It is currently Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:59 pm



Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ] 
 The other side of the coin. 
Author Message
Certif-Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 689
Location: Ahmedabad//INDIA
Reply with quote
Found an interesting article on USA TODAY.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014 ... e/6915611/
Quote:
On a conference call following the deal's announcement, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg implied that the device — dreamed up by Oculus founder Palmer Luckey specifically with gaming in mind — would allow his social networking company to vault users into a new realm of human connectivity.

So real agenda can be make the rift popular with its first use - Gaming, and then when many people do adopt it start VR-FACEBOOK.
Quote:
Just how that might work not only remains to be seen, but also is subject to Oculus Rift goggles becoming less bulky and more sophisticated. In fact, for some tech observers Facebook's acquisition was all about keeping Google out of the virtual reality picture – perhaps at a cost, at least initially: after weeks of gains, Facebook shares slumped Wednesday 7% to $60.39.

"The subtext here is the epic battle playing out now between Facebook and Google,".


This is impressive if is goal from facebook side
->Making rift goggles less bulky and more sophisticated
The objective can be
->keeping Google out of the virtual reality picture
And the reason is
->The epic battle playing out now between Facebook and Google

Quote:
Silicon Valley tech forecaster Paul Saffo says he was shocked that it wasn't Google buying Oculus, or for that matter "one of the big consumer tech companies, such as Sony, which has already demonstrated its interest in this area with the (Oculus competitor) Morpheus glasses."
Saffo says he can see how Facebook could incorporate virtual reality into its current social media experience "if they go the route of Second Life," an avatar-based world where players can trade and buy virtual goods and services. "Facebook right now is a one-dimensional experience, and they could use Rift to made it 3-D."

May be VR iteration of social interaction is ultimate goal then there is nothing much to fear from gamer point of view. If you don't like social app don't use it. Provided that they don't put compulsion to use it. which ever happen would be worst thing to happen.

Here, I think Palmer has chosen lesser evil among all. I also tend to some how little believe in theory that oculus could have gone out of funds which were of kick-starter and venture capitalists may be forcing them for some kind of recovery plan for their invested sums. As he did not choose to release half completed product only way out of this situation could be choosing single overlord who may have some long term vision.

Why Facebook? My theory is....

1) Sony and Microsoft both have Console and ‘Wet Console Dreams’ they have tendency to lockdown the things to their hardware which in end would make rift console exclusive toy.

2) Nvidia is going in same direction with their "Not to be mentioned as" failure SHIELD so its automatically gets out of equation for same reasons.

3) Face book has lots of cash and decaying teen to 30 user base. has thirst for acquisitions. has some what long term agenda for rift which is not directly interfering goal of Great VR Product primarily Targeting Game and Entertainment industry and has lots of potential from Media and Communication perspective too. So palmer sold media and social perspective to salvages his VR Device as independent platform for great gaming experience dream is what evident on primafacy.

Let's see how future unfolds in front of us. Hope it to bring Amusement and not Social Terror Strom.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:31 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:44 am
Posts: 323
Location: Connecticut
Reply with quote
He was definitely pressured by the VCs to recoup monies put in.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:24 am
Profile
Sharp Eyed Eagle!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:22 am
Posts: 450
Location: UK
Reply with quote
mayaman wrote:
He was definitely pressured by the VCs to recoup monies put in.



I assume he sent you an email to that end then?


Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:46 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:44 am
Posts: 323
Location: Connecticut
Reply with quote
He doesn't have to, if it works like any other company that deals with VCs this was definitely part of the reason. In my industry we deal with VCs all the time and we have VCs are part of our corporate structure. It's also the reason why one of the shareholders of Facebook was one of the main VCs. This isn't rocket science, it pretty much explains itself.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:55 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
mayaman wrote:
He doesn't have to, if it works like any other company that deals with VCs this was definitely part of the reason. In my industry we deal with VCs all the time and we have VCs are part of our corporate structure. It's also the reason why one of the shareholders of Facebook was one of the main VCs. This isn't rocket science, it pretty much explains itself.


I'm curious, have you said anything in regards to this that isn't based purely on your assumption? Your whole line of argument seems to stem from your supposed poor work-place experience.


