33 ms·

But did Facebook add any value (i.e. engineering money/hours) to improve the device? What you've listed are all negatives, but there have to be at least a few p

by umvi 6y ago

But did Facebook add any value (i.e. engineering money/hours) to improve the device? What you've listed are all negatives, but there have to be at least a few positives to come out of it.

nerdponx 6y ago
there have to be at least a few positives to come out of it. Why does this have to be true at all? Let bad things be bad, and deal with them. Don't try to rationalize away problems.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
danShumway 6y ago
I suppose. But at the same time, for any new users who value their own privacy the device is now pretty useless, and for any existing users who value their privacy but also want to be up-to-date and get new features, they're also probably going to be locked out in future updates. So you kind of have to excuse them for focusing on the negatives, because they don't get to enjoy the positives. It's kind of a moot point for them what Facebook brought to the table. This is always the concern with these kinds of purchases, and I think this was a big part of the concern back in 2014. I was never worried that Facebook wouldn't invest in Oculus, as a consumer I was worried that it would ruin the Oculus ecosystem and shove dystopian adware onto the devices.
- gibolt 6y ago
  The vast majority of those users likely also have a Facebook, Instagram, and/or Whatsapp account. Without Facebook's funding, none of the recent advancements are likely to exist in the first place. Valve hasn't done it, HTC hasn't done it, Sony hasn't done it. Because it is hard, expensive, and a money losing endeavor (for the forseeable future). To be clear, I am strongly against the requirement, but am glad the product exists.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    I'm not saying there aren't positives, I'm saying that it's understandable why users who now need to choose between a peripheral and their privacy are having a hard time focusing on those positives. I'm also not too cynical about the market, because thankfully there are multiple companies in this space who are making progress. So Facebook will trash Oculus and things will stink for a while. Eventually somebody else will come along and offer the same functionality without feeling the need to create a user-hostile platform out of a peripheral. Eventually the Linux support will improve. Eventually some community group will take over WebVR and we'll get a general platform instead of a bunch of separate stores designed to increase user lock-in. Eventually the games will be disassociated from the peripherals. Eventually, we'll get what we want and the space will improve. And Facebook's early efforts to improve the raw tech will be a part of that story. But in the meantime, for the people who were predicting what Facebook was going to do from the moment Oculus was acquired -- I think it's reasonable to step back and let them say, "we told you so."
unionpivo 6y ago
Sure there are, for Facebook shareholders.
shazow 6y ago
> But did Facebook add any value (i.e. engineering money/hours) to improve the device? What you've listed are all negatives, but there have to be at least a few positives to come out of it. Can't help but think of this comic: https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
- csours 6y ago
  I think it's closer to 'What did the Romans do for us? Besides the roads, clean water, ...' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xad5Rl0N2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xad5Rl0N2E
ggreer 6y ago
Without Facebook's capital and Zuckerberg's commitment to VR, I doubt the Quest would exist. That project was announced in 2016 and was likely in development for a couple of years before that. Still it took until mid-2019 to be released to the public. IIRC, Carmack said that development on the Go was started after the Quest, yet the Go went to market a year sooner. I can only imagine what kind of hell it was to get a 2016 phone SoC to do VR with 6DOF inside-out tracking.
- ricardobeat 6y ago
  Did they really need Facebook's capital? The market was absolutely flooded with VC money, Magic Leap raised almost $3B since then.
  - ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
    and did nothing, Oculus didn't just need money, but a competent team behind it.
    - jayd16 6y ago
      This isn't correct. There were/are a lot of inside out VR headsets. Oculus just happens to have a brand, a solid marketing presence, a solid product, the appearance of longevity etc. Facebook might have helped but from a purely technical perspective, Facebook wasn't the only path.
      - schrep 6y ago
        What standalone 6DOF headset with 6DOF controllers existed in the market in 2019 besides the Quest? Or now? I certainly can’t think of one?
        just-ok 6y ago
        How about Pico’s line of devices? https://www.pico-interactive.com/us/neo2.html https://www.pico-interactive.com/us/neo2.html
legulere 6y ago
Of course you first need to fatten an animal before you slaughter it.
rbecker 6y ago
Those positives turn to negatives if you care about privacy - they help Oculus muscle privacy-respecting alternatives out of the market.
jayd16 6y ago
I think Facebook worked as a king maker, giving Oculus enough financial backing to be a trusted (ironic) platform. Were they the only option? No idea.
GuB-42 6y ago
I don't have the financials, but I expect that after spending $2 billion for the acquisition, they didn't live them alone. One notable thing is that Oculus hired Michael Abrash just following the announcement of the acquisition. With John Carmack, who was already there, they are among the most (if not the most) prominent developers in the field. Even though Carmack stepped down as a CTO, both are still there. I have stopped following VR news but Oculus had pretty nice prototypes a few years ago which combined eye tracking, foveated rendering and varifocal lenses, all addressing fundamental problems with the current generation of headsets. Also, even though I am not sure about Facebook involvement, they financed some of the best VR games at the time. Lone Echo is one of them. Ready At Dawn, the developer is now part of Oculus Studio, a branch of Oculus focused on making VR content. Note that having good VR content is extremely important, even more so than the devices themselves. I mean, you are not going to spend hundreds of dollars just to slash cubes, or maybe you do, can't blame you ;)

by umvi 6y ago

But did Facebook add any value (i.e. engineering money/hours) to improve the device? What you've listed are all negatives, but there have to be at least a few positives to come out of it.

