I see the absence of overlap as a good thing. It means it's highly unlikely that Facebook threw down $2 billion for some gimmicky social integration that a tiny

I see the absence of overlap as a good thing. It means it's highly unlikely that Facebook threw down $2 billion for some gimmicky social integration that a tiny sliver of their userbase could harness. The Oculus team is cutting-edge hardware along a completely different vertical, orthogonal to facebook's core. Despite their size they have the talent and expertise to create that entire market by themselves, provided adequate funding. Facebook does not have to interfere at all, beyond writing the cheques. Over three years, Facebook could have itself a new gaming product to compete with Sony and XBox... in five, it might have an innovative consumer device to take on Apple. The conglomerate model typically has better odds of long-term survival - what happens when people grow tired of social in its current form (primarily content curation)? Then facebook's flagship product would be obsolete.