8 ms·

>"Oh come on -- this is just ridiculous. They (Oculus) now have many many more times the resources at their disposal than before to make countless imaginative p

>"Oh come on -- this is just ridiculous. They (Oculus) now have many many more times the resources at their disposal than before to make countless imaginative projects." Honest question, do you have anything to base this idea that of "many many more times the resources" on? Have any companies been acquired by FB and immediately gone about pushing the envelope in ways that don't strictly line up the existing business of FB? I think the concern here is entirely justified. The Rift is a breakthrough product made possible by people who believed enough to back it via Kickstarter. Once delivered the community set about creating a whole range of wild stuff and general made those creations freely available. Nobody wants to see their creativity hindered by some new corporate developer standards or restricted to distribution through something that sits behind a Facebook login. Personally, I want the Rift to let me walk on the surface of the sun not allow me the privilege of paying a Facbook/NBA partnership for artificially scarce virtual "courtside" seats to a game.

s3r3nity 13y ago
I don't work for FB so I don't know the full details of all their acquisitions, but I would look to the success of a company like, say, Parse for what potential could lie here.
debt 13y ago
Instagram has been allowed to go at their own pace since they've been acquired. Parse, also, has essentially gone on it's own and created things at it's own pace. It seems they're having the same attitude with Whatsapp. I assume, especially with Carmack coming over, that FB will be extremely hands-off with the base technology behind the rift. Facebook is an engineering company; in the way it's run and with what it pushes out to consumers. It's a flat organization essentially run by engineers I mean shit, the CEO built the original product. The Rift under Facebook, I guarantee you, will be the best VR product in the market in five years; which would be much faster than the decade and half it would've taken on their own. Speculation I know, but again with the way Facebook is run, it seems that this acquisition will only expedite the awesomeness-that-is-to-come.
- hack_edu 13y ago
  Yes, but Instagram and Parse are services that fall within Facebook's major product area and have teams with related experience to Facebook's daily operations. Oculus is not a service, just a technology; one that has no relation (nor clear route to one) to any Facebook-held product.
  - froo 13y ago
    > Oculus is not a service, just a technology; one that has no relation (nor clear route to one) to any Facebook-held product. Exactly. This is what diversification is all about. At it's core, Facebook is now a public technology company, which means that creating value for its shareholders is it's primary focus. Buying something that looks like it might be a big deal before it becomes a big deal is doing that. Killing it before it has a chance to become big, especially since it has no "relation to any Facebook-held product" (thus it's not competing) is definitely not in their best interest.
    - bduerst 13y ago
      >Diversification Conglomerates have some of the thinnest margins across many industries. Jumping into the electronic devices industry with a product that hasn't even hit market yet is a bad gamble, especially since a dedicated electronics manufacturer (Sony) is going to release the same product but with an already dedicated market (Playstation). It would have been better to wait until OR released, because then early adopters would have demonstrated if it is a viable product.
      - maldeh 13y ago
        Fair point. It definitely looks like an emotional purchase in a tough market. They're already getting creamed for it in the stock market [1] The way things look, this is largely a win for Oculus for finding a big backer, and a risky gamble for facebook. I think it's good that FB's putting some faith in a great team and product all the same -- [1] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-shares-drop-more-than-6-on-oculus-deal-2014-03-26 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-shares-drop-more-t...
moskie 13y ago
> Have any companies been acquired by FB and immediately gone about pushing the envelope in ways that don't strictly line up the existing business of FB? I'm not sure how many examples are out there, but I continually have to remind myself that Facebook owns Instagram. The product hasn't really suffered, at least for no reasons I would directly associate with them being bought out by FB. I say this as someone who is also really disappointed that Oculus is now owned by FB. But I'll give it a chance. If they still produce something awesome that isn't tainted by FB crap, I'll use it.
- NoodleIncident 13y ago
  I thought that a big effect of the InstaBook deal was that FB got access to every image on the site, after an opt-out period, to use in advertisements as they please.
elwell 13y ago
> Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook to achieve this.
- Chirael 13y ago
  That type of thing is standard wording in an acquisition announcement - it's pretty boilerplate. While it's possible we'll be pleasantly surprised, the history of small, innovative companies being acquired by much bigger companies does not /generally/ bode well for the smaller companies & their products. If the Oculus product(s) is successful in any way, it would only be natural for FB to want some kind of hooks/integration, as just another surface area to push their brand/strategy/etc. Just like Google pushed "Plus" into everything regardless of whether it was really a good fit, because the parent corp is the owner/master and the subsidiary (or internal group) has to serve the strategies of its owner. It's not necessarily bad, it's just expected. Maybe if FB weren't a public company we might expect them to be able to have a bit more of a hands-off approach, but since going public I'd say it's "unlikely".