Last edited by JonR on Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:03 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:44 am
Posts: 323
Location: Connecticut
Reply with quote
Well you should be fair, this entire situation, including your positive angle, that Facebook won't muck this up is assumption now isn't it?

I'm speaking strictly from a common sense standpoint and how these situations usually work.

None of this is gospel but neither is your and others assumption that this will turn out well for gamers. So this being a forum for discussion, its the duty of all its members to present both positive and negative veiwpoints depending on what they know about the subject matter.

I try and base anything I say on precedence, common sense, and gut feeling. Its worked out pretty well for me for 45 years, so I'll just keep doing that.

To me, while the cash infusion is fantastic for Oculus, *there is no arguing that*, the partnering with Facebook will ultimately be bad for them, their image, and gamers in general.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:08 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
mayaman wrote:
Well you should be fair, this entire situation, including your positive angle, that Facebook won't muck this up is assumption now isn't it?

I'm speaking strictly from a common sense standpoint and how these situations usually work.

None of this is gospel but neither is your and others assumption that this will turn out well for gamers. So this being a forum for discussion, its the duty of all its members to present both positive and negative veiwpoints depending on what they know about the subject matter.

I try and base anything I say on precedence, common sense, and gut feeling. Its worked out pretty well for me for 45 years, so I'll just keep doing that.

To me, while the cash infusion is fantastic for Oculus, *there is no arguing that*, the partnering with Facebook will ultimately be bad for them, their image, and gamers in general.


The difference being that my "positive" angle is not to make conclusions as to the consequences of the buy-out before more is known, while yours is to conclude that it is bad. My only assumption is that there is no reason why it will have to turn out bad, nor no overwhelming evidence to support that that will happen. Your "common sense" is coming dangerously close to the bare assertion fallacy. "There is no arguing" indeed...


Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:14 am
Profile
Sharp Eyed Eagle!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:22 am
Posts: 450
Location: UK
Reply with quote
mayaman wrote:
..... the partnering with Facebook will ultimately be bad for them, their image, and gamers in general.


.... and you base that on what? Hard facts or just your dislike of Facebook?

You may well be able to come back in a few years and say 'told you so' but in the meantime we're going to get something that exceeds our and Palmer's wildest dreams when he was tinkering in his garage a few years back.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:23 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:44 am
Posts: 323
Location: Connecticut
Reply with quote
"BAD" is relative. What is bad to me, might be OK for you. Only you can decide that. To me, "bad" means the device will deviate from its original intention, at least partly, which to me is sad.

My "assumptions" are my opinion. They are however based on over two decades of working on Wall Street and seeing countless mergers, aquisitions and buyouts.

Hopefully this will be different, but again, I'm not optimistic. And to all on MTBS, I sincerely apologize if you're taking my posts as attacks, they are not. This is a situation which I take no great pleasure in debating. My ire is not pointed at anyone here. Just the situation at hand has be concerned as a long time gamer and VR enthusiast. I have owned every VR headset going back to 1990 and I am concerned my last true hope for VR before I become to old to enjoy it was smashed with this deal.

I hope beyond hope that I'm wrong. But the pessimist in me is skeptical.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:31 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
mayaman wrote:
"BAD" is relative. What is bad to me, might be OK for you. Only you can decide that. To me, "bad" means the device will deviate from its original intention, at least partly, which to me is sad.

My "assumptions" are my opinion. They are however based on over two decades of working on Wall Street and seeing countless mergers, aquisitions and buyouts.

Hopefully this will be different, but again, I'm not optimistic. And to all on MTBS, I sincerely apologize if you're taking my posts as attacks, they are not. This is a situation which I take no great pleasure in debating. My ire is not pointed at anyone here. Just the situation at hand has be concerned as a long time gamer and VR enthusiast. I have owned every VR headset going back to 1990 and I am concerned my last true hope for VR before I become to old to enjoy it was smashed with this deal.

I hope beyond hope that I'm wrong. But the pessimist in me is skeptical.


Maybe the hardware will deviate, maybe it won't. Personally, I couldn't tell you how a good "social" VR headset would differ from a good gaming VR headset. I maybe in for a rude awaking. Time will tell.

