5 ms·

I wonder if it's profitable right now or that they see a future were it's so important to the loss is worth it.

by ecmascript 6y ago

HHC-Hunter 6y ago
I really doubt it's profitable right now. As for the future - There's no doubt, VR is it.
- perilunar 6y ago
  VR has been 'the future' since at least the 90s.
  - numlock86 6y ago
    So were electric vehicles but we are getting there now.
    - perilunar 6y ago
      No, electric vehicles were 'the past'. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26422912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26422912 Hydrogen fuel-cell powered cars were 'the future'.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        That's almost like someone in the 18th century saying steam engines were the past, because Hero of Alexandria built them in 1AD [0]. Nothing new to see here, Mr. Watt. Much like with steam engines in ancient Rome, the technological and economical context at the turn of 20th century wasn't right for the mass adoption of electric cars. Technological environment stayed wrong until the turn of 21th century, and the economical environment stayed wrong until Tesla single-handedly dragged the market, kicking and screaming, into accepting electric cars as a viable product. Similarly, we had VR since at least the 90s, but the technological environment was bad then. It's right now, and it's the Oculus Quest line that made a pivotal change in the market acceptance. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
      - numlock86 6y ago
        > No, electric vehicles were 'the past'. Meh, by that same argument you could say VR is the past. The point of the discussion is that VR is now at a point were it will most likely get adopted, instead of just being a feat. Hence the comparison with electric vehicles. And no, hydrogen fuel-cell for mobility won't be the future. A niche in some sectors for sure, but that's it. The efficiency is just as bad (~40%) as with combustion engines. And that's not even taking production and transport into account. Sure, it's cleaner, but the whole "hydrogen is the future for everyday use" is lobbyism from people who want to keep their current infrastructure (especially transport and production) running ...
  - neartheplain 6y ago
    As someone who's followed VR for decades, and was underwhelmed by every Oculus headset from the DK1 to the Rift CV1: VR is here, now. The Quest is it. It's the real deal. The combination of standalone wireless play, precise inside-out environment sensing and hand tracking, heightened graphics quality, a substantial software library, and an attractive price point have finally hit the sweet spot. It's a shame that Facebook is the sole proprietor of this revolutionary device, but the device IS revolutionary. I've demoed VR for three non-technical friends in the last month who all promptly ran out and bought Quests of their own. I'm very excited for the future, and present, of this medium.
    - perilunar 6y ago
      So now VR is 'here, now'. Cool. Can we stop calling it 'the future' then?
    - otabdeveloper4 6y ago
      "Kids these days" don't care about video games in that way. For them it's a fact of life, and not a glamorous one either; only a quick, addictive and not very healthy way to waste an hour or two (or four). Similar to cigarettes or beer in that respect, though we allow kids access to video games. Most of them play online mobile games because that gets the rush quicker and easier. Trying to sell an overly complex, bulky, expensive and high-investment video game system to the coming generations will be a very uphill battle. (We saw this with TV; for the boomer generation TV was high technology, and getting on TV was the highest aspiration in life. Who even watches broadcast TV now?)
      - neartheplain 6y ago
        Kids love novelty, sensory stimuli, and attention. The Quest provides these in spades. Half my random squadmates in Population One (the big VR battle royale shooter) are kids. There are so many kids in VR right now that huge threads on r/virtualreality are dedicated to this problem, VR’s own Eternal September: https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/m2t7jl/children_in_vr_suck_and_something_needs_to_be/ https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/m2t7jl/chil...
  - baby 6y ago
    Sounds like someone who doesn’t have a Quest.
- ma2rten 6y ago
  Why?
  - siekmanj 6y ago
    I was always very unimpressed with VR until I borrowed a headset to play Half Life Alyx. That game convinced me VR is the inevitable future of gaming. The rest of the industry may not be there yet, but it is an obviously superior experience.
    - hervature 6y ago
      “The future” != “future of gaming”
      - psychiatrist24 6y ago
        Actually, it may be.
    - faeyanpiraat 6y ago
      One of the problems is that competitive fps gaming probably not going to move away from the mouse/keyboard inputs in the short term. And sitting down looking forward in a vr goggle, and turning your character around with a mouse induces wild nausea for a number* of people. *I’m unfamiliar with the exact ratio.
    - otabdeveloper4 6y ago
      The future of gaming is already here; it's called "pay to win mobile multiplayer shooter". Video games are only a way to get a quick dopanine rush, and that's the local optimum that gets you your rush quickest and easiest. VR is not needed.
    - JKCalhoun 6y ago
      > I was always very unimpressed with VR until I borrowed a headset to play Half Life Alyx. The word "borrowed" stands out for me: I also tried a cutting edge VR headset loaned from a co-worker but did not then rush out and buy one. Because the experience felt like more of a "novelty", not a day-to-day thing that I would switch over to.
Tepix 6y ago
"Most of what Facebook does today, he [Zuck] said, is "building on top of other people’s platforms."
- zizee 6y ago
  Indeed. What would happen to FB if for some reason both Apple and Google simultaneously removed their apps from their respective apps stores? I'm not sure it would destroy FB, but it would be a huge blow.
  - herbst 6y ago
    At this point it should be fragil enough to probably just die.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    An expensive lawsuit, probably. Push comes to shove, I guess Facebook could launch their own mobile platform too? They already have their own Android phone - it's buried inside the Quest headset. But they probably don't need to, unless Apple/Google disallows the use of Facebook SDK by all the other apps in their app stores. Until then, the sweet sweet surveillance data will keep flowing.
otabdeveloper4 6y ago
At a certain scale, hiring people to do nothing starts to make sense as an investment for an IT company. Microsoft Research is a classic example - some of the smartest people in the world are being paid big salaries to do nothing much of anything at all. But then imagine what those same people could do had they worked at a startup or doing open source...

