4 ms·

Jeez, you can't even give them some credit for doing the right thing?

ethbro 10y ago
To be fair, doing the right thing after the wrong thing is different than the right thing in the first place.
asddubs 10y ago
they're not doing the right thing, they're undoing the wrong thing they went out of their way to do. And it's not the only sleazy thing they're doing, that palmer & co. previously said they wouldn't (read: buying exclusivity)
jsprogrammer 10y ago
Oculus didn't announce this. This is an independent developer making the claim. Oculus has now said they won't use hardware checks in PC DRM, but didn't rule out checks on other platforms. Oculus also indicated that they will use methods other than "hardware checks" to implement a DRM scheme.
50CNT 10y ago
Someone righting a thing doesn't mean you can't be wary of them.
JoshTriplett 10y ago
Doing the right thing in response to backlash suggests that you would rather do the wrong thing, but couldn't get away with it. There are several other VR vendors; this provides at least some motivation to favor another vendor.
- marknutter 10y ago
  So by your logic, nobody can ever legitimately apologize for something or change their behavior without being disingenuous. Everybody loses, no matter what they do.
  - 15charlimit 10y ago
    If the individual or company in question has a lengthy, well documented history of always taking the worst (from a consumer/privacy perspective) possible path? Then no, no they don't get a free "oh, no problem, it's okay" card when they grudgingly backpedal after a particularly terrible decision blows up in their face.
  - bradjohnson 10y ago
    No, it takes longer to earn trust than distrust. A continued demonstration that facebook has the consumer's best interests in mind might earn trust, but a quick response to backlash doesn't mean all is forgiven. It is a step in the right direction, though.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    They don't lose no matter what they do. Them changing course should mean that they receive LESS backlash. But not no backlash. Thus, their situation goes from "really terrible PR problem" to "moderately bad PR problem". If they didn't want the PR problem, then they shouldn't have tried to screw over consumers in the first place. Trust has been broken, and if they want that trust back they need to build it up over time by consistently making good decisions that don't hurt consumers.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    No, not at all. But as another response noted, trust is a lot easier to lose than to regain. A clear statement about the matter can help a bit. Active steps to make the ecosystem less proprietary would help as well. That would help turn the message from "sorry we got in trouble" to "sorry we made a mistake, here's what we learned and what we're doing to fix it".
vonklaus 10y ago
No. This was a loss in the court of public opinion. If I sue my landlord and win, I do not give him/her credit for paying me the damages assessed by the court. In fact, in the above analogy, I would in fact take a debit...
- marknutter 10y ago
  Dude, they were not legally obligated to do this. In fact, they could have easily ignored the vocal minority and focused on the larger consumer base. But they went out of their way to change their decision based on the feedback from the vocal minority which both shows great self-awareness and guts (since we all know the vocal minority is not always right, especially in terms of the bottom line).
  - ethbro 10y ago
    > great self-awareness and guts Let's go with "shows an ability to admit they're wrong when called on it" at most.
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    You realize that the fact that most people are silent doesn't imply they are entirely indifferent. Especially the developers.
  - vonklaus 10y ago
    > Dude, they were not legally obligated to do this. I did realize that. The court of public opinion is not a real entity. It was a plot-device, analogy to point out why I believe they made the correct decision which was a selfish appraisal of their leverage. I encourage their selfishness, because they should be self-interested, but I will not champion them for it. I am not a gamer, but as a technophile I have heard many people on reddit, HN and various other places commenting about how they are doing a poor job. This isn't the worlds biggest social network where they can kill messenger and force users to download their apps. This is a nascent technology that has not decided on a platform or set of platforms. They need the community to embrace them both as developers and as consumers. They also need potential customers to embrace the technology. This was a smart capitulation, but a back-pedal after they got a market reality check.
squeaky-clean 10y ago
It's not the right thing for the right reason though. You're not a good person if the only reason you don't shoplift is because the store has a security guard. Oculus themselves also haven't announced this, or anything about the rest of their DRM. This is like shoplifting everything in the store except the goods near the security guard.

