29 ms·
Wrong in the moral sense? He's still there though, right? edit: he is not still edit: he is still a consulting CTO
by grimgrin 4y ago
Wrong in the moral sense?
He's still there though, right?
edit: he is not still
edit: he is still a consulting CTO
- tmpz22 4y ago* To his credit Carmack is a one-person brand and attaching your (good) brand to a tainted brand (Facebook) isn't great * Many believe Occulus isn't succeeding fast enough, and so the years Carmack spent on Occulus/Metaverse could have been spent on any number of interesting projects. Although I'm sure the money was amazing and I can't object to him taking it. * If Occulus/Metaverse succeeds it will be a ultra-monetized environment (re: Farmville) and encourage a huge amount of consumer-hostile policies like unlimited tracking (since Facebook owns the hardware now). No gamer wants that. The whales who will be justifying its existence won't benefit from that.
- kastagg 4y agoCarmack joined Oculus before the Facebook acquisition, so it's misleading to say he attached his brand to Facebook's.
- beeboop 4y agoI doubt Carmack is motivated that much by money. He has way more than he'll ever spend.
- barrysteve 4y agoHis reply to this tweet is that he didn't want to spend $20million of his own money on this venture. When you have the option to throw 20m on projects, you can spend it reasonably quickly.
- atq2119 4y agoHis actual claim is that spending other people's money helps his focus because it makes him feel responsible. That's a plausible argument.
- dataangel 4y agoThe first thing you want to hear as an investor is that the person you're investing into has as much skin in the game as possible so opening up with "I'm putting other people's money in this instead of mine" is not great.
- xnx 4y agoHe's not stll there