7 ms·

The reason why people haven't commented yet because we can't find the words. I have no immediate idea what can FB do with Oculus VR, even if I read Zuck's comme

The reason why people haven't commented yet because we can't find the words. I have no immediate idea what can FB do with Oculus VR, even if I read Zuck's comments.

fletchowns 13y ago
Well it only got posted 8 minutes ago. Still, there's no shortage of garbage comments in the thread here already.
fasteddie31003 13y ago
Facebook knows that Facebook.com is toping off. It wants to spread its reach. I really don't think there will be any crossover between Oculus and Facebook, just like there isen't any crossover between Windows and XBox.
- tommoose 13y ago
  Windows and XBox have a strong crossover in DirectX
  - adventured 13y ago
    Not to mention that XBox is powered by a modified version of Windows.
- WalterSear 13y ago
  There isn't a crossover today. There will be, if/when Oculus-like devices replace television viewing, and other shared vicarious experiences.
- nwp90 13y ago
  Facebook needs to move to Oculus, not try to tie Oculus to what Facebook currently is. If they're thinking more that way, there's hope. I have very little faith in them allowing anything remotely awesome to come out of this, though.
- moheeb 13y ago
  I can control my Xbox from my Windows PC.
- jamesie 13y ago
  Social gaming on Facebook -> Play VR games with Facebook friends. I bet rules that limited other social games from promoting themselves on Facebook won't be as stringent as for Oculus games.
kamkazemoose 13y ago
> But this is just the start. After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face -- just by putting on goggles in your home. > This is really a new communication platform. By feeling truly present, you can share unbounded spaces and experiences with the people in your life. Imagine sharing not just moments with your friends online, but entire experiences and adventures. This seems like the money quote. Basically they want to have everyone share virtual experiences together within your network.
- ahjushi 13y ago
  I'm not a huge fan of FB either, but IMO, actually looking at it that way is kind of exciting. Imagine Oculus VR + Project Tango = "experience" physical places you otherwise might not. Or if it could be used to shop Amazon Fresh as a regular grocery store (sometimes I don't know exactly what I need/want, and I like just walking through the aisles to see)? There's a lot that this could potentially open up if used as a connectivity/communication hardware; but I agree, that they should nail down their core competency first before pursuing other use-cases.
  - Aoyagi 13y ago
    Except Tango didn't come from Facebook.Facebook has never made anything new aside from new standards in marketing and scummery. Google at least sometimes toy with the idea of things being open and is heavily investing in R&D other than just "where to place the ad so that it's always seen".
- zanny 13y ago
  > Basically they want to have everyone share virtual experiences together within your network. Over proprietary facebook-only protocols, on their proprietary software, using proprietary device drivers, with systemic data collection, and virtual reality advertising. Yeah, no thanks. Occulus was poised to be revolutionary because it was going to be bigger than one headset, it was going to be an open platform for an entire generation of VR tech. Now, it is only facebook tech, and that is a shame.
julespitt 13y ago
This is the first indication, to me at least, that Facebook is going to be pursuing the "Bell Labs" style strategy that Google has been. For example, self-driving cars and robots are great new technologies and industries but have less than obvious connections to Googles core business. Facebook now would seem to be doing the same.
- rhizome 13y ago
  I don't think they're "great new technologies" so much as "pie in the sky" goal-spread diversification that shareholders like to see. There is a cultural aspect of the stock market where a range of goals is seen as more stable than, you know, getting real good at search and ads. I suspect this in Facebook-OVR. FB might ruin it, a la Yahoo-Flickr, or leave them alone, but Facebook isn't really making headlines these days, and OVR is, so now every OVR story will now have to mention Facebook. It may not turn out this way, but there's no reason why the pairing has to be tightly coupled.
  - julespitt 13y ago
    I actually had the opposite impression of stock investors, that they vastly preferred the "just getting better at what you do" than "pie-in-the-sky", but that's just an impression. Tightly-coupled Facebook-OVR would shock me, definitely.
- digisth 13y ago
  That was my thought as well. Just like Microsoft long ago diversified into hardware and services, and Google is doing Calico, self-driving cars, etc. FB sees value in the diversification strategy. I'm doubting they'll be doing Facebook logins or "post to your timeline" stuff with this anytime soon, if ever. Facebook is trying to get more fingers in more pies, which makes perfect sense. As far as Oculus goes, this probably takes a whole heap of pressure off of them. Now they can act like one of the units of Bell, and just work on the thing, rather than worrying about pleasing investors or turning a profit anytime soon. Assuming FB doesn't do anything crazy, this will only help them and the tech. Edit: the thing that should be worrying both companies is the potential developer backlash. Not everyone loves FB, as the comments here attest. Perhaps an investment rather than an acquisition would have stirred up less vitriol.
jusben1369 13y ago
Best early random guess is this is defensive against Google Glass. Basically the world is going to stay mobile but the form factor will move from phones to glasses. FB won't be caught lagging this time (like they did from Web to Mobile).
- saraid216 13y ago
  This was also my first thought. The value proposition is basically, "Google Glass."
  - aetherson 13y ago
    I don't think so, for two basic reasons: 1. Despite similarity in the fundamental form factor, Glass and the Oculus Rift are trying to solve pretty different engineering problems. Rift is all about trying to be low latency, capture motion accurately, and be sufficiently high resolution to make an experience feel immersive. Glass is about battery life, hardware miniaturization, and a display that you can see in daylight without it obscuring your vision. While, if both products were successful, they might eventually start to converge towards each other, owning one does not really help you solve the challenges of the other. 2. Facebook is threatened by Google Glass now? Glass has really, really failed to take off and become a big thing. It's hard for me to imagine that Facebook felt the need to do a multi-billion dollar acquisition to position themselves defensively against a product whose main accomplishment is coining the term "glassholes." Facebook manufactures its own opprobrium in house, very successfully. They don't need to acquire it.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      Google Glass's proposition is fundamentally "wearable Facebook". I don't think this is a defensive move; it's a "Oh, it's obvious in hindsight; why aren't we doing that, too?" response. Oculus Rift wasn't competing against it, but a Facebook-owned Oculus Rift is a lot more likely to. In effect, Facebook is asking for the second mover position. There's an old saw about how the first mover in a new market actually fails because he runs into all the problems, but the second mover succeeds because he learns from the first mover's mistakes. That could easily be happening here.
aeberbach 13y ago
Have you no IMAGINATION!? Can't you picture a Farmville where you can actually see the teats on the cow right in front of you? See the corn waving in a virtual breeze? Best of all, see a beautifully rendered image of your money go up in flames each time you make an in-game purchase!
ehsanu1 13y ago
I'll hazard a guess, though Zuckerburg more or less lays it out. They'll create the Metaverse (as described in Snow Crash), but they'll own it. You will meet virtually with friends on the Facebook platform, and they will own it all the way through to the consumer hardware.
- sjg007 13y ago
  Just like Caprica.
  - Graystone 13y ago
    Definitely. Just put on your holoband and enter the V-Space. Brought to you by Graystone/Facebook Industries.
  - sammyo 13y ago
    Or Second Life...

