3 ms·

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

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.
bane 13y ago
> I don't understand why most people think Facebook is so dumb in this thread. Because Facebook is dumb. For all the talk of vision, FB is nothing more than organic growth around Zuck's desire to get lists of fellow students on his campus into a directory. FB in 2006 is barely a different experience than FB in 2014. And none of the changes made so far can be charitably described as "smart". For all the wealth of information they have on people, they aren't even that good at placing relevant ads or getting clicks. The main innovations FB is credited with is finding more and more ways to mine and exploit user's data. More importantly, the things that Facebook is good at doing have little to nothing to do with building a persistent on-line world (and decades of experience have shown that in general these are not things that the bulk of people want to inhabit as a replacement for the real world. Walking around a virtual art gallery sucks in comparison to just flipping through a bunch of photos). Facebook and innovation almost never appear positively in the same sentence.
- danabramov 13y ago
  >FB is nothing more than organic growth You seem to be underestimating how difficult organic growth is. (In terms of product design, not engineering. And yes, Facebook circa 2006 is great product design because it was what people wanted.)
  - bane 13y ago
    Organic growth is execution and engineering, not innovation. FB in 2006 is a good design, and magically hit upon what people wanted, an easier to use private email system with a public announcement board. Is FB 2014 fundamentally different? Is there innovation? How about FB's other acquisitions, are they innovative or just derivative