3 ms·
I was trying to make the argument that Facebook probably DIDN'T buy them for games (ie Farmville). I'm saying that it's a longer bet. Maybe they see it as a ne
by mladenkovacevic 13y ago
I was trying to make the argument that Facebook probably DIDN'T buy them for games (ie Farmville).
I'm saying that it's a longer bet. Maybe they see it as a new interface for general computing. It certainly has that intimate, only-I-know-what-I'm-doing quality that voice commands (Siri and Google Now for example) don't have.
- lmg643 13y agoI hear you. When the bet is so far out that you can't even guess at it - either we're just too dim (likely), or the theory is pretty shaky. the mouse is a good parallel - just a way to interface with content. many people have figured out how to build one. the star of the show (and the revenue) remains the content we use it to point at.
- WalterSear 13y agoThe problem is, without establishing a beachhead in gaming, there's no real path towards adoption. You can't just leapfrog the gamers and expect to build a market with other stuff that might or might not turn out to be compelling: gaming is VR's no-brainer killer app. People are going to be buying this for games first, and when a critical mass assembles, other stuff. So, this is either a very, very long range bet, or a misguided one.