The reason why people haven't commented yet because we can't find the words. I have no immediate idea what can FB do with Oculus VR, even if I read Zuck's comments.

fletchowns 13y ago

Well it only got posted 8 minutes ago. Still, there's no shortage of garbage comments in the thread here already.

fasteddie31003 13y ago

Facebook knows that Facebook.com is toping off. It wants to spread its reach. I really don't think there will be any crossover between Oculus and Facebook, just like there isen't any crossover between Windows and XBox.

tommoose 13y ago
Windows and XBox have a strong crossover in DirectX
- adventured 13y ago
  Not to mention that XBox is powered by a modified version of Windows.
WalterSear 13y ago
There isn't a crossover today. There will be, if/when Oculus-like devices replace television viewing, and other shared vicarious experiences.
nwp90 13y ago
Facebook needs to move to Oculus, not try to tie Oculus to what Facebook currently is. If they're thinking more that way, there's hope. I have very little faith in them allowing anything remotely awesome to come out of this, though.
moheeb 13y ago
I can control my Xbox from my Windows PC.
jamesie 13y ago
Social gaming on Facebook -> Play VR games with Facebook friends. I bet rules that limited other social games from promoting themselves on Facebook won't be as stringent as for Oculus games.

kamkazemoose 13y ago

> But this is just the start. After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face -- just by putting on goggles in your home. > This is really a new communication platform. By feeling truly present, you can share unbounded spaces and experiences with the people in your life. Imagine sharing not just moments with your friends online, but entire experiences and adventures. This seems like the money quote. Basically they want to have everyone share virtual experiences together within your network.

ahjushi 13y ago
I'm not a huge fan of FB either, but IMO, actually looking at it that way is kind of exciting. Imagine Oculus VR + Project Tango = "experience" physical places you otherwise might not. Or if it could be used to shop Amazon Fresh as a regular grocery store (sometimes I don't know exactly what I need/want, and I like just walking through the aisles to see)? There's a lot that this could potentially open up if used as a connectivity/communication hardware; but I agree, that they should nail down their core competency first before pursuing other use-cases.
- Aoyagi 13y ago
  Except Tango didn't come from Facebook.Facebook has never made anything new aside from new standards in marketing and scummery. Google at least sometimes toy with the idea of things being open and is heavily investing in R&D other than just "where to place the ad so that it's always seen".
zanny 13y ago
> Basically they want to have everyone share virtual experiences together within your network. Over proprietary facebook-only protocols, on their proprietary software, using proprietary device drivers, with systemic data collection, and virtual reality advertising. Yeah, no thanks. Occulus was poised to be revolutionary because it was going to be bigger than one headset, it was going to be an open platform for an entire generation of VR tech. Now, it is only facebook tech, and that is a shame.

