7 ms·

How? Facebook invests billions of dollars into advancing the tech behind Oculus, reducing the form factor and making it economically viable, and the conclusion

How? Facebook invests billions of dollars into advancing the tech behind Oculus, reducing the form factor and making it economically viable, and the conclusion is that FB killed the Oculus brand and tarnished VR? I don’t understand why people are not capable of separating the good from the bad. Of course you can shit on FB regarding many things but this is objectively not one of those things.

jabbany 5y ago
I think people are not happy about _how_ FB made it "economically viable" (by locking the system to tie in with an FB account and now by running ads). Most people probably want to see a VR platform that can stand on its own profit mechanisms. Not something that is parasitically dependent on another platform's ad revenue (either directly with internal ads or indirectly via FB accounts). Instead of taking time to explore that (which is what many believed would happen after the acquisition), FB took the easy way out by bolting existing revenue systems on, which then in turn kills any motivation to explore options. Similar kinds of worries always play out for technologies/platforms that are good but aren't profitable yet which then get acquired. Will the new owners help the technology stand on its own, or will they take the easy way out and treat it as a mechanism to bring new users onto their existing revenue stream.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  I've been following VR technology's development for over two decades now, and the concern that those profit mechanisms don't exist at the margins necessary to sustain the business is real. I think people underestimate how fragile this technology space is; we're talking a system that only a percentage of the population can use without experiencing motion sickness, requiring a dedicated usage space that is hard to share with other uses in a family setting, which (up until the most recent iterations) sold at a price point that was uncomfortable to most people for a luxury product. More revenue streams to support it is better than fewer, at least at this stage of its development.
  - jabbany 5y ago
    Theoretically, the point of venture capital investment was exactly to give such a "no-strings-attached" period of buffer time to discover what revenue models might work for a new piece of technology with promise. (In reality there are many other confounds...) It's why many people wished to see that rather than an acquisition (where the new owners can do what they want) for Oculus. Back in the day, FB tried to placate these worries by suggesting that even with an acquisition they would try to behave like a VC and keep Oculus more-or-less independent. At this point it is clear that that dream is over. People aren't angry, just disappointed. Eventually we will all lose hope on these things. Heck, many already have.
    - b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
      Agree and have. It is now a world for the F.....s of the world to buy and sell or buy and kill. I would never give FB a dime after the behavior and false statements of the last several years. Sure the downvotes might be high, well HN has an agenda as well.
      - b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
        Why is HN killing all my posts?
  - neartheplain 5y ago
    >I think people underestimate how fragile this technology space is; we're talking a system that only a percentage of the population can use without experiencing motion sickness FWIW the Quest and Index have largely solved this problem. There are still certain experiences in VR which require more motion-sickness acclimation, such as roller coasters or fast-moving shooters. However, 1:1 motion experiences no longer cause problems for even the most sensitive players, in my experience. I've demoed current VR hardware to highly sensitive friends and family members without issue. The same friends and family couldn't tolerate earlier generations of VR for more than a few minutes.
    - 5y ago
tibyat 5y ago
"objectively"? no. What has become clear to all unbiased parties is that all FB has done is invest billions of dollars in developing a new ad revenue stream. it's amazing to me how often someone on HN defending FB...turns out to be a FB employee.
only_as_i_fall 5y ago
Except that FB acquired oculus after they were already shipping their prototype as a devkit. Considering HTC was able to launch what is arguably a better product within the same year as oculus I fail to see what facebook brought to the table besides dark patterns and forced privacy violations.
- jsnell 5y ago
  Facebook made a standalone $300 device that just works. The other players in the market are making $1000 devices that require me to be wired to a $1000 gaming PC. The Quest 2 is an incredibly attractive device, and I basically can't imagine ever getting a wired VR headset at this point. From my perspective, Facebook made both the most attractive device and the best software ecosystem. I suspect Oculus as a standalone company could not have managed that. That said, introducing ads to paid apps is a really bad idea. It's going to totally undermine consumer trust, and kneecap the ecosystem they built. (And yes, I also had a visceral distaste when having to finally make a Facebook account to be able to use the Quest 2. But I can recognize that unifying the account infrastructure is the correct engineering choice, there's no need to assume malice).
  - Retric 5y ago
    FB didn’t make a 300$ headset, they heavily subsidized a headset. So, their going to need to make a lot of money from users to break even.
    - jsnell 5y ago
      I doubt that. The Quest 2 is probably being sold at a tiny loss at launch, just like most gaming consoles are, and will at the end of its lifespan be sold at a small profit. But where they're looking to make the money is from getting a cut from software sales, again just like consoles. Advertising is a garbage business compared to owning a popular software platform like that. Let's do some back of the envelope calculations. Let's say you can show 10 ads per hour, the average VR user uses 30 minutes of VR per day, a CPM of $10, a 50% platform vs. app cut of ad revenue, and a device lifetime of 5 years. I think these are all generous estimates. 10 ads / hour * 0.5 hours / day * 365 days / year * $10 / 1000 ads * 50% * 5 years = $45.60 total ad revenue for the lifetime of the device. They cannot be subsidizing this for $400 and expecting to make it up on ads. The numbers just don't add up. (But I don't think they're selling it for a multi-hundred dollar loss at all.) On the other hand, in 9 months of using the device I've bought about $150 in software, with Facebook's cut probably being about $45. Except that is over 9 months, not 5 years. This is where the money is.
neartheplain 5y ago
It's currently impossible to tell how Facebook has damaged the Oculus brand, simply due to the lack of a credible mobile (aka "untethered") VR competitor. Once someone like Valve, HTC, Sony, or Apple finally release untethered hardware at a competitive price point, we'll see whether customers are really willing to tolerate forced Facebok account integration and ads in VR. Personally, I absolutely love the Quest's price point, form factor, and overall software quality. At the same time, I despise Oculus as a brand and Facebook as a company for all of the above. I'm prepared to jump ship the split second an alternative is available.
kstrauser 5y ago
I know people, including me and my kid, who absolutely refuse to buy a VR system that requires a Facebook login. Of course I don't have numbers to back this, but I suspect there are quite a lot of people who feel the same way. Here's a worst-case hypothetical reason why: people will watch porn on VR. Maybe not everyone, but a lot of people. Even people who wouldn't want to watch it regularly are likely to get curious and check it out at least once to see what it's like. Now, raise your hand: who wants Facebook having access to their porn habits? Oculus-the-tech is cool. Oculus-the-Facebook-client is completely dead to me. No way, no thanks.
- BuckRogers 5y ago
  That's a good point. I never thought of it because I don't watch porn, which is probably unbelievable to the masses of addicts out there reading this right now. I had a Quest1 for a while (they hurt your face after a while from the pressure), and never tried porn. I enjoyed Beat Saber a lot though. But I can say I probably would try porn on one at some point, and correct- I really don't want Facebook logging that. The worst part about VR is that it's so intoxicating with its immersion that once you take it off you feel sad that this is where you really live, not a nice place. It gave me joy and took me away, but it also made me sad about my real life. It gives you a fantasy and more people should realize that multimillionaires and billionaires don't need virtual reality, they're living what you're putting on your face. I'm sure that includes the porn too.
xg15 5y ago
> Facebook invests billions of dollars into advancing the tech behind Oculus, reducing the form factor and making it economically viable ... so they can show ads on it.

