4 ms·

You have to keep in mind how many of us saw this as a hacking and as a business opportunity to develop exactly what Facebook is now going to develop: VRUI platf

by pfraze 13y ago

You have to keep in mind how many of us saw this as a hacking and as a business opportunity to develop exactly what Facebook is now going to develop: VRUI platforms. That will still be possible, but this announcement means that there's a software player attached to the hardware, and they will try to maintain their platform position with it. On top of that, a lot of us are actively hoping to see the death of Facebook- I personally am, because I think they've acted unethically. (It's the job of IT professionals to protect users, not mine them.) Tying Facebook to the Rift means that the Rift is, well, part of that thing that I/we want to die. > It makes absolutely zero sense for Facebook to meddle with Oculus > With Facebook, they may actually have a fighting chance to retain their position as the leader in VR. How does Oculus get access to Facebook's builtin userbase, as Sony has, without having Facebook's software get involved? The only optimistic answer is that the purchase is an financial boost, but it didn't seem necessary. The Rift's strength was that it was purely PC - untied to any platform. They alienated the developer market they were cultivating by doing this. I've thought through the financial angles, I've thought through the "Sony and Valve were gonna beat them" angles, and I still think they're weak arguments. I think this is about Oculus building the software platform, and Facebook taking part in that.

marknutter 13y ago
> On top of that, a lot of us are actively hoping to see the death of Facebook- I personally am, because I think they've acted unethically. And this is really at the heart of all the nerd-rage. None of the responses I've seen are based on any kind of logic. They are completely emotional based on people's biases (justified or not) against Facebook the Product. If you look at Facebook's actions when it comes to their major acquisitions, ignoring all the controversy around Facebook the Product, you will see that they've been pretty good stewards of acquired tech so far. I was certainly impressed with their handling of Parse thus far. The way I see it, Facebook has been having a hard time coming up with their second act. Pretty much every new Facebook related feature or product has been a flop. So they are wisely looking to acquire rising stars rather than engineer them internally.
- pfraze 13y ago
  Right, and I have no problem with all the good points you just mentioned. I like their success, I like the engineers doing good work there, and I get their business position. But I'm going to use an exaggerated metaphor: Facebook is like a surgeon that quietly removes and sells patients' organs, then handles complaints with "hey, you can't beat my price!" It's part of IT ethics to protect users from things they lack the expertise to handle themselves. Facebook has done the opposite: they've pushed people to over-expose themselves. They had the resources and the position to create a self-hosted product that meshes with their network and keeps the social dataset segmented and private, but they didn't. It matters that they didn't. Not in a nerd-rage way, in an ethical way. You may not agree with that, but you should try to understand the position as something deeper than "nerd-rage."
  - marknutter 13y ago
    I understand and sympathize with that point of view, but I also sympathize with Facebook's position. Their success, after all, was based on making it easy for people to connect with each other, and anonymity is an impediment to that goal. The average user doesn't really mind, as it turns out, otherwise the populous would have flocked to Diaspora as soon as it was released. I guess all we can do is wait and see how Facebook handles it, but if history is any indication, they will likely let Oculus continue to operate autonomously and provide whatever resources necessary to help them reach their goal of viable VR.
    - pfraze 13y ago
      For sure, hopefully that's how this will go. I'm still mistrustful of them, but I do think Facebook will be smart enough not to get involved, since they do understand their markets. To your point about success, it's true, the users don't seem to mind, but that makes it even more of an ethical issue. As someone else pointed out, Facebook probably wouldn't have been successful in the first place with self-hosting, and that's probably true. But now they're here, they have market position and the resources, so what are they waiting for? But just for the sake of conversation, I'd like to make an even less reasonable point: if you can't succeed and do the right thing, then how important is your success?

by pfraze 13y ago

marknutter 13y ago

> On top of that, a lot of us are actively hoping to see the death of Facebook- I personally am, because I think they've acted unethically. And this is really at the heart of all the nerd-rage. None of the responses I've seen are based on any kind of logic. They are completely emotional based on people's biases (justified or not) against Facebook the Product. If you look at Facebook's actions when it comes to their major acquisitions, ignoring all the controversy around Facebook the Product, you will see that they've been pretty good stewards of acquired tech so far. I was certainly impressed with their handling of Parse thus far. The way I see it, Facebook has been having a hard time coming up with their second act. Pretty much every new Facebook related feature or product has been a flop. So they are wisely looking to acquire rising stars rather than engineer them internally.

pfraze 13y ago
Right, and I have no problem with all the good points you just mentioned. I like their success, I like the engineers doing good work there, and I get their business position. But I'm going to use an exaggerated metaphor: Facebook is like a surgeon that quietly removes and sells patients' organs, then handles complaints with "hey, you can't beat my price!" It's part of IT ethics to protect users from things they lack the expertise to handle themselves. Facebook has done the opposite: they've pushed people to over-expose themselves. They had the resources and the position to create a self-hosted product that meshes with their network and keeps the social dataset segmented and private, but they didn't. It matters that they didn't. Not in a nerd-rage way, in an ethical way. You may not agree with that, but you should try to understand the position as something deeper than "nerd-rage."
- marknutter 13y ago
  I understand and sympathize with that point of view, but I also sympathize with Facebook's position. Their success, after all, was based on making it easy for people to connect with each other, and anonymity is an impediment to that goal. The average user doesn't really mind, as it turns out, otherwise the populous would have flocked to Diaspora as soon as it was released. I guess all we can do is wait and see how Facebook handles it, but if history is any indication, they will likely let Oculus continue to operate autonomously and provide whatever resources necessary to help them reach their goal of viable VR.
  - pfraze 13y ago
    For sure, hopefully that's how this will go. I'm still mistrustful of them, but I do think Facebook will be smart enough not to get involved, since they do understand their markets. To your point about success, it's true, the users don't seem to mind, but that makes it even more of an ethical issue. As someone else pointed out, Facebook probably wouldn't have been successful in the first place with self-hosting, and that's probably true. But now they're here, they have market position and the resources, so what are they waiting for? But just for the sake of conversation, I'd like to make an even less reasonable point: if you can't succeed and do the right thing, then how important is your success?