Just to be clear, I've got nothing against anyone being skeptical or not liking the outlook of this acquisition. What irks me is when people claim in certain terms that the products that will be produced by Oculus are going to be worse than what they would've been. That's just not a statement that anyone can make at this point in time.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:36 am
Profile
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:25 am
Posts: 790
Reply with quote
I dont like FB too....haha...as i made overwhelmingly clear..... But see....it is only a win participation...
OVR can proceed as normal....So see it as sth positive that a future tech gets the money from the enemy....
Its only money....governments all over the world are distributing the billions like hot cookies.....
Money is only adjustment paper in the end....nothing more....They dont do the work....its the folks at OVR....not some crazy stock market monkeys....they are only catching the income of others....
Just let the truth be unveiled....


Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:38 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:44 am
Posts: 323
Location: Connecticut
Reply with quote
John I think that very few are worried about the hardware, if any. We're more worried about policy, procedures, and consequences of this merger. I'm betting that is where most of the ire is being drawn from. I know that is where mine is being drawn from. I have said that as far as development of the hardware, this is all aces. But from a social, ethical, and direction of mission statement? I don't think that will be so favorable, but we'll see. I lean toward the negative side, which is funny since I"m an optimist.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:41 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
mayaman wrote:
John I think that very few are worried about the hardware, if any. We're more worried about policy, procedures, and consequences of this merger. I'm betting that is where most of the ire is being drawn from. I know that is where mine is being drawn from. I have said that as far as development of the hardware, this is all aces. But from a social, ethical, and direction of mission statement? I don't think that will be so favorable, but we'll see. I lean toward the negative side, which is funny since I"m an optimist.


I hear you. And there's little doubt in my mind that there won't be Facebook VR services in the future, and that they'll be advertisement driven and that they'll use any info you provide them to make profit off of. But as long as the Oculus Rift isn't locked down to those services, I don't care. Because I'm certain that the moment VR becomes popular those services would've popped up anyway. It doesn't matter who makes the hardware, the only thing that matters is that there is popular hardware out there that supports said services. Just like Facebook came as a natural consequence of the internet developing, or Candy Crush came from the mobile space developing. There will always be poop on any platform that allows it. What owning Oculus does is give Facebook an leg up in providing VR services, because they know exactly how the hardware will look, and when it will be available. A bit like how making their own phones helped Apple get a leg up in the smartphone race.

I just don't see why Facebook would need to force people in to using their VR services, just like Facebook doesn't need to force people to use, well, Facebook. Creating compelling services through which people voluntarely give Facebook all the information they need is what Facebook does, after all.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:54 am
Profile
Certif-Eyed!

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:10 pm
Posts: 645
Reply with quote
JonR wrote:
I hear you. And there's little doubt in my mind that there won't be Facebook VR services in the future, and that they'll be advertisement driven and that they'll use any info you provide them to make profit off of. But as long as the Oculus Rift isn't locked down to those services, I don't care. Because I'm certain that the moment VR becomes popular those services would've popped up anyway. It doesn't matter who makes the hardware, the only thing that matters is that there is popular hardware out there that supports said services. Just like Facebook came as a natural consequence of the internet developing, or Candy Crush came from the mobile space developing. There will always be poop on any platform that allows it. What owning Oculus does is give Facebook an leg up in providing VR services, because they know exactly how the hardware will look, and when it will be available. A bit like how making their own phones helped Apple get a leg up in the smartphone race.

I just don't see why Facebook would need to force people in to using their VR services, just like Facebook doesn't need to force people to use, well, Facebook. Creating compelling services through which people voluntarely give Facebook all the information they need is what Facebook does, after all.

I agree completely. This is what a sane, balance take on the issue looks like.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:40 am
Profile
Sharp Eyed Eagle!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:22 am
Posts: 450
Location: UK
Reply with quote
Mystify wrote:
JonR wrote:
I hear you. And there's little doubt in my mind that there won't be Facebook VR services in the future, and that they'll be advertisement driven and that they'll use any info you provide them to make profit off of. But as long as the Oculus Rift isn't locked down to those services, I don't care. Because I'm certain that the moment VR becomes popular those services would've popped up anyway. It doesn't matter who makes the hardware, the only thing that matters is that there is popular hardware out there that supports said services. Just like Facebook came as a natural consequence of the internet developing, or Candy Crush came from the mobile space developing. There will always be poop on any platform that allows it. What owning Oculus does is give Facebook an leg up in providing VR services, because they know exactly how the hardware will look, and when it will be available. A bit like how making their own phones helped Apple get a leg up in the smartphone race.

