing the hardware if he believed in it, if he did, I don't think he does. What was he waiting for to add support for it, after almost one year of usage, just excuses. He has some odd principle against Facebook, which is run by people but, he should have stayed loyal to Oculus Rift not Oculus, they can suck it. We're all just people but, not companies, they're a business looking for a profit.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:43 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
In reality, the only thing I see there being a 'social media a la Facebook' bleed-through is if they develop or help develop a VR Second Life like thing. Not my cup of tea, but hardly a bad thing for VR in general.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:43 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
Ryuuken24 wrote:
I think people should have confidence in the product, not the people behind it, because people can be corrupted and bought off but, if the product has real power to change the world and a foundation of new tech can be build upon it, it will stand true.

Notch is kind of an idiot for not backing the hardware if he believed in it, if he did, I don't think he does. What was he waiting for to add support for it, after almost one year of usage, just excuses. He has some odd principle against Facebook, which is run by people but, he should have stayed loyal to Oculus Rift not Oculus, they can suck it. We're all just people but, not companies, they're a business looking for a profit.



I think too many people put too much stock in Notch as some kind of prophet. To his credit, he's done lots of philanthropy and is probably a really cool guy. But he also backed the OUYA: Hardly a massive success story. The guy has one good game out(in Java....blech) and I do wish him continued success. But I hardly think he's be-all end-all of the next big thing.

And again, to his credit, based on what I've read of him, I doubt he'd think of himself as a prophet either.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:45 am
Profile
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:18 pm
Posts: 1329
Reply with quote
Facebook's bread and butter is obviously facebook.com, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any new project or company they acquire has to further that end. It's diversification, and it's probably wise for them in the long run. It's probably safe to think of it as similar to how XBox isn't used as a platform to serve Windows and Office. This VR thing might just end up being huge, so it could be quite a good investment, especially since it's still early to get their foot in the door for what amounts to be a drop in their bucket of cash.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:56 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
Tone wrote:
But the big question remains the same as it was on day one: what's the business model? I'm not saying there isn't one, but I've not seen anyone take pencil to paper and show numerically how a $2B+ valuation is justified. Some suggest FB will derive revenues from in-HMD advertising, but given the level of risk on this acquisition FB needs 20%+ ROI per year, $400m in added profit per year. That's something like 10m helmets, each producing $40 of advertising revenue (assuming zero costs... unlikely.)

The point is: for VR to have some sort of mass adoption it needs to be profitable in the long run. Don't know if I'm blind or not, but I'm not seeing it.


Short-term it's the same as Oculus had, sell VR goggles. In the long term, it's to start providing various ad-driven VR services. Due to the acquisition of Oculus, Facebook is now in a position where they can both provide the service, as well as the required hardware, while profiting from both. The services would be filled with your regular Facebook goodness, advertisement and datamining and what not, but as long as Facebook services isn't the only thing you can use your goggles for, I don't see a problem with that.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:57 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:44 am
Posts: 323
Location: Connecticut
Reply with quote
Facebook bought Oculus to try and salvage a demographic they are losing in droves. That is the bottom line.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:18 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
mayaman wrote:
Facebook bought Oculus to try and salvage a demographic they are losing in droves. That is the bottom line.


Facebook bought Oculus to make money, that's the bottom line.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:28 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
Great Ars Technica writeup:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/03/w ... ebook-era/


Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:36 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:27 am
Posts: 188
Location: Bavaria
Reply with quote
The money earns Palmer and his co funders only.

So the 2.3billion $ are NOT for developing a better rift or custom panels.
Palmers words are worthless now, because he is just another employee of Zuckerberg now.

Zuckerberg has to spend additional billions of dollars if he really wants to develop custom panels.

the oculus rift company has not more cash than before and the old 'boss' Palmer has not the last word regarding all important decisions.

so things are getting worse ...

i'm loving the rift the same way i'm hating FB - so what should i do now ???

best regards ...

