5 ms·

I think it's because nobody understands what FB is going to do with it. Instagram definitely has location and social graph data to exploit. But Oculus? What i

I think it's because nobody understands what FB is going to do with it. Instagram definitely has location and social graph data to exploit. But Oculus? What is FB going to do with that? I think most people still think of FB as the site and advertising sales for the site. But if you see FB as a conglomerate like Google, Apple, and Sony then it makes more sense. FB is diversifying, buying up promising technology with the hopes of leveraging new markets out of it. Maybe they want to make the Gameboy of wearable gaming? They have had success in working with gaming companies (Zynga and King might have peaked, but FB still made money.) And they certainly have a enough power to make things happen.

jdavis703 13y ago
Right on, Facebook's goal is to connect the world. That's why they've acquired companies that range from cloud hosting (Parse) to Internet-delivering drones (Ascenta/Internet.org).
- oafitupa 13y ago
  I thought their goal was to make money, go figure.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    Successful companies do not think like you. They focus on making the very best products/services they can and have the money be a secondary consideration.
kybernetikos 13y ago
I pretty sure that they want to create something like a successful second life - i.e. a VR social network, where users have their own virtual property that they can customize and virtual spaces where they can meet. Basically something like the metaverse in Snowcrash. And I can completely see the high ups in Occulus thinking that this is a brilliant match of visions.
- Recoil42 13y ago
  Okay, any reason that would succeed where VRML failed? I just don't see it.
  - madaxe_again 13y ago
    Because there's a big difference between laughable polygon-hell at 0fps and simulated presence. Anyway, their principle interest is probably AR anyway. Everyone else is tumbling into that space.
  - rmc 13y ago
    No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame. This was the slashdot editor's byline when Apple released the iPod. Just because a technology exists at one point and failed, doesn't mean that sort of technology can never work. Apple released the Newton ages ago, and we didn't switch to touch screen mobile devices till the iPhone.
    - officemonkey 13y ago
      Speak for yourself. Many many people were using touch screens on Palm devices throughout the late 90s and early 2000s.
      - rmc 13y ago
        Yes, lots of people were. But it wasn't mainstream.
        officemonkey 13y ago
        I'm pretty sure you weren't working in business in the United States in the late 90s. The Palm devices were the fancy gadgets to have. The were vastly more mainstream than the Newton ever was. They lost traction when the Blackberry phone emerged in the early 2000s, but if they had been able to get in the phone game faster, Palm could have beaten Apple to the smartphone.
  - 13y ago
Golddisk 13y ago
I think that what you mention - a tech conglomerate - is what Facebook wants to become. Of course, it's going to be hard for them to do that, at least for some years, because people are going to hear "Facebook" and all they are going to think about is the social networking portion of their business. Of course, Google was the same way at one time back when they were known only as a search engine.
Shorel 13y ago
What are they want to do with it? .hack//Sign, Sword Art Online and Ready Player One That's what they want to do.
dragontamer 13y ago
This is more of a statement of why Facebook's stock dropped by 15%. Investors are baffled by this purchase by Facebook. Outrage on the Oculus Rift side has to do more with the indie "spirit" that it gained by starting off as a Kickstarter company.
- LoganCale 13y ago
  Equal outrage is because lots of people want absolutely nothing to do with Facebook.
- encoderer 13y ago
  Possibly you were only looking at FB last week. If you widen your gaze you'll see the entire tech sector took a correction -- especially "momo" momentum-driven high p/e stocks. You simply can't view what happened to FB share price as a market reaction to Oculus.
daenz 13y ago
> I think it's because nobody understands what FB is going to do with it. I've been thinking about this Facebook acquisition for a little while, and in my mind, the only play that makes sense for Facebook is to become the login gateway to Oculus games. For many Windows games, there's Windows Live...a social-ish, login service that you literally have to register and sign in with in order to play the game. You cannot opt out. If Facebook became this... "Sign in with Facebook"... for all commercial Oculus games, they would have a guaranteed mindshare on the future younger generations of gamers. And becoming just the gatekeepers would more or less let them be hands-off with the actual Oculus direction as a company, which is in line with what's been said so far.
- danabramov 13y ago
  Seriously? The only reason to own a VR problem is to stick in “sign in via some website that used to be popular in the old web“ button? What would it give them anyway? Drive up Facebook usage on the old web? I don't understand why most people think Facebook is so dumb in this thread.
  - daenz 13y ago
    You sound like you've never used a mandatory social login for a game. I never go to https://login.live.com https://login.live.com but I have an account...one I had to create to play a game. I receive in-game messages and friend requests during game sessions. Take a look at the Games for Windows - LIVE feature set and tell me that isn't a social network that Facebook would want a part of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_for_Windows_%E2%80%93_Live#Games_for_Windows_.E2.80.93_Live_features http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_for_Windows_%E2%80%93_Liv... I'm not limiting the vision of Oculus...the sky is the limit. But I think the play for Facebook's immediate involvement will be similar to Games for Windows. Social gaming data is actionable to the Facebook business.
  - fizzbar 13y ago
    I don't think FB is dumb, but I do fear that they are highly amoral with respect to personal privacy... And a VR screen glued to your face is getting pretty damn personal. I feel uneasy about a guy who calls his users "dumb fucks" for trusting him to be in charge of that.
Vermeulen 13y ago
I am really hoping that your right, that it is them becoming a tech conglomerate rather than trying to integrate with their other products. But what worries me still, is I don't see a future where Facebook will keep the Oculus as a open system. If it's successful there is no doubt they will try to own the software/services with it - they won't just sell the hardware, then let PC developers (and open marketplaces, like Steam) get all the profit
tawayE324d1 13y ago
Let me take your imagination to a (short) trip: You can build a pretty decent psychological profile from a 30-50h game-play(even less if you design your game with this type of user-data in mind); this alone has HUGE implications(and possible use-cases) I won't go into.. If you combine the data from ALL VR EXPERIENCES through facebooks rift(and let me stress this again - we're talking about most of today's entertainment industry(+education), data the media has been dreaming of for years).. Even if eye-tracking won't be implemented, your VR interactions become a very neat addition to all the data - facebook alone - is gathering already - marketable like nothing before. As someone already mentioned here, being the first on the market means(among other things) that I as a potential VR customer won't really have options to choose from - my options are FB's rift, Sony's PS4+VR combo or just to wait for another ~5 years till enough VR parts are lying around so the smaller companies can have a go(although one may still not be able to watch the 360 F1 driver camera "facebook experience" feed from a "asus vr" kit). I'm fully aware that if most of my family/friends/colleagues/whatnot are on fb, it doesn't really matter if I'm using fb or not - data-wise(don't worry - till you are demonstrating in front of the "right" embassy, all is OK .. for now) - but this is a whole new attack vector for privacy.. and propaganda. If media are the only unregulated weapon of mass destruction on the planet, what is VR in hands of facebook then?
- XorNot 13y ago
  Let me take you on a short reality check: if this is so effective, then why wasn't Facebook buying game companies, Second Life clones, etc?
  - tawayE324d1 13y ago
    Why should they? Is FB a movie studio, or a game or hw development company? This was an opportunity to hijack a platform in its infancy and fb took it - so, in short - they just bought a whole new platform here(you seem to underestimate the significance, extent and potential of this technology). That is a whole different story. If the HW is a hit(and I bet it will be) - we're talking about a door to the (updated) world of entertainment; they can make a LOT of money by just being the (creepy, spying) doorman.