I just don't see why Facebook would need to force people in to using their VR services, just like Facebook doesn't need to force people to use, well, Facebook. Creating compelling services through which people voluntarely give Facebook all the information they need is what Facebook does, after all.

I agree completely. This is what a sane, balance take on the issue looks like.


I completely agree.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:55 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:32 pm
Posts: 4
Reply with quote
I don't know why people are so upset. OC Rift made all our VR dreams come true. We will have great VR headset in the market soon. Huge company, like FB, will make best possible marketing, news of acquisition alone made more people hear about VR headsets than all the previous news and articles about OC Rift, an we will have best hardware at lowest price. All that means great launch for VR, even if FB do something extremely stupid, like make closed system, soon we will have competition(we already have Sony, ). Like many of you, I am emotionally attached to Oculus name and guys behind it, but whit this deal they are well rewarded for what they did for VR community, and now all that is important is VR. We all wanted great VR headset and VR back on the main scene and now we have that. Remember how it was 3 years ago, best thing was Sony hmz and only rare nerds talked about VR.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:06 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:12 pm
Posts: 171
Reply with quote
V8Griff wrote:
Mystify wrote:
JonR wrote:
I hear you. And there's little doubt in my mind that there won't be Facebook VR services in the future, and that they'll be advertisement driven and that they'll use any info you provide them to make profit off of. But as long as the Oculus Rift isn't locked down to those services, I don't care. Because I'm certain that the moment VR becomes popular those services would've popped up anyway. It doesn't matter who makes the hardware, the only thing that matters is that there is popular hardware out there that supports said services. Just like Facebook came as a natural consequence of the internet developing, or Candy Crush came from the mobile space developing. There will always be poop on any platform that allows it. What owning Oculus does is give Facebook an leg up in providing VR services, because they know exactly how the hardware will look, and when it will be available. A bit like how making their own phones helped Apple get a leg up in the smartphone race.

I just don't see why Facebook would need to force people in to using their VR services, just like Facebook doesn't need to force people to use, well, Facebook. Creating compelling services through which people voluntarely give Facebook all the information they need is what Facebook does, after all.

I agree completely. This is what a sane, balance take on the issue looks like.


I completely agree.


I think everything you said is accurate, but deeply and wildly idealistic, with a bit of "I've got mine, Jack." thrown in, based on your definition of voluntary. To me it's more of a tacit consent, which is the worst kind of consent. Just because we still have Myspace doesn't mean Facebook isn't 100% successful in owning social media. It is everywhere, it is constant, it has the active userbase especially since it has taken over mobile. Which is fine for social media, which doesn't have any real expectations to begin with, Facebook does an annoying yet adequate service with constant intrusion and limited user rights. But for VR we had a different dream, bottom up, user driven freedom of content, the stuff our weirdo cyberpunk book heroes fought for. And apparently 99% of it's users are fine with that, so they are free to carry on. It's not a matter of force in the geopolitical technolibertarian way we tend to think of it, it's a matter of what culture accepts as norm. Compare how people use PC's to what the ideal PC could have been. Compare how Apple users see their limited control of their own computer as the completely fine and justifiable norm, or for that matter the Apple fever Windows 8 is having to compete with that more closed OS norm that Apple has the great market share of. And Linux, despite being the closest to the ideal for computing acts as if it pays people not to use it. Windows and Apple don't force the inability to use Linux, but their service with their severe problems has the mindshare and "isn't bad enough" for the majority of people people to switch.

So, if Facebook is functional, as we expect it to be, is the default content provider, communication provider, potentially even OS driver as it was on the Facebook Phone, there is little reason for them to lose that 99% mindshare they have on PC and on Mobile, meaning they have control of VR users despite not explicitly forcing them to use it. "It just works". But we all know there are enough flaws that we would like to keep Facebook from being the default, and we had a chance to build something better before Facebook tried their hand at VR, and I guess that time is up. I look forward to alternatives, as I am more supportive of Twitter with it's limited reach, simple interface, less mucking about in my actual social life, etc. and so are some of my friends, however I'm one of my only friends to abandon Facebook completely, because being social, that meant abandoning conversation with a large number of people (I still call them, they're still friends, just not Facebook friends).