I wonder if it's profitable right now or that they see a future were it's so important to the loss is worth it.

HHC-Hunter 6y ago

I really doubt it's profitable right now. As for the future - There's no doubt, VR is it.

perilunar 6y ago
VR has been 'the future' since at least the 90s.
- numlock86 6y ago
  So were electric vehicles but we are getting there now.
  - perilunar 6y ago
    No, electric vehicles were 'the past'. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26422912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26422912 Hydrogen fuel-cell powered cars were 'the future'.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      That's almost like someone in the 18th century saying steam engines were the past, because Hero of Alexandria built them in 1AD [0]. Nothing new to see here, Mr. Watt. Much like with steam engines in ancient Rome, the technological and economical context at the turn of 20th century wasn't right for the mass adoption of electric cars. Technological environment stayed wrong until the turn of 21th century, and the economical environment stayed wrong until Tesla single-handedly dragged the market, kicking and screaming, into accepting electric cars as a viable product. Similarly, we had VR since at least the 90s, but the technological environment was bad then. It's right now, and it's the Oculus Quest line that made a pivotal change in the market acceptance. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
    - numlock86 6y ago
      > No, electric vehicles were 'the past'. Meh, by that same argument you could say VR is the past. The point of the discussion is that VR is now at a point were it will most likely get adopted, instead of just being a feat. Hence the comparison with electric vehicles. And no, hydrogen fuel-cell for mobility won't be the future. A niche in some sectors for sure, but that's it. The efficiency is just as bad (~40%) as with combustion engines. And that's not even taking production and transport into account. Sure, it's cleaner, but the whole "hydrogen is the future for everyday use" is lobbyism from people who want to keep their current infrastructure (especially transport and production) running ...
- neartheplain 6y ago
  As someone who's followed VR for decades, and was underwhelmed by every Oculus headset from the DK1 to the Rift CV1: VR is here, now. The Quest is it. It's the real deal. The combination of standalone wireless play, precise inside-out environment sensing and hand tracking, heightened graphics quality, a substantial software library, and an attractive price point have finally hit the sweet spot. It's a shame that Facebook is the sole proprietor of this revolutionary device, but the device IS revolutionary. I've demoed VR for three non-technical friends in the last month who all promptly ran out and bought Quests of their own. I'm very excited for the future, and present, of this medium.
  - perilunar 6y ago
    So now VR is 'here, now'. Cool. Can we stop calling it 'the future' then?
  - otabdeveloper4 6y ago
    "Kids these days" don't care about video games in that way. For them it's a fact of life, and not a glamorous one either; only a quick, addictive and not very healthy way to waste an hour or two (or four). Similar to cigarettes or beer in that respect, though we allow kids access to video games. Most of them play online mobile games because that gets the rush quicker and easier. Trying to sell an overly complex, bulky, expensive and high-investment video game system to the coming generations will be a very uphill battle. (We saw this with TV; for the boomer generation TV was high technology, and getting on TV was the highest aspiration in life. Who even watches broadcast TV now?)
    - neartheplain 6y ago
      Kids love novelty, sensory stimuli, and attention. The Quest provides these in spades. Half my random squadmates in Population One (the big VR battle royale shooter) are kids. There are so many kids in VR right now that huge threads on r/virtualreality are dedicated to this problem, VR’s own Eternal September: https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/m2t7jl/children_in_vr_suck_and_something_needs_to_be/ https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/m2t7jl/chil...
- baby 6y ago
  Sounds like someone who doesn’t have a Quest.
ma2rten 6y ago
Why?
- siekmanj 6y ago
  I was always very unimpressed with VR until I borrowed a headset to play Half Life Alyx. That game convinced me VR is the inevitable future of gaming. The rest of the industry may not be there yet, but it is an obviously superior experience.
  - hervature 6y ago
    “The future” != “future of gaming”
    - psychiatrist24 6y ago
      Actually, it may be.
  - faeyanpiraat 6y ago
    One of the problems is that competitive fps gaming probably not going to move away from the mouse/keyboard inputs in the short term. And sitting down looking forward in a vr goggle, and turning your character around with a mouse induces wild nausea for a number* of people. *I’m unfamiliar with the exact ratio.
  - otabdeveloper4 6y ago
    The future of gaming is already here; it's called "pay to win mobile multiplayer shooter". Video games are only a way to get a quick dopanine rush, and that's the local optimum that gets you your rush quickest and easiest. VR is not needed.
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago
    > I was always very unimpressed with VR until I borrowed a headset to play Half Life Alyx. The word "borrowed" stands out for me: I also tried a cutting edge VR headset loaned from a co-worker but did not then rush out and buy one. Because the experience felt like more of a "novelty", not a day-to-day thing that I would switch over to.

Tepix 6y ago

"Most of what Facebook does today, he [Zuck] said, is "building on top of other people’s platforms."

zizee 6y ago
Indeed. What would happen to FB if for some reason both Apple and Google simultaneously removed their apps from their respective apps stores? I'm not sure it would destroy FB, but it would be a huge blow.
- herbst 6y ago
  At this point it should be fragil enough to probably just die.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  An expensive lawsuit, probably. Push comes to shove, I guess Facebook could launch their own mobile platform too? They already have their own Android phone - it's buried inside the Quest headset. But they probably don't need to, unless Apple/Google disallows the use of Facebook SDK by all the other apps in their app stores. Until then, the sweet sweet surveillance data will keep flowing.

otabdeveloper4 6y ago

At a certain scale, hiring people to do nothing starts to make sense as an investment for an IT company. Microsoft Research is a classic example - some of the smartest people in the world are being paid big salaries to do nothing much of anything at all. But then imagine what those same people could do had they worked at a startup or doing open source...