s3r3nity 13y ago

I don't work for FB so I don't know the full details of all their acquisitions, but I would look to the success of a company like, say, Parse for what potential could lie here.

debt 13y ago

Instagram has been allowed to go at their own pace since they've been acquired. Parse, also, has essentially gone on it's own and created things at it's own pace. It seems they're having the same attitude with Whatsapp. I assume, especially with Carmack coming over, that FB will be extremely hands-off with the base technology behind the rift. Facebook is an engineering company; in the way it's run and with what it pushes out to consumers. It's a flat organization essentially run by engineers I mean shit, the CEO built the original product. The Rift under Facebook, I guarantee you, will be the best VR product in the market in five years; which would be much faster than the decade and half it would've taken on their own. Speculation I know, but again with the way Facebook is run, it seems that this acquisition will only expedite the awesomeness-that-is-to-come.

hack_edu 13y ago
Yes, but Instagram and Parse are services that fall within Facebook's major product area and have teams with related experience to Facebook's daily operations. Oculus is not a service, just a technology; one that has no relation (nor clear route to one) to any Facebook-held product.
- froo 13y ago
  > Oculus is not a service, just a technology; one that has no relation (nor clear route to one) to any Facebook-held product. Exactly. This is what diversification is all about. At it's core, Facebook is now a public technology company, which means that creating value for its shareholders is it's primary focus. Buying something that looks like it might be a big deal before it becomes a big deal is doing that. Killing it before it has a chance to become big, especially since it has no "relation to any Facebook-held product" (thus it's not competing) is definitely not in their best interest.
  - bduerst 13y ago
    >Diversification Conglomerates have some of the thinnest margins across many industries. Jumping into the electronic devices industry with a product that hasn't even hit market yet is a bad gamble, especially since a dedicated electronics manufacturer (Sony) is going to release the same product but with an already dedicated market (Playstation). It would have been better to wait until OR released, because then early adopters would have demonstrated if it is a viable product.
    - maldeh 13y ago
      Fair point. It definitely looks like an emotional purchase in a tough market. They're already getting creamed for it in the stock market [1] The way things look, this is largely a win for Oculus for finding a big backer, and a risky gamble for facebook. I think it's good that FB's putting some faith in a great team and product all the same -- [1] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-shares-drop-more-than-6-on-oculus-deal-2014-03-26 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-shares-drop-more-t...

moskie 13y ago

> Have any companies been acquired by FB and immediately gone about pushing the envelope in ways that don't strictly line up the existing business of FB? I'm not sure how many examples are out there, but I continually have to remind myself that Facebook owns Instagram. The product hasn't really suffered, at least for no reasons I would directly associate with them being bought out by FB. I say this as someone who is also really disappointed that Oculus is now owned by FB. But I'll give it a chance. If they still produce something awesome that isn't tainted by FB crap, I'll use it.

NoodleIncident 13y ago
I thought that a big effect of the InstaBook deal was that FB got access to every image on the site, after an opt-out period, to use in advertisements as they please.

elwell 13y ago

> Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook to achieve this.

Chirael 13y ago
That type of thing is standard wording in an acquisition announcement - it's pretty boilerplate. While it's possible we'll be pleasantly surprised, the history of small, innovative companies being acquired by much bigger companies does not /generally/ bode well for the smaller companies & their products. If the Oculus product(s) is successful in any way, it would only be natural for FB to want some kind of hooks/integration, as just another surface area to push their brand/strategy/etc. Just like Google pushed "Plus" into everything regardless of whether it was really a good fit, because the parent corp is the owner/master and the subsidiary (or internal group) has to serve the strategies of its owner. It's not necessarily bad, it's just expected. Maybe if FB weren't a public company we might expect them to be able to have a bit more of a hands-off approach, but since going public I'd say it's "unlikely".