The concern here is simple that you guys are writing off as "we'll always have alternatives". I've always wanted a tablet laptop, something with the function of a laptop and the screen of a tablet. Some companies have come close, and it was looking like that day would come. Then Apple made the iPad, which was a smartphone with touch sensors. This effectively killed the market for a tablet laptop as it could have been. I bought a failing HP laptop for $300 instead of the ubiquitously popular iPad because I'd rather support the thing that works than the thing that's big. In that case HP doesn't make a good product either, so I was out of luck. So unless there is competing Metaverse software in function and userbase that (still doubtful on this) would be able to run on Facebook Presents Oculus Rift, although we aren't forced to use Facebook, it will be the only Metaverse for a while that AAA content is developed for, that people use, and that lives on as more than something than Linux.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:23 am
Profile WWW
Certif-Eyed!

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:10 pm
Posts: 645
Reply with quote
Facebook owning the metaverse is entirely separate from facebook owning the rift. Whether or not they own occulus, they would still be ble to make their own VR experience, and exert their market power to get people dependent on it. What them owning occulus does is allow them to push VR as a whole to make it successful, which would in turn allow their application to be successful, rather than hoping occulus is able to create a market by itself.
So, of the two scenarios:
A. Occulus is independent, Facebook creates software for it
B. Occulus is owned by Facebook, Facebook creates software for it

The major difference, at least initially, is that facebook is able to promote the rift and actively work on creating a VR market. Long term, their control over the hardware may be pushed to make something more controlling.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:35 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

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

I think everything you said is accurate, but deeply and wildly idealistic, with a bit of "I've got mine, Jack." thrown in, based on your definition of voluntary. To me it's more of a tacit consent, which is the worst kind of consent. Just because we still have Myspace doesn't mean Facebook isn't 100% successful in owning social media. It is everywhere, it is constant, it has the active userbase especially since it has taken over mobile. Which is fine for social media, which doesn't have any real expectations to begin with, Facebook does an annoying yet adequate service with constant intrusion and limited user rights. But for VR we had a different dream, bottom up, user driven freedom of content, the stuff our weirdo cyberpunk book heroes fought for. And apparently 99% of it's users are fine with that, so they are free to carry on. It's not a matter of force in the geopolitical technolibertarian way we tend to think of it, it's a matter of what culture accepts as norm. Compare how people use PC's to what the ideal PC could have been. Compare how Apple users see their limited control of their own computer as the completely fine and justifiable norm, or for that matter the Apple fever Windows 8 is having to compete with that more closed OS norm that Apple has the great market share of. And Linux, despite being the closest to the ideal for computing acts as if it pays people not to use it. Windows and Apple don't force the inability to use Linux, but their service with their severe problems has the mindshare and "isn't bad enough" for the majority of people people to switch.

So, if Facebook is functional, as we expect it to be, is the default content provider, communication provider, potentially even OS driver as it was on the Facebook Phone, there is little reason for them to lose that 99% mindshare they have on PC and on Mobile, meaning they have control of VR users despite not explicitly forcing them to use it. "It just works". But we all know there are enough flaws that we would like to keep Facebook from being the default, and we had a chance to build something better before Facebook tried their hand at VR, and I guess that time is up. I look forward to alternatives, as I am more supportive of Twitter with it's limited reach, simple interface, less mucking about in my actual social life, etc. and so are some of my friends, however I'm one of my only friends to abandon Facebook completely, because being social, that meant abandoning conversation with a large number of people (I still call them, they're still friends, just not Facebook friends).

The concern here is simple that you guys are writing off as "we'll always have alternatives". I've always wanted a tablet laptop, something with the function of a laptop and the screen of a tablet. Some companies have come close, and it was looking like that day would come. Then Apple made the iPad, which was a smartphone with touch sensors. This effectively killed the market for a tablet laptop as it could have been. I bought a failing HP laptop for $300 instead of the ubiquitously popular iPad because I'd rather support the thing that works than the thing that's big. In that case HP doesn't make a good product either, so I was out of luck. So unless there is competing Metaverse software in function and userbase that (still doubtful on this) would be able to run on Facebook Presents Oculus Rift, although we aren't forced to use Facebook, it will be the only Metaverse for a while that AAA content is developed for, that people use, and that lives on as more than something than Linux.