jabbany 5y ago

I think people are not happy about _how_ FB made it "economically viable" (by locking the system to tie in with an FB account and now by running ads). Most people probably want to see a VR platform that can stand on its own profit mechanisms. Not something that is parasitically dependent on another platform's ad revenue (either directly with internal ads or indirectly via FB accounts). Instead of taking time to explore that (which is what many believed would happen after the acquisition), FB took the easy way out by bolting existing revenue systems on, which then in turn kills any motivation to explore options. Similar kinds of worries always play out for technologies/platforms that are good but aren't profitable yet which then get acquired. Will the new owners help the technology stand on its own, or will they take the easy way out and treat it as a mechanism to bring new users onto their existing revenue stream.

shadowgovt 5y ago
I've been following VR technology's development for over two decades now, and the concern that those profit mechanisms don't exist at the margins necessary to sustain the business is real. I think people underestimate how fragile this technology space is; we're talking a system that only a percentage of the population can use without experiencing motion sickness, requiring a dedicated usage space that is hard to share with other uses in a family setting, which (up until the most recent iterations) sold at a price point that was uncomfortable to most people for a luxury product. More revenue streams to support it is better than fewer, at least at this stage of its development.
- jabbany 5y ago
  Theoretically, the point of venture capital investment was exactly to give such a "no-strings-attached" period of buffer time to discover what revenue models might work for a new piece of technology with promise. (In reality there are many other confounds...) It's why many people wished to see that rather than an acquisition (where the new owners can do what they want) for Oculus. Back in the day, FB tried to placate these worries by suggesting that even with an acquisition they would try to behave like a VC and keep Oculus more-or-less independent. At this point it is clear that that dream is over. People aren't angry, just disappointed. Eventually we will all lose hope on these things. Heck, many already have.
  - b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
    Agree and have. It is now a world for the F.....s of the world to buy and sell or buy and kill. I would never give FB a dime after the behavior and false statements of the last several years. Sure the downvotes might be high, well HN has an agenda as well.
    - b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
      Why is HN killing all my posts?
- neartheplain 5y ago
  >I think people underestimate how fragile this technology space is; we're talking a system that only a percentage of the population can use without experiencing motion sickness FWIW the Quest and Index have largely solved this problem. There are still certain experiences in VR which require more motion-sickness acclimation, such as roller coasters or fast-moving shooters. However, 1:1 motion experiences no longer cause problems for even the most sensitive players, in my experience. I've demoed current VR hardware to highly sensitive friends and family members without issue. The same friends and family couldn't tolerate earlier generations of VR for more than a few minutes.
  - 5y ago

tibyat 5y ago

"objectively"? no. What has become clear to all unbiased parties is that all FB has done is invest billions of dollars in developing a new ad revenue stream. it's amazing to me how often someone on HN defending FB...turns out to be a FB employee.