jdavis703 13y ago

Right on, Facebook's goal is to connect the world. That's why they've acquired companies that range from cloud hosting (Parse) to Internet-delivering drones (Ascenta/Internet.org).

oafitupa 13y ago
I thought their goal was to make money, go figure.
- threeseed 13y ago
  Successful companies do not think like you. They focus on making the very best products/services they can and have the money be a secondary consideration.

kybernetikos 13y ago

I pretty sure that they want to create something like a successful second life - i.e. a VR social network, where users have their own virtual property that they can customize and virtual spaces where they can meet. Basically something like the metaverse in Snowcrash. And I can completely see the high ups in Occulus thinking that this is a brilliant match of visions.

Recoil42 13y ago
Okay, any reason that would succeed where VRML failed? I just don't see it.
- madaxe_again 13y ago
  Because there's a big difference between laughable polygon-hell at 0fps and simulated presence. Anyway, their principle interest is probably AR anyway. Everyone else is tumbling into that space.
- rmc 13y ago
  No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame. This was the slashdot editor's byline when Apple released the iPod. Just because a technology exists at one point and failed, doesn't mean that sort of technology can never work. Apple released the Newton ages ago, and we didn't switch to touch screen mobile devices till the iPhone.
  - officemonkey 13y ago
    Speak for yourself. Many many people were using touch screens on Palm devices throughout the late 90s and early 2000s.
    - rmc 13y ago
      Yes, lots of people were. But it wasn't mainstream.
      - officemonkey 13y ago
        I'm pretty sure you weren't working in business in the United States in the late 90s. The Palm devices were the fancy gadgets to have. The were vastly more mainstream than the Newton ever was. They lost traction when the Blackberry phone emerged in the early 2000s, but if they had been able to get in the phone game faster, Palm could have beaten Apple to the smartphone.
- 13y ago

Golddisk 13y ago

I think that what you mention - a tech conglomerate - is what Facebook wants to become. Of course, it's going to be hard for them to do that, at least for some years, because people are going to hear "Facebook" and all they are going to think about is the social networking portion of their business. Of course, Google was the same way at one time back when they were known only as a search engine.