_________________
best regards FR3D


Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:48 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
FR3D wrote:
The money earns Palmer and his co funders only.

So the 2.3billion $ are NOT for developing a better rift or custom panels.



[citation needed]

FR3D wrote:
Palmers words are worthless now, because he is just another employee of Zuckerberg now.

Zuckerberg has to spend additional billions of dollars if he really wants to develop custom panels.


[citation needed]

FR3D wrote:
the oculus rift company has not more cash than before and the old 'boss' Palmer has not the last word regarding all important decisions.

so things are getting worse ...


[citation needed]

FR3D wrote:
i'm loving the rift the same way i'm hating FB - so what should i do now ???

best regards ...


Nothing different whatsoever. Nothing's really changed, at least not yet and there is zero, and I mean zero, indication this will change anytime soon.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:59 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
Another good writeup at Polygon:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/26/554934 ... st-for-now


Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:59 am
Profile
Sharp Eyed Eagle!

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:12 am
Posts: 436
Location: UK
Reply with quote
Some great points in your first post, @realyst2k.

I'm looking to reserve judgement about this until we learn more of the details.

It can only really be a good thing for VR, as long as Facebook leave Oculus completely alone to get on with things as they originally intended.

I am wondering how they could possibly get their own "custom" LCD / OLED panels made though?
It would take FAR more than $2 Billion to start any sort of manufacturing, so I'm guessing it would be more a case of getting an existing panel manufacturer involved?

Think about the amazing optics and tracking they could now get made though. :o
The CV1 could give a real other-Worldly experience like nothing we've even seen before.

Not to mention VERY low-latency high-refresh 4K panels, and obviously a lot of AR stuff added.

That's where I think it's really headed, and that's what makes the most sense for Facebook - Augmented Reality.

They are basically looking to integrate the whole social media thing into AR, so that with their face recog stuff (face.com), it will then tag people in real-time.
Messaging will work similarly to Google Glass, the "goggles" will shrink right down, virtual cinema might take off, and all sorts of stuff is possible now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a FB shill by any means, and I'm still a bit disappointed by the buy-out.

I was hoping that Oculus would be able to go it alone for a LOT longer than this, and they seemed to be doing very well by themselves.
(especially with super-brains like Carmack on board.)

It would have made more sense if nVidia or someone similar had bought Oculus, but then I'm sure we'd still get plenty of outcry about it. lol

So there's a question - if nVidia or AMD could have fronted the cash to buy Oculus outright, would people still been quite so negative?

Remember, almost all of the initial tech advances in the World come from the military, including VR, so it could have been worse. :p

(well, if you're on the Internet at all, you're already being spied on by multiple entities, so I wouldn't loose sleep over the Facebook thing.)

OzOnE.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:17 pm
Profile
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:25 am
Posts: 790
Reply with quote
oh...yeah... NSA is watching me masturbating everyday..... :lol:


Last edited by colocolo on Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:23 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
OzOnE2k10 wrote:
Some great points in your first post, @realyst2k.

It can only really be a good thing for VR, as long as Facebook leave Oculus completely alone to get on with things as they originally intended.



Absolutely.

OzOnE2k10 wrote:
I am wondering how they could possibly get their own "custom" LCD / OLED panels made though?
It would take FAR more than $2 Billion to start any sort of manufacturing, so I'm guessing it would be more a case of getting an existing panel manufacturer involved?


Obviously, that was speculation(though Palmer did say something to that effect on Reddit as well). My take on it is they now have the 'credit' required to sign a deal with OLED manufacturers for long-term supply relationships. Something that would have been impossible with their previous situation. Again, pure speculation on my part/

OzOnE2k10 wrote:
Not to mention VERY low-latency high-refresh 4K panels, and obviously a lot of AR stuff added.


*drool*

OzOnE2k10 wrote:
That's where I think it's really headed, and that's what makes the most sense for Facebook - Augmented Reality.