julespitt 13y ago

This is the first indication, to me at least, that Facebook is going to be pursuing the "Bell Labs" style strategy that Google has been. For example, self-driving cars and robots are great new technologies and industries but have less than obvious connections to Googles core business. Facebook now would seem to be doing the same.

rhizome 13y ago
I don't think they're "great new technologies" so much as "pie in the sky" goal-spread diversification that shareholders like to see. There is a cultural aspect of the stock market where a range of goals is seen as more stable than, you know, getting real good at search and ads. I suspect this in Facebook-OVR. FB might ruin it, a la Yahoo-Flickr, or leave them alone, but Facebook isn't really making headlines these days, and OVR is, so now every OVR story will now have to mention Facebook. It may not turn out this way, but there's no reason why the pairing has to be tightly coupled.
- julespitt 13y ago
  I actually had the opposite impression of stock investors, that they vastly preferred the "just getting better at what you do" than "pie-in-the-sky", but that's just an impression. Tightly-coupled Facebook-OVR would shock me, definitely.
digisth 13y ago
That was my thought as well. Just like Microsoft long ago diversified into hardware and services, and Google is doing Calico, self-driving cars, etc. FB sees value in the diversification strategy. I'm doubting they'll be doing Facebook logins or "post to your timeline" stuff with this anytime soon, if ever. Facebook is trying to get more fingers in more pies, which makes perfect sense. As far as Oculus goes, this probably takes a whole heap of pressure off of them. Now they can act like one of the units of Bell, and just work on the thing, rather than worrying about pleasing investors or turning a profit anytime soon. Assuming FB doesn't do anything crazy, this will only help them and the tech. Edit: the thing that should be worrying both companies is the potential developer backlash. Not everyone loves FB, as the comments here attest. Perhaps an investment rather than an acquisition would have stirred up less vitriol.

jusben1369 13y ago

Best early random guess is this is defensive against Google Glass. Basically the world is going to stay mobile but the form factor will move from phones to glasses. FB won't be caught lagging this time (like they did from Web to Mobile).

saraid216 13y ago
This was also my first thought. The value proposition is basically, "Google Glass."
- aetherson 13y ago
  I don't think so, for two basic reasons: 1. Despite similarity in the fundamental form factor, Glass and the Oculus Rift are trying to solve pretty different engineering problems. Rift is all about trying to be low latency, capture motion accurately, and be sufficiently high resolution to make an experience feel immersive. Glass is about battery life, hardware miniaturization, and a display that you can see in daylight without it obscuring your vision. While, if both products were successful, they might eventually start to converge towards each other, owning one does not really help you solve the challenges of the other. 2. Facebook is threatened by Google Glass now? Glass has really, really failed to take off and become a big thing. It's hard for me to imagine that Facebook felt the need to do a multi-billion dollar acquisition to position themselves defensively against a product whose main accomplishment is coining the term "glassholes." Facebook manufactures its own opprobrium in house, very successfully. They don't need to acquire it.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    Google Glass's proposition is fundamentally "wearable Facebook". I don't think this is a defensive move; it's a "Oh, it's obvious in hindsight; why aren't we doing that, too?" response. Oculus Rift wasn't competing against it, but a Facebook-owned Oculus Rift is a lot more likely to. In effect, Facebook is asking for the second mover position. There's an old saw about how the first mover in a new market actually fails because he runs into all the problems, but the second mover succeeds because he learns from the first mover's mistakes. That could easily be happening here.

aeberbach 13y ago

Have you no IMAGINATION!? Can't you picture a Farmville where you can actually see the teats on the cow right in front of you? See the corn waving in a virtual breeze? Best of all, see a beautifully rendered image of your money go up in flames each time you make an in-game purchase!

ehsanu1 13y ago

I'll hazard a guess, though Zuckerburg more or less lays it out. They'll create the Metaverse (as described in Snow Crash), but they'll own it. You will meet virtually with friends on the Facebook platform, and they will own it all the way through to the consumer hardware.

sjg007 13y ago
Just like Caprica.
- Graystone 13y ago
  Definitely. Just put on your holoband and enter the V-Space. Brought to you by Graystone/Facebook Industries.
- sammyo 13y ago
  Or Second Life...