nerdponx 6y ago

there have to be at least a few positives to come out of it. Why does this have to be true at all? Let bad things be bad, and deal with them. Don't try to rationalize away problems.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

danShumway 6y ago

I suppose. But at the same time, for any new users who value their own privacy the device is now pretty useless, and for any existing users who value their privacy but also want to be up-to-date and get new features, they're also probably going to be locked out in future updates. So you kind of have to excuse them for focusing on the negatives, because they don't get to enjoy the positives. It's kind of a moot point for them what Facebook brought to the table. This is always the concern with these kinds of purchases, and I think this was a big part of the concern back in 2014. I was never worried that Facebook wouldn't invest in Oculus, as a consumer I was worried that it would ruin the Oculus ecosystem and shove dystopian adware onto the devices.

gibolt 6y ago
The vast majority of those users likely also have a Facebook, Instagram, and/or Whatsapp account. Without Facebook's funding, none of the recent advancements are likely to exist in the first place. Valve hasn't done it, HTC hasn't done it, Sony hasn't done it. Because it is hard, expensive, and a money losing endeavor (for the forseeable future). To be clear, I am strongly against the requirement, but am glad the product exists.
- danShumway 6y ago
  I'm not saying there aren't positives, I'm saying that it's understandable why users who now need to choose between a peripheral and their privacy are having a hard time focusing on those positives. I'm also not too cynical about the market, because thankfully there are multiple companies in this space who are making progress. So Facebook will trash Oculus and things will stink for a while. Eventually somebody else will come along and offer the same functionality without feeling the need to create a user-hostile platform out of a peripheral. Eventually the Linux support will improve. Eventually some community group will take over WebVR and we'll get a general platform instead of a bunch of separate stores designed to increase user lock-in. Eventually the games will be disassociated from the peripherals. Eventually, we'll get what we want and the space will improve. And Facebook's early efforts to improve the raw tech will be a part of that story. But in the meantime, for the people who were predicting what Facebook was going to do from the moment Oculus was acquired -- I think it's reasonable to step back and let them say, "we told you so."

unionpivo 6y ago

Sure there are, for Facebook shareholders.

shazow 6y ago

> But did Facebook add any value (i.e. engineering money/hours) to improve the device? What you've listed are all negatives, but there have to be at least a few positives to come out of it. Can't help but think of this comic: https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

csours 6y ago
I think it's closer to 'What did the Romans do for us? Besides the roads, clean water, ...' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xad5Rl0N2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xad5Rl0N2E

ggreer 6y ago

Without Facebook's capital and Zuckerberg's commitment to VR, I doubt the Quest would exist. That project was announced in 2016 and was likely in development for a couple of years before that. Still it took until mid-2019 to be released to the public. IIRC, Carmack said that development on the Go was started after the Quest, yet the Go went to market a year sooner. I can only imagine what kind of hell it was to get a 2016 phone SoC to do VR with 6DOF inside-out tracking.

ricardobeat 6y ago
Did they really need Facebook's capital? The market was absolutely flooded with VC money, Magic Leap raised almost $3B since then.
- ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
  and did nothing, Oculus didn't just need money, but a competent team behind it.
  - jayd16 6y ago
    This isn't correct. There were/are a lot of inside out VR headsets. Oculus just happens to have a brand, a solid marketing presence, a solid product, the appearance of longevity etc. Facebook might have helped but from a purely technical perspective, Facebook wasn't the only path.
    - schrep 6y ago
      What standalone 6DOF headset with 6DOF controllers existed in the market in 2019 besides the Quest? Or now? I certainly can’t think of one?
      - just-ok 6y ago
        How about Pico’s line of devices? https://www.pico-interactive.com/us/neo2.html https://www.pico-interactive.com/us/neo2.html

legulere 6y ago

Of course you first need to fatten an animal before you slaughter it.

rbecker 6y ago

Those positives turn to negatives if you care about privacy - they help Oculus muscle privacy-respecting alternatives out of the market.

jayd16 6y ago

I think Facebook worked as a king maker, giving Oculus enough financial backing to be a trusted (ironic) platform. Were they the only option? No idea.

GuB-42 6y ago

I don't have the financials, but I expect that after spending $2 billion for the acquisition, they didn't live them alone. One notable thing is that Oculus hired Michael Abrash just following the announcement of the acquisition. With John Carmack, who was already there, they are among the most (if not the most) prominent developers in the field. Even though Carmack stepped down as a CTO, both are still there. I have stopped following VR news but Oculus had pretty nice prototypes a few years ago which combined eye tracking, foveated rendering and varifocal lenses, all addressing fundamental problems with the current generation of headsets. Also, even though I am not sure about Facebook involvement, they financed some of the best VR games at the time. Lone Echo is one of them. Ready At Dawn, the developer is now part of Oculus Studio, a branch of Oculus focused on making VR content. Note that having good VR content is extremely important, even more so than the devices themselves. I mean, you are not going to spend hundreds of dollars just to slash cubes, or maybe you do, can't blame you ;)