Interesting thought, using VR development to further AR development. Would seem to be one of the likeliest crossovers with Facebook's existing products.

OzOnE2k10 wrote:
I was hoping that Oculus would be able to go it alone for a LOT longer than this, and they seemed to be doing very well by themselves.
(especially with super-brains like Carmack on board.)


I think that's where the initial gut-punch got me. It feels as if the 'experiment' of the plucky company which rose from Kickstarter resulted in "yet another large corporate buyout", though in retrospect, it likely wasn't realistic to believe otherwise given the ambitions.

OzOnE2k10 wrote:
Remember, almost all of the initial tech advances in the World come from the military, including VR, so it could have been worse. :p

(well, if you're on the Internet at all, you're already being spied on by multiple entities, so I wouldn't loose sleep over the Facebook thing.)

OzOnE.


[target acquired, missile dispatched] ;)


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:27 pm
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:27 am
Posts: 188
Location: Bavaria
Reply with quote
OzOnE2k10 wrote:

It would have made more sense if nVidia or someone similar had bought Oculus, but then I'm sure we'd still get plenty of outcry about it. lol

So there's a question - if nVidia or AMD could have fronted the cash to buy Oculus outright, would people still been quite so negative?

OzOnE.



OH yes , Intel, AMD or Nvidia would have been a great partners of oculus.

None of my friends (all german engeneers) use or like FB. So my guess is -"the less educated the more use of FB".
( but these people are not firm in computing or VR )

_________________
best regards FR3D


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:28 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:30 am
Posts: 40
Reply with quote
FR3D wrote:
The money earns Palmer and his co funders only.

So the 2.3billion $ are NOT for developing a better rift or custom panels.
Palmers words are worthless now, because he is just another employee of Zuckerberg now.
Zuckerberg has to spend additional billions of dollars if he really wants to develop custom panels.
Quote:
[citation needed]


Are you kidding? Iribe and Palmer will sure use this billions to buy custom panels for company they don't even own.

Quote:
FR3D wrote:
i'm loving the rift the same way i'm hating FB - so what should i do now ???

best regards ...
Nothing different whatsoever. Nothing's really changed, at least not yet and there is zero, and I mean zero, indication this will change anytime soon.

It's like when Westwood and Bioware was acquired by EA all over again.
Quote:
They will be just fine, guys! EA just owns them! They can keep developing independently otherwise!

Sure, sure.
Zuckerberg is not so stupid to turn the Rift into Facebook VR immediately. Wait two-three years. Noone will able to stop him.

Nice new account btw.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:31 pm
Profile
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:18 pm
Posts: 1329
Reply with quote
Time to make those super high res wafer-based CMOS micro LED displays ;)


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:32 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:44 am
Posts: 323
Location: Connecticut
Reply with quote
JonR wrote:
mayaman wrote:
Facebook bought Oculus to try and salvage a demographic they are losing in droves. That is the bottom line.


Facebook bought Oculus to make money, that's the bottom line.



LOL you just said what I said, or am I missing something. Trying to save their meat and potatos demographic would bring them money would it not? Its a fact that Oculus is losing teens and 20 somethings at a record pace, far greater than they are recruiting them.

Oculus is their try to get them back.

So basically you just verified what I said.

thanks


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:35 pm
Profile
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:25 am
Posts: 790
Reply with quote
By all means, if OVR manages to develop an eye tracking system for foveated rendering and CV1 in Brigade i would never mind if OVR now is named Oculus Facebook. :lol:


Last edited by colocolo on Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:36 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
ss248 wrote:
Are you kidding? Iribe and Palmer will sure use this billions to buy custom panels for company they don't even own.

It's like when Westwood and Bioware was acquired by EA all over again.

Sure, sure.
Zuckerberg is not so stupid to turn the Rift into Facebook VR immediately. Wait two-three years. Noone will able to stop him.

Nice new account btw.