only_as_i_fall 5y ago

Except that FB acquired oculus after they were already shipping their prototype as a devkit. Considering HTC was able to launch what is arguably a better product within the same year as oculus I fail to see what facebook brought to the table besides dark patterns and forced privacy violations.

jsnell 5y ago
Facebook made a standalone $300 device that just works. The other players in the market are making $1000 devices that require me to be wired to a $1000 gaming PC. The Quest 2 is an incredibly attractive device, and I basically can't imagine ever getting a wired VR headset at this point. From my perspective, Facebook made both the most attractive device and the best software ecosystem. I suspect Oculus as a standalone company could not have managed that. That said, introducing ads to paid apps is a really bad idea. It's going to totally undermine consumer trust, and kneecap the ecosystem they built. (And yes, I also had a visceral distaste when having to finally make a Facebook account to be able to use the Quest 2. But I can recognize that unifying the account infrastructure is the correct engineering choice, there's no need to assume malice).
- Retric 5y ago
  FB didn’t make a 300$ headset, they heavily subsidized a headset. So, their going to need to make a lot of money from users to break even.
  - jsnell 5y ago
    I doubt that. The Quest 2 is probably being sold at a tiny loss at launch, just like most gaming consoles are, and will at the end of its lifespan be sold at a small profit. But where they're looking to make the money is from getting a cut from software sales, again just like consoles. Advertising is a garbage business compared to owning a popular software platform like that. Let's do some back of the envelope calculations. Let's say you can show 10 ads per hour, the average VR user uses 30 minutes of VR per day, a CPM of $10, a 50% platform vs. app cut of ad revenue, and a device lifetime of 5 years. I think these are all generous estimates. 10 ads / hour * 0.5 hours / day * 365 days / year * $10 / 1000 ads * 50% * 5 years = $45.60 total ad revenue for the lifetime of the device. They cannot be subsidizing this for $400 and expecting to make it up on ads. The numbers just don't add up. (But I don't think they're selling it for a multi-hundred dollar loss at all.) On the other hand, in 9 months of using the device I've bought about $150 in software, with Facebook's cut probably being about $45. Except that is over 9 months, not 5 years. This is where the money is.

neartheplain 5y ago

It's currently impossible to tell how Facebook has damaged the Oculus brand, simply due to the lack of a credible mobile (aka "untethered") VR competitor. Once someone like Valve, HTC, Sony, or Apple finally release untethered hardware at a competitive price point, we'll see whether customers are really willing to tolerate forced Facebok account integration and ads in VR. Personally, I absolutely love the Quest's price point, form factor, and overall software quality. At the same time, I despise Oculus as a brand and Facebook as a company for all of the above. I'm prepared to jump ship the split second an alternative is available.

kstrauser 5y ago

I know people, including me and my kid, who absolutely refuse to buy a VR system that requires a Facebook login. Of course I don't have numbers to back this, but I suspect there are quite a lot of people who feel the same way. Here's a worst-case hypothetical reason why: people will watch porn on VR. Maybe not everyone, but a lot of people. Even people who wouldn't want to watch it regularly are likely to get curious and check it out at least once to see what it's like. Now, raise your hand: who wants Facebook having access to their porn habits? Oculus-the-tech is cool. Oculus-the-Facebook-client is completely dead to me. No way, no thanks.

BuckRogers 5y ago
That's a good point. I never thought of it because I don't watch porn, which is probably unbelievable to the masses of addicts out there reading this right now. I had a Quest1 for a while (they hurt your face after a while from the pressure), and never tried porn. I enjoyed Beat Saber a lot though. But I can say I probably would try porn on one at some point, and correct- I really don't want Facebook logging that. The worst part about VR is that it's so intoxicating with its immersion that once you take it off you feel sad that this is where you really live, not a nice place. It gave me joy and took me away, but it also made me sad about my real life. It gives you a fantasy and more people should realize that multimillionaires and billionaires don't need virtual reality, they're living what you're putting on your face. I'm sure that includes the porn too.

xg15 5y ago

> Facebook invests billions of dollars into advancing the tech behind Oculus, reducing the form factor and making it economically viable ... so they can show ads on it.