What I'm saying isn't that I'm fine with Facebook owning Oculus as long as there are other manufacturers making their VR headsets. I'm saying that I'm fine with Facebook owning Oculus as long as they don't lock down the Oculus Rift to just Facebook services, and that I don't see how it would be beneficial for Facebook to limit the Rift to only Facebook services. So to lend your analogy, I'm fine with Apple laptops as long as I can run any OS I want on them.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:36 am
Profile
Sharp Eyed Eagle!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:22 am
Posts: 450
Location: UK
Reply with quote
JonR wrote:
What I'm saying isn't that I'm fine with Facebook owning Oculus as long as there are other manufacturers making their VR headsets. I'm saying that I'm fine with Facebook owning Oculus as long as they don't lock down the Oculus Rift to just Facebook services, and that I don't see how it would be beneficial for Facebook to limit the Rift to only Facebook services. So to lend your analogy, I'm fine with Apple laptops as long as I can run any OS I want on them.


I agree, I really don't see a 'lock-in' to Facebook happening, the market for VR is so much bigger than just Facebook services, even the one's they and we haven't thought of yet.

As an aside Sony isn't an option either as they're going the Apple route, unless of course they build a PC variant as well as their Morpheus PS4 restricted HMD (Assuming they actually release it to retail)


Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:43 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:12 pm
Posts: 171
Reply with quote
The PC isn't locked down to Google Chrome, Google Chrome isn't locked down to Facebook, but I'm saying it doesn't matter, right? They still were voted in by our oh-so-intelligent public as the way the majority of people will use the internet. There is no forcing, but it is also very very little alternative.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:45 am
Profile WWW
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
V8Griff wrote:

I agree, I really don't see a 'lock-in' to Facebook happening, the market for VR is so much bigger than just Facebook services, even the one's they and we haven't thought of yet.

As an aside Sony isn't an option either as they're going the Apple route, unless of course they build a PC variant as well as their Morpheus PS4 restricted HMD (Assuming they actually release it to retail)


And even if they did, having to keep their HMD PS4 compliant would severely gimp it compared to where Oculus have said that they want to get. I don't see Sony releasing a PC HMD that would be technically superior to their PS4 one.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:48 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
unsilentwill wrote:
The PC isn't locked down to Google Chrome, Google Chrome isn't locked down to Facebook, but I'm saying it doesn't matter, right? They still were voted in by our oh-so-intelligent public as the way the majority of people will use the internet. There is no forcing, but it is also very very little alternative.


I don't see the problem here. If the majority wants to use Facebook, let them. If the majority want to use Facebook VR services, let them. As long as I'm not forced to, I don't mind. And it didn't take Facebook making their own laptops for everyone to use Facebook, so who's to say that it would require Facebook made HMDs for everyone to use Facebook VR services? Facebook would've entered the market either way. I don't see how an independent Oculus would've changed that, unless they would've specifically barred Facebook from using their device, which flies in the face of their wish to be open. The one thing that owning Oculus lets Facebook do is get in on the ground floor. That, and to profit for other aspects of VR outside of social services.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:52 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:12 pm
Posts: 171
Reply with quote
The problem is this weird nerdy split timeline theory I've been trying to deal with. Oculus going at it on their own could have been successful, not Facebook successful, maybe not even Wii U successful, but VR would still be real, it'd still work, and in my naive view it would have a fighting chance to become mainstream in the long term because of the experience itself and the content with it. In this timeline, Facebook VR may have been built years down the line after seeing the success of more functional (open, non invasion) social VR applications (not APPS). At that point it'd be clear which one for the majority of the VR enthusiast users to use and welcome new Rift owners to. There would be a chance to fight Facebook and make something better for the Metaverse. This is the timeline that Nate Mitchel recently called impossible, and in my view the timeline most if not all of current Oculus fans believed in.

The other timeline is what just happened, where Facebook has a big combat boot in the door and is ready to build it's infrastructure Day One, get the masses on board, have the admittedly functional and borderline interesting experience that we expect from social VR. The masses will adopt it, and although we will have alternatives, they don't stand a fighting chance. That's the problem. We had a chance to have the good thing, the ideal thing. It was a small chance, and a difficult chance, but it was there. Now it's a complete shot in the dark to make VR Chat or something like that, why bother when everyone's going to Facebook? Obviously we should till try and will try to make something better, like Linux does, but it's not the best outlook.