Shorel 13y ago

What are they want to do with it? .hack//Sign, Sword Art Online and Ready Player One That's what they want to do.

dragontamer 13y ago

This is more of a statement of why Facebook's stock dropped by 15%. Investors are baffled by this purchase by Facebook. Outrage on the Oculus Rift side has to do more with the indie "spirit" that it gained by starting off as a Kickstarter company.

LoganCale 13y ago
Equal outrage is because lots of people want absolutely nothing to do with Facebook.
encoderer 13y ago
Possibly you were only looking at FB last week. If you widen your gaze you'll see the entire tech sector took a correction -- especially "momo" momentum-driven high p/e stocks. You simply can't view what happened to FB share price as a market reaction to Oculus.

daenz 13y ago

> I think it's because nobody understands what FB is going to do with it. I've been thinking about this Facebook acquisition for a little while, and in my mind, the only play that makes sense for Facebook is to become the login gateway to Oculus games. For many Windows games, there's Windows Live...a social-ish, login service that you literally have to register and sign in with in order to play the game. You cannot opt out. If Facebook became this... "Sign in with Facebook"... for all commercial Oculus games, they would have a guaranteed mindshare on the future younger generations of gamers. And becoming just the gatekeepers would more or less let them be hands-off with the actual Oculus direction as a company, which is in line with what's been said so far.

danabramov 13y ago
Seriously? The only reason to own a VR problem is to stick in “sign in via some website that used to be popular in the old web“ button? What would it give them anyway? Drive up Facebook usage on the old web? I don't understand why most people think Facebook is so dumb in this thread.
- daenz 13y ago
  You sound like you've never used a mandatory social login for a game. I never go to https://login.live.com https://login.live.com but I have an account...one I had to create to play a game. I receive in-game messages and friend requests during game sessions. Take a look at the Games for Windows - LIVE feature set and tell me that isn't a social network that Facebook would want a part of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_for_Windows_%E2%80%93_Live#Games_for_Windows_.E2.80.93_Live_features http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_for_Windows_%E2%80%93_Liv... I'm not limiting the vision of Oculus...the sky is the limit. But I think the play for Facebook's immediate involvement will be similar to Games for Windows. Social gaming data is actionable to the Facebook business.
- fizzbar 13y ago
  I don't think FB is dumb, but I do fear that they are highly amoral with respect to personal privacy... And a VR screen glued to your face is getting pretty damn personal. I feel uneasy about a guy who calls his users "dumb fucks" for trusting him to be in charge of that.

Vermeulen 13y ago

I am really hoping that your right, that it is them becoming a tech conglomerate rather than trying to integrate with their other products. But what worries me still, is I don't see a future where Facebook will keep the Oculus as a open system. If it's successful there is no doubt they will try to own the software/services with it - they won't just sell the hardware, then let PC developers (and open marketplaces, like Steam) get all the profit

tawayE324d1 13y ago

Let me take your imagination to a (short) trip: You can build a pretty decent psychological profile from a 30-50h game-play(even less if you design your game with this type of user-data in mind); this alone has HUGE implications(and possible use-cases) I won't go into.. If you combine the data from ALL VR EXPERIENCES through facebooks rift(and let me stress this again - we're talking about most of today's entertainment industry(+education), data the media has been dreaming of for years).. Even if eye-tracking won't be implemented, your VR interactions become a very neat addition to all the data - facebook alone - is gathering already - marketable like nothing before. As someone already mentioned here, being the first on the market means(among other things) that I as a potential VR customer won't really have options to choose from - my options are FB's rift, Sony's PS4+VR combo or just to wait for another ~5 years till enough VR parts are lying around so the smaller companies can have a go(although one may still not be able to watch the 360 F1 driver camera "facebook experience" feed from a "asus vr" kit). I'm fully aware that if most of my family/friends/colleagues/whatnot are on fb, it doesn't really matter if I'm using fb or not - data-wise(don't worry - till you are demonstrating in front of the "right" embassy, all is OK .. for now) - but this is a whole new attack vector for privacy.. and propaganda. If media are the only unregulated weapon of mass destruction on the planet, what is VR in hands of facebook then?

XorNot 13y ago
Let me take you on a short reality check: if this is so effective, then why wasn't Facebook buying game companies, Second Life clones, etc?
- tawayE324d1 13y ago
  Why should they? Is FB a movie studio, or a game or hw development company? This was an opportunity to hijack a platform in its infancy and fb took it - so, in short - they just bought a whole new platform here(you seem to underestimate the significance, extent and potential of this technology). That is a whole different story. If the HW is a hit(and I bet it will be) - we're talking about a door to the (updated) world of entertainment; they can make a LOT of money by just being the (creepy, spying) doorman.