To be fair, doing the right thing after the wrong thing is different than the right thing in the first place.

they're not doing the right thing, they're undoing the wrong thing they went out of their way to do. And it's not the only sleazy thing they're doing, that palmer & co. previously said they wouldn't (read: buying exclusivity)

jsprogrammer 10y ago

Oculus didn't announce this. This is an independent developer making the claim. Oculus has now said they won't use hardware checks in PC DRM, but didn't rule out checks on other platforms. Oculus also indicated that they will use methods other than "hardware checks" to implement a DRM scheme.

50CNT 10y ago

Someone righting a thing doesn't mean you can't be wary of them.

JoshTriplett 10y ago

Doing the right thing in response to backlash suggests that you would rather do the wrong thing, but couldn't get away with it. There are several other VR vendors; this provides at least some motivation to favor another vendor.

marknutter 10y ago
So by your logic, nobody can ever legitimately apologize for something or change their behavior without being disingenuous. Everybody loses, no matter what they do.
- 15charlimit 10y ago
  If the individual or company in question has a lengthy, well documented history of always taking the worst (from a consumer/privacy perspective) possible path? Then no, no they don't get a free "oh, no problem, it's okay" card when they grudgingly backpedal after a particularly terrible decision blows up in their face.
- bradjohnson 10y ago
  No, it takes longer to earn trust than distrust. A continued demonstration that facebook has the consumer's best interests in mind might earn trust, but a quick response to backlash doesn't mean all is forgiven. It is a step in the right direction, though.
- stale2002 10y ago
  They don't lose no matter what they do. Them changing course should mean that they receive LESS backlash. But not no backlash. Thus, their situation goes from "really terrible PR problem" to "moderately bad PR problem". If they didn't want the PR problem, then they shouldn't have tried to screw over consumers in the first place. Trust has been broken, and if they want that trust back they need to build it up over time by consistently making good decisions that don't hurt consumers.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  No, not at all. But as another response noted, trust is a lot easier to lose than to regain. A clear statement about the matter can help a bit. Active steps to make the ecosystem less proprietary would help as well. That would help turn the message from "sorry we got in trouble" to "sorry we made a mistake, here's what we learned and what we're doing to fix it".

vonklaus 10y ago

No. This was a loss in the court of public opinion. If I sue my landlord and win, I do not give him/her credit for paying me the damages assessed by the court. In fact, in the above analogy, I would in fact take a debit...

marknutter 10y ago
Dude, they were not legally obligated to do this. In fact, they could have easily ignored the vocal minority and focused on the larger consumer base. But they went out of their way to change their decision based on the feedback from the vocal minority which both shows great self-awareness and guts (since we all know the vocal minority is not always right, especially in terms of the bottom line).
- ethbro 10y ago
  > great self-awareness and guts Let's go with "shows an ability to admit they're wrong when called on it" at most.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  You realize that the fact that most people are silent doesn't imply they are entirely indifferent. Especially the developers.
- vonklaus 10y ago
  > Dude, they were not legally obligated to do this. I did realize that. The court of public opinion is not a real entity. It was a plot-device, analogy to point out why I believe they made the correct decision which was a selfish appraisal of their leverage. I encourage their selfishness, because they should be self-interested, but I will not champion them for it. I am not a gamer, but as a technophile I have heard many people on reddit, HN and various other places commenting about how they are doing a poor job. This isn't the worlds biggest social network where they can kill messenger and force users to download their apps. This is a nascent technology that has not decided on a platform or set of platforms. They need the community to embrace them both as developers and as consumers. They also need potential customers to embrace the technology. This was a smart capitulation, but a back-pedal after they got a market reality check.

squeaky-clean 10y ago

It's not the right thing for the right reason though. You're not a good person if the only reason you don't shoplift is because the store has a security guard. Oculus themselves also haven't announced this, or anything about the rest of their DRM. This is like shoplifting everything in the store except the goods near the security guard.