In the first one, we the users can educate new users the right way to build this software, in the second one a giant company tells us how it is, and we have to slowly rebel to avoid the insane grip that Facebook currently has on the internet.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:00 am
Profile WWW
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
unsilentwill wrote:
The problem is this weird nerdy split timeline theory I've been trying to deal with. Oculus going at it on their own could have been successful, not Facebook success, maybe not even Wii U successful, but VR would still be real, it'd still work, and in my naive view it would have a fighting chance to become mainstream in the long term because of the experience itself and the content with it. In this timeline, Facebook VR may have been built years down the line after seeing the success of more functional (open, non invasion) social VR applications (not APS). At that point it'd be clear which one for the majority of the VR enthusiast users to use and welcome new Rift owners to. There would be a chance to fight Facebook and make something better for the Metaverse. This is the timeline that Nate Mitchel recently called impossible, and in my view the timeline most if not all of current Oculus fans believed in.

The other timeline is what just happened, where Facebook has a big combat boot in the door and is ready to build it's infrastructure Day One, get the masses on board, have the admittedly functional and borderline interesting experience that we expect from social VR. The masses will adopt it, and although we will have alternatives, they don't stand a fighting chance. That's the problem. We had a chance to have the good thing, the ideal thing. It was a small chance, and a difficult chance, but it was there. Now it's a complete shot in the dark to make VR Chat or something like that, why bother when everyone's going to Facebook? Obviously we should till try and will try to make something better, like Linux does, but it's not the best outlook.

In the first one, we the users can educate new users the right way to build this software, in the second one a giant company tells us how it is, and we have to slowly rebel to avoid the insane grip that Facebook currently has on the internet.


The WWW was created in what, 1990? That was almost 2.5 decades before Facebook saw the light of day. I also think that you're overestimating just how much pull Facebook can have in the VR space. Facebook is the one big social site because social sites are natural monopolies. The network effect means that the big one will keep getting bigger.


Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:07 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:53 pm
Posts: 54
Reply with quote
JonR wrote:
unsilentwill wrote:
The problem is this weird nerdy split timeline theory I've been trying to deal with. Oculus going at it on their own could have been successful, not Facebook success, maybe not even Wii U successful, but VR would still be real, it'd still work, and in my naive view it would have a fighting chance to become mainstream in the long term because of the experience itself and the content with it. In this timeline, Facebook VR may have been built years down the line after seeing the success of more functional (open, non invasion) social VR applications (not APS). At that point it'd be clear which one for the majority of the VR enthusiast users to use and welcome new Rift owners to. There would be a chance to fight Facebook and make something better for the Metaverse. This is the timeline that Nate Mitchel recently called impossible, and in my view the timeline most if not all of current Oculus fans believed in.

The other timeline is what just happened, where Facebook has a big combat boot in the door and is ready to build it's infrastructure Day One, get the masses on board, have the admittedly functional and borderline interesting experience that we expect from social VR. The masses will adopt it, and although we will have alternatives, they don't stand a fighting chance. That's the problem. We had a chance to have the good thing, the ideal thing. It was a small chance, and a difficult chance, but it was there. Now it's a complete shot in the dark to make VR Chat or something like that, why bother when everyone's going to Facebook? Obviously we should till try and will try to make something better, like Linux does, but it's not the best outlook.

In the first one, we the users can educate new users the right way to build this software, in the second one a giant company tells us how it is, and we have to slowly rebel to avoid the insane grip that Facebook currently has on the internet.


The WWW was created in what, 1990? That was almost 2.5 decades before Facebook saw the light of day. I also think that you're overestimating just how much pull Facebook can have in the VR space. Facebook is the one big social site because social sites are natural monopolies. The network effect means that the big one will keep getting bigger.


True, but if something clearly better shows up, the network effect works towards the better site, MySpace anyone?


Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:54 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 am
Posts: 47
Reply with quote
3trip wrote:

True, but if something clearly better shows up, the network effect works towards the better site, MySpace anyone?


I wouldn't say that it works towards the better site as long as the older one is bigger, but that it simply isn't strong enough to prevent the better site from growing.


Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:19 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 27 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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.