Are you kidding? Facebook will surely invests 2 billion to buy a company, yet won't invest in panels to make their investment work.

It's like when Instagram and Whatsapp was acquired by Facebook all over again.

Zuckerberg is not so stupid as to think that you'd have to make the Rift locked down for it to work as a Facebook service device. There's no reason for him to, as a open device isn't mutually exclusive to a Facebook device. The opposite in fact.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:38 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
mayaman wrote:

LOL you just said what I said, or am I missing something. Trying to save their meat and potatos demographic would bring them money would it not? Its a fact that Oculus is losing teens and 20 somethings at a record pace, far greater than they are recruiting them.

Oculus is their try to get them back.

So basically you just verified what I said.

thanks


You're making a definitive statement on how they're going to make money, something we're in no position to do reliably. The assumption that Facebook will use the Rift to bolster their traditional Facebook model is a bit silly in my opinion, because the two aren't really compatible if you ask me. I'd wager that Facebook will use the Oculus to launch their own VR services, branching in to new territory. I don't see how they could use the Oculus to try to convince people that don't want to to use traditional Facebook.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:42 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:44 am
Posts: 323
Location: Connecticut
Reply with quote
JonR wrote:
mayaman wrote:

LOL you just said what I said, or am I missing something. Trying to save their meat and potatos demographic would bring them money would it not? Its a fact that Oculus is losing teens and 20 somethings at a record pace, far greater than they are recruiting them.

Oculus is their try to get them back.

So basically you just verified what I said.

thanks


You're making a statement on how they're going to make money, something we're in no position to do reliably. The assumption that Facebook will use the Rift to bolster their traditional Facebook model is a bit silly in my opinion, because the two aren't really compatible if you ask me. I'd wager that Facebook will use the Oculus to launch their own VR services, branching in to new territory. I don't see how they could use the Oculus to try to convince people that don't want to to use traditional Facebook.


Huh? Obviously they are going to go in a different direction than traditional facebook format, its a VR headset. I thought people here had common sense enough to put 2+2 together.

Facebook will destroy Oculus. It will be molded and formed into a vehicle to distribute ads, track users for advertising purposes and to collect data. That is what Facebook does and that is their only stream of revenue. You think they bought Oculus to create compelling entertainment? Why would they do that? That costs money, money they have already outlayed in order to obtain this technology.

They will mold Oculus into a vehicle to do what facebook does now, just in a shiny new wrapper. you can kiss the dreams of the Rift being what it was. Thats gone.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:46 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
ss248 wrote:
Are you kidding? Iribe and Palmer will sure use this billions to buy custom panels for company they don't even own.


Aside from your bile-spewing, please address my [citation needed] with a citation rather than just more "They'll do this because I KNOW they will! Praise my precognition!"


ss248 wrote:
It's like when Westwood and Bioware was acquired by EA all over again.


Yeah, except this is a software company buying an unrelated hardware company as opposed to a competing game company buying their competition...and that the medium is different(games vs hardware/software)...Exactly like it, except nothing like it except the words "acquired" and the use of "software".

ss248 wrote:
Zuckerberg is not so stupid to turn the Rift into Facebook VR immediately. Wait two-three years. Noone will able to stop him.


a) So what? By then we'll have a VR headset.
b) How does one turn what is effectively a computer monitor into Facebook-the-page? Seriously, people are saying this everywhere. Exactly how on Earth is this supposed to work, pray tel?

ss248 wrote:
Nice new account btw.


I have about 50 posts and started the account shortly after backing the Rift on Kickstarter. I'm neither a senior nor do I post that often(and leave large gaps) but if you're implying I'm a shill or something, I'm a rather precognitive one, aren't I? Grow up.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:47 pm
Profile
Sharp Eyed Eagle!

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:12 am
Posts: 436
Location: UK
Reply with quote
That write-up on Polygon was very good too btw.

