4 ms·
Facebook has a pretty good record of non-interference with acquisitions, especially in the user-facing sense that you're describing. It will be even more true f
by samizdatum 11y ago
Facebook has a pretty good record of non-interference with acquisitions, especially in the user-facing sense that you're describing. It will be even more true for Oculus, because Oculus was not a competitor to Facebook like Instagram, and, to a lesser extent, WhatsApp.
Facebook buying Oculus was a two-billion dollar bet on virtual reality being the next big platform, and to have that bet pay off, Facebook has to play the long game, and let Oculus and the virtual reality market grow.
Facebook isn't stupid or myopic enough to require a Facebook login to use Oculus products. It makes absolutely no sense when you consider the reasons that Facebook bought Oculus.
- ethbro 11y agoI don't tend to make bets on large companies with dominant market positions acting in their own best long term interests.
- samizdatum 11y agoWhy not? That's a very strong statement. I could think of a countless number of bets that trivially match your criteria (i.e. even odds Facebook will not stop selling ads this year), that you'd be crazy not to take.
- ethbro 11y agoThere are lots of reasons. But I looked at your comment history and decided not to jump on the "interpreting discussion threads as logic statements" train with you. Apologies.
- samizdatum 11y agoFair enough. Do you think informal discussions benefit from a focus on thematic engagement, rather than logical minutiae?