4 ms·
You are unreasonably conflating the legal situation and people's moral expectations. No one doubts that Oculus had every legal right to do what they did. People
by semiel 13y ago
You are unreasonably conflating the legal situation and people's moral expectations. No one doubts that Oculus had every legal right to do what they did. People just feel it was unethical.
- res0nat0r 13y agoI'd replace unethical wth the word jealous. They see big money and want in on it. They fulfilled their kickstarter and they are not forever in debt to the whims of their backers.
- kaybe 13y agoNot really. The problem is not an aquisition per se, it's an aquisition by Facebook (one of my friends, a backer, put it as 'the only thing worse would have been Zynga'). Imagine there is a company who you don't trust at all and who, in your eyes, has a history of betraying their users (in this case, with the changes and defaults in privacy settings, and the web stalking... ). Now imagine this company buying a company you care about, who had the air of being honest and open and which you trusted. Since you do not trust the first company, you can now effectively no longer use the product of the second. (While this may look a bit like paranoia, I know people who think like this.)
- yeukhon 13y agoUnethical? Moral expectations? You choose to use a product. The company can be acquired or shutdown. So making either decision is now unethical? How do people do business now? You choose to backup Oculus and know from the beginning you are not going to have a say in the business' future, so where is the moral and ethic responsibility? What would be unethical? Take the "seed" money and run away without delivering a product. Oculus delivered a prototype and they didn't run away.