It outlines the fact that people initially started raving about the iPod / iPhone / iPad, and anything else that had a half-eaten Apple on the back.
And then when Google wanted to get into the mobile OS market, many people were sceptical. Now they hold a massive market share, and are very popular.

Personally I don't like Apple as a company, and my only phone for about 18 months was an iPhone 3, so I'm not completely ignorant of their products.
It's more about a company's ethics and past form, and the way they try to force more purchases of Apps and tie you into only THEIR music store or whatever.

I never wanted to use Facebook for many years until I discovered some great retro computing groups on there about two years ago.
Now I check for Facebook updates almost every day, and have made some great friends on there who I hope to meet up with for a beer soon.

The recent "poor choices" of Google when it comes to YouTube have made me wary too, but that kind of panned out OK in the end (kind of).

So, the Polygon article put it well when it said not to be too negative about a buy-out by a large corporation this early on.

While the Facebook acquisition may not make complete sense yet, remember that Google started off as just another search engine (back when Altavista, DogPile, Ask Jeeves, Yahoo were still popular. hehe).

Now Google IS search for a large majority of PC and mobile users around the World.
I certainly still set my browser home page to Google, and I've been using Chrome exclusively for about a year now.

The future of this investment could be amazing, and the face recognition buy-out does suggest a lot of AR stuff on the horizon.

Let's pray that Zuckerberg (and his "heavies") don't squash our VR dreams by forcing adverts or by stopping Oculus doing what they do best - ie. creating kick-ass hardware and software solutions that will continue to amaze anyone who tries them.

I now wonder what the VR devs, and the big game companies who invested into Oculus are thinking now?

Here are a few opinions, and they seem mostly positive so far...
http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/25/554758 ... s-reaction


Facebook / Oculus on CNN right now. This is weird. lol

OzOnE.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:52 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
mayaman wrote:
Facebook will destroy Oculus. It will be molded and formed into a vehicle to distribute ads, track users for advertising purposes and to collect data.


[citation needed]

mayaman wrote:
That is what Facebook does and that is their only stream of revenue. You think they bought Oculus to create compelling entertainment? Why would they do that?


You're predicting the future based on an assumption of behaviour which would be rather stupid. I don't like Zuck much either, but give him some credit. If Facebook's ONLY income is from a source most predictions and trends are predicting will be harder to maintain in the future, isn't it far more likely acquisitions such as this are aimed at diversifying the portfolio? But fine, obviously, like a cartoon villain, a company can only do one thing ever for it's entire lifespan. It's why Nokia is still making rubber boots and IBM wooden calculator boxes.

mayaman wrote:
That costs money, money they have already outlayed in order to obtain this technology.
[...]
They will mold Oculus into a vehicle to do what facebook does now, just in a shiny new wrapper. you can kiss the dreams of the Rift being what it was. Thats gone.


Wouldn't shoehorning the Rift into something it obviously isn't cost even more money?


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:53 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
Currently enjoying my Nintendo playing cards.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:55 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:44 am
Posts: 323
Location: Connecticut
Reply with quote
realyst, you should be more like your name. No one is saying they're a cartoon villain, but precedence speaks VOLUMES! Precedence of such acquisitions and mergers usually end up with a empty husk of the purchased company, picked at like vultures on the plains of Africa. Or, the end product neutured to serve its new masters.

Thinking otherwise to me is not very "realystic"


Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:56 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
mayaman wrote:
realyst, you should be more like your name. No one is saying they're a cartoon villain, but precedence speaks VOLUMES! Precedence of such acquisitions and mergers usually end up with a empty husk of the purchased company, picked at like vultures on the plains of Africa. Or, the end product neutured to serve its new masters.

Thinking otherwise to me is not very "realystic"



Note my liberal use of [citation needed]. We have zero precedence of a gigantic social networking company buying a virtual reality startup. "Acquisitions" is one heck of a large umbrella with which to extrapolate future trends.

