13 ms·

Facebook made that promise by approving it on an ongoing basis. They just changed their mind.

by vsareto 6y ago

ehsankia 6y ago
Was it just a verbal agreement or written in the contract though.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Immaterial.
- nolok 6y ago
  The one time facebook did that in a written way was with whatsapp and it made them lose in europe (germany specifically I think) where they had to cancel their plan to share data between the two entities.
  - gabaix 6y ago
    Facebook executives openly lied to the European Commission, to get approval for the acquisition. 3 years later they were fined $120M, a slap on the wrist [1]. No wonder they keep making empty promises. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_1369 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_...
jacquesm 6y ago
Facebook deals in contracts, not promises and even if it was contractually agreed upon, what would you do about it? Sue? At a guess you'd count the money one more time, shrug and maybe send a short apologetic note about how terrible you feel about it. And then count the money again.
- vsareto 6y ago
  I'm absolving Palmer of making a promise he couldn't keep because of Facebook. Palmer is correct here and shouldn't be getting the blowback that he is. Obviously Facebook can do what they want within the terms.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    He knew it was a promise he could not keep because he was giving up control. You simply can not make promises like that it is beyond stupid to make promises about how a company will be run in the future when you are no longer at the helm. He should have known he couldn't promise that. He could not have known Facebook would do what they did but he should have been at least smart enough to know the limits of his own influence.
    - asddubs 6y ago
      it really seems a little willfully naive. if it's not in a contract, obviously any promise facebook makes is going to be on an "isn't inconvenient to do" basis
      - beezischillin 6y ago
        He was 22 years old when Facebook bought Oculus. I assume he expected to stay a part of it and maybe things were different if he did. It's his fault, of course, but I think he was just naive.
        Mindwipe 6y ago
        > I assume he expected to stay a part of it and maybe things were different if he did. It's his fault, of course, but I think he was just naive. You can be naive, but naive doesn't mean you go online and argue that people who know better are wrong, which is what he did.
        CarbyAu 6y ago
        The definition of naivety means he didn't know any better. He simply backed up what he believed, which I would expect. Now he knows better. He has changed his mind. Which is what any rational person should do when presented with new information. On the one hand I won't vilify him. On the other hand he merely met the base requirements for "rational thinking" - so I am not about to give him any accolades.
- sharkweek 6y ago
  My moral compass would get real wobbly if I had (insert some unfathomable number here) in my bank account following an acquisition. Probably not a great thing to confess to but I doubt I’d find myself caring what my acquirer was doing with their new real estate.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    As would most people, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it. The big mistake is to try to pull the wool over the users' eyes knowing full well he would lose control over that and so was in absolutely no position to promise anything.
    - SirYandi 6y ago
      If you take GP at face value he didn't intentionally pull the wool over people's eyes. He was just rather naive.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        GP has since started a defense contractor. I highly doubt this is a naive person.
