4 ms·

> I know it's a pipe dream, but an independent Oculus would make me so happy While that would cool for short-term, independent Oculus can stagnate. VR still ne

> I know it's a pipe dream, but an independent Oculus would make me so happy While that would cool for short-term, independent Oculus can stagnate. VR still needs many more billions to be truly usable, and I don't think independent company will be able to fund it.

djrogers 6y ago
> independent Oculus can stagnate My experience has been that technology is far more likely to stagnate at BigCo than SmallCo - especially if SmallCo's only source of revenue is said technology.
- thebigman433 6y ago
  I think down the line that would be true, but Facebook's willingness to burn literal billions of dollars at this point is basically the only thing carrying VR. Id love to see it split off in the future though.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    I'm not sure big money is what is needed to create a flourishing VR sector. The appeal of VR has always been creating virtual experiences that are different and unique. honestly I think it makes much more sense for that scene to be decentralised and independent. Kind of like Minecraft came about, I have trouble imagining it as some sort big money project. I don't think the issue with VR at this point is so much technical than it is that nobody's yet been creative enough to make something truly unique with it.
    - arxpoetica 6y ago
      Agree. VR is not more than a novelty and gaming tool yet. Gaming is a huge potential, but I think the real use cases haven't been proven out yet. I'm still a believer, but I suspect there are other non-VR technologies that either need to catch up or just figure out how to dovetail for VR to be anything other than a novelty.
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  FB are pouring billions into oculus. They intend to operate it at a loss for a good 5 more years. Only when AR is a thing will they stat to push for profitability.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    I think this is the problem. Operating at a loss while wiping out players without deep pockets to run at a loss. This should be illegal. Amazon and Uber have wiped out small players.
    - tekknik 6y ago
      I agree that this maybe should be illegal, but on the flip what is forcing the other companies to operate at a loss? I would think the name “Facebook” backing oculus means more than a low price
    - WillPostForFood 6y ago
      If they are dumping billions into manufacturing, and selling at a loss, maybe that's a problem. If they are dumping billions in to R&D and improving the tech, then let them do it.
    - justapassenger 6y ago
      That would make all new business illegal, as you operate at a loss for multiple years.
      - systemvoltage 6y ago
        At some point it needs to be illegal. When a large company of 30000 employees starts wiping out entire industries with cash buffers, you can see why this is just wrong and monopolistic/oligopolistic behavior.
        KaiserPro 6y ago
        The problem with this is that would make virtually all of silicon valley start ups illegal. In terms of loss, the actual hardware is profitable as far as I've heard.

djrogers 6y ago

> independent Oculus can stagnate My experience has been that technology is far more likely to stagnate at BigCo than SmallCo - especially if SmallCo's only source of revenue is said technology.

thebigman433 6y ago
I think down the line that would be true, but Facebook's willingness to burn literal billions of dollars at this point is basically the only thing carrying VR. Id love to see it split off in the future though.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  I'm not sure big money is what is needed to create a flourishing VR sector. The appeal of VR has always been creating virtual experiences that are different and unique. honestly I think it makes much more sense for that scene to be decentralised and independent. Kind of like Minecraft came about, I have trouble imagining it as some sort big money project. I don't think the issue with VR at this point is so much technical than it is that nobody's yet been creative enough to make something truly unique with it.
  - arxpoetica 6y ago
    Agree. VR is not more than a novelty and gaming tool yet. Gaming is a huge potential, but I think the real use cases haven't been proven out yet. I'm still a believer, but I suspect there are other non-VR technologies that either need to catch up or just figure out how to dovetail for VR to be anything other than a novelty.
KaiserPro 6y ago
FB are pouring billions into oculus. They intend to operate it at a loss for a good 5 more years. Only when AR is a thing will they stat to push for profitability.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I think this is the problem. Operating at a loss while wiping out players without deep pockets to run at a loss. This should be illegal. Amazon and Uber have wiped out small players.
  - tekknik 6y ago
    I agree that this maybe should be illegal, but on the flip what is forcing the other companies to operate at a loss? I would think the name “Facebook” backing oculus means more than a low price
  - WillPostForFood 6y ago
    If they are dumping billions into manufacturing, and selling at a loss, maybe that's a problem. If they are dumping billions in to R&D and improving the tech, then let them do it.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    That would make all new business illegal, as you operate at a loss for multiple years.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      At some point it needs to be illegal. When a large company of 30000 employees starts wiping out entire industries with cash buffers, you can see why this is just wrong and monopolistic/oligopolistic behavior.
      - KaiserPro 6y ago
        The problem with this is that would make virtually all of silicon valley start ups illegal. In terms of loss, the actual hardware is profitable as far as I've heard.