Seriously, find me one relevant example of this happening that has more in common than "I've seen a company buyout destroying a smaller company." I've seen people hit by cars. Not every car is destined to hit a pedestrian.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:00 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 69
Reply with quote
And again, I may be totally off base in my optimism. The future may indeed be grim. Fact is, however, we don't know this yet.

We have to see how this plays out before we declare absolutes in what is an unprecedented buyout.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:02 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
mayaman wrote:
realyst, you should be more like your name. No one is saying they're a cartoon villain, but precedence speaks VOLUMES! Precedence of such acquisitions and mergers usually end up with a empty husk of the purchased company, picked at like vultures on the plains of Africa. Or, the end product neutured to serve its new masters.

Thinking otherwise to me is not very "realystic"


The precedence in the case of Facebook is Instagram and Whatsapp. Where are their empty husks or neutered products?


Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:04 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:44 am
Posts: 323
Location: Connecticut
Reply with quote
Hope you're right realyst, really do. But I've been in business now in corporate America for 25 years. I've been a part of 5 mergers or acquisitions and every time, the company that was bought was gutted to suit the needs of the purchasing company. Now my industry is not gaming, but the model still applies.

We'll see, I'm not optimistic.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:06 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:30 am
Posts: 40
Reply with quote
realyst2k wrote:
I have about 50 posts and started the account shortly after backing the Rift on Kickstarter. I'm neither a senior nor do I post that often(and leave large gaps) but if you're implying I'm a shill or something, I'm a rather precognitive one, aren't I? Grow up.

Joined: Mar 26, 2013
Today: Mar 26, 2014
My bad.
Nice "shortly after" (7 months +) then.

I see people keep bringing up Instagram and Whatsapp.
The difference is that facebook bought them for userbase. And that was not so long ago, they don't have time to screw good-working project yet.
But data mining already in place and ads coming to instagram pretty soon.
Facebook bought Oculus not for userbase.

There are two points of view going around when someone is telling people not to freak out
Quote:
It's not possible to use the Oculus Rift for Ad/Spying purposes

You're fool.
Quote:
I trust Facebook not to use the Oculus Rift for Ad/Spying purposes

You're FOOL.

I'm tired of this bullsh*t already. I'm out.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:13 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:44 am
Posts: 323
Location: Connecticut
Reply with quote
ss248 wrote:
realyst2k wrote:
I have about 50 posts and started the account shortly after backing the Rift on Kickstarter. I'm neither a senior nor do I post that often(and leave large gaps) but if you're implying I'm a shill or something, I'm a rather precognitive one, aren't I? Grow up.

Joined: Mar 26, 2013
Today: Mar 26, 2014
My bad.
Nice "shortly after" (7 months +) then.

I see people keep bringing up Instagram and Whatsapp.
The difference is that facebook bought them for userbase. And that was not so long ago, they don't have time to screw good-working project yet.
But data mining already in place and ads coming to instagram pretty soon.
Facebook bought Oculus not for userbase.

There are two points of view going around when someone is telling people not to freak out
Quote:
It's not possible to use the Oculus Rift for Ad/Spying purposes

You're fool.
Quote:
I trust Facebook not to use the Oculus Rift for Ad/Spying purposes

You're FOOL.

I'm tired of this bullsh*t already. I'm out.


ding ding ding

Bingo on the not enough time to screw things up.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:17 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:13 am
Posts: 42
Location: USA
Reply with quote
A bit of dissonance: The acquisition PR leads one to believe that the Zuck deal came out of the blue in the last couple of weeks. Somehow doesn't ring true when you realize that one of the major VC investors, Marc Andreessen, also sits on the board of directors of Facebook. Gets a bit incestuous when Marc A snags a big chunk of Mark Z's $2B. This also seems to clarify just why Marc A put $75m into Oculus. Did the Facebook deal really come out of thin air?

_________________
VRtifacts.com


Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:18 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.