        staunch 6y ago
        That's a non sequitur and your viewpoint is vindictive, uncharitable, and unreasonable. Palmer Luckey was in his very early 20s and had never been involved in an acquisition before. He acknowledged his mistake and his explanation makes complete sense. Even much more experienced people are prone to making this kind of mistake in the honeymoon period of an acquisition.
        EricE 6y ago
        No kidding. I'm shocked that all these perfect and wildly successful people even have time to post on hacker news :p
        6y ago
- AaronFriel 6y ago
  Promissory estoppel is a real thing and companies can be legally liable for promises that another party relies upon.
- jmcqk6 6y ago
  >Facebook deals in contracts, not promises and even if it was contractually agreed upon, what would you do about it? Sue? Why shouldn't we expect more from companies? Promises should mean something. But really this is just another example of facebook undermining the basic fabric of society for its own gain.
Ajedi32 6y ago
If that promise wasn't in the actual contract then it wasn't "Facebook" who made it, it was someone at Facebook. Individual employees aren't typically in a position to be making those types of promises anymore than the company being acquired is.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  So, let's assume it was in the actual contract. What is he going to do about it? Sue? Annul the deal? No? Than it doesn't matter. The whole idea that because something is written into a contract that that automatically means that that his how things will be in the indefinite future is an illusion, and I've seen plenty of people burned that way. A contract only matters if (1) you are prepared to sue over it and (2) you will know what kind of remedy you want if you win the suit. In this case the state of (1) is 'no' and the state of (2) doesn't matter because of (1).
  - goodluckchuck 6y ago
    Why the focus on what he would do? The promises were made to Oculus's current and potential customers. That's who would sue and it's fairly clear that they would want money... e.g. to go buy a HTC Vive.
  - Ajedi32 6y ago
    "In this case" there is no provision in the contract which says Facebook needs to keep Oculus accounts separate, so there's nothing to sue over. If that provision were in the contract, then yes I'd expect a lawsuit. Or at least some form of arbitration or settlement. Ideally the contract itself would specify what happens if that condition is violated.
    - csomar 6y ago
      I don't think that is legally feasible but I don't have enough experience in this. He sold the company, aka shares. The contract should determine how the sale happen but afterward, it's afterward. A contract needs to be legal, and legal means what the law allows in the context. Does the law allow putting such provisions? I've been burnt by this in a rental agreement. Think about it this way: if we have a contract between both of us, where you agree that I'm going to kill you, I'm still going to jail. Having a contract doesn't make killing legal. This also applies to the rest of contracts. The provisions need to respect the law. But the guy didn't have a contract, sold a patent-heavy company for $3bn (probably an army of lawyers involved) that netted him around $700mn. I'd just call this saving face.
rdiddly 6y ago
It was true until it wasn't.
de_watcher 6y ago
"ongoing basis" - that's an oxymoron lmao. If your base is going somewhere then it's not really a base.
TheTruth321 6y ago
"changed their mind" ... a.k.a. "broke their promise" Details are important. Facebook are a joke of a company.

Facebook made that promise by approving it on an ongoing basis. They just changed their mind.

ehsankia 6y ago

Was it just a verbal agreement or written in the contract though.

jacquesm 6y ago
Immaterial.
nolok 6y ago
The one time facebook did that in a written way was with whatsapp and it made them lose in europe (germany specifically I think) where they had to cancel their plan to share data between the two entities.
- gabaix 6y ago
  Facebook executives openly lied to the European Commission, to get approval for the acquisition. 3 years later they were fined $120M, a slap on the wrist [1]. No wonder they keep making empty promises. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_1369 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_...

jacquesm 6y ago

Facebook deals in contracts, not promises and even if it was contractually agreed upon, what would you do about it? Sue? At a guess you'd count the money one more time, shrug and maybe send a short apologetic note about how terrible you feel about it. And then count the money again.

vsareto 6y ago
I'm absolving Palmer of making a promise he couldn't keep because of Facebook. Palmer is correct here and shouldn't be getting the blowback that he is. Obviously Facebook can do what they want within the terms.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  He knew it was a promise he could not keep because he was giving up control. You simply can not make promises like that it is beyond stupid to make promises about how a company will be run in the future when you are no longer at the helm. He should have known he couldn't promise that. He could not have known Facebook would do what they did but he should have been at least smart enough to know the limits of his own influence.
  - asddubs 6y ago
    it really seems a little willfully naive. if it's not in a contract, obviously any promise facebook makes is going to be on an "isn't inconvenient to do" basis
    - beezischillin 6y ago
      He was 22 years old when Facebook bought Oculus. I assume he expected to stay a part of it and maybe things were different if he did. It's his fault, of course, but I think he was just naive.
      - Mindwipe 6y ago
        > I assume he expected to stay a part of it and maybe things were different if he did. It's his fault, of course, but I think he was just naive. You can be naive, but naive doesn't mean you go online and argue that people who know better are wrong, which is what he did.
        CarbyAu 6y ago
        The definition of naivety means he didn't know any better. He simply backed up what he believed, which I would expect. Now he knows better. He has changed his mind. Which is what any rational person should do when presented with new information. On the one hand I won't vilify him. On the other hand he merely met the base requirements for "rational thinking" - so I am not about to give him any accolades.
sharkweek 6y ago
My moral compass would get real wobbly if I had (insert some unfathomable number here) in my bank account following an acquisition. Probably not a great thing to confess to but I doubt I’d find myself caring what my acquirer was doing with their new real estate.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  As would most people, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it. The big mistake is to try to pull the wool over the users' eyes knowing full well he would lose control over that and so was in absolutely no position to promise anything.
  - SirYandi 6y ago
    If you take GP at face value he didn't intentionally pull the wool over people's eyes. He was just rather naive.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      GP has since started a defense contractor. I highly doubt this is a naive person.
      - staunch 6y ago
        That's a non sequitur and your viewpoint is vindictive, uncharitable, and unreasonable. Palmer Luckey was in his very early 20s and had never been involved in an acquisition before. He acknowledged his mistake and his explanation makes complete sense. Even much more experienced people are prone to making this kind of mistake in the honeymoon period of an acquisition.
        EricE 6y ago
        No kidding. I'm shocked that all these perfect and wildly successful people even have time to post on hacker news :p
      - 6y ago
AaronFriel 6y ago
Promissory estoppel is a real thing and companies can be legally liable for promises that another party relies upon.
jmcqk6 6y ago
>Facebook deals in contracts, not promises and even if it was contractually agreed upon, what would you do about it? Sue? Why shouldn't we expect more from companies? Promises should mean something. But really this is just another example of facebook undermining the basic fabric of society for its own gain.

Ajedi32 6y ago

If that promise wasn't in the actual contract then it wasn't "Facebook" who made it, it was someone at Facebook. Individual employees aren't typically in a position to be making those types of promises anymore than the company being acquired is.

jacquesm 6y ago
So, let's assume it was in the actual contract. What is he going to do about it? Sue? Annul the deal? No? Than it doesn't matter. The whole idea that because something is written into a contract that that automatically means that that his how things will be in the indefinite future is an illusion, and I've seen plenty of people burned that way. A contract only matters if (1) you are prepared to sue over it and (2) you will know what kind of remedy you want if you win the suit. In this case the state of (1) is 'no' and the state of (2) doesn't matter because of (1).
- goodluckchuck 6y ago
  Why the focus on what he would do? The promises were made to Oculus's current and potential customers. That's who would sue and it's fairly clear that they would want money... e.g. to go buy a HTC Vive.
- Ajedi32 6y ago
  "In this case" there is no provision in the contract which says Facebook needs to keep Oculus accounts separate, so there's nothing to sue over. If that provision were in the contract, then yes I'd expect a lawsuit. Or at least some form of arbitration or settlement. Ideally the contract itself would specify what happens if that condition is violated.
  - csomar 6y ago
    I don't think that is legally feasible but I don't have enough experience in this. He sold the company, aka shares. The contract should determine how the sale happen but afterward, it's afterward. A contract needs to be legal, and legal means what the law allows in the context. Does the law allow putting such provisions? I've been burnt by this in a rental agreement. Think about it this way: if we have a contract between both of us, where you agree that I'm going to kill you, I'm still going to jail. Having a contract doesn't make killing legal. This also applies to the rest of contracts. The provisions need to respect the law. But the guy didn't have a contract, sold a patent-heavy company for $3bn (probably an army of lawyers involved) that netted him around $700mn. I'd just call this saving face.

rdiddly 6y ago

It was true until it wasn't.

de_watcher 6y ago

"ongoing basis" - that's an oxymoron lmao. If your base is going somewhere then it's not really a base.

TheTruth321 6y ago

"changed their mind" ... a.k.a. "broke their promise" Details are important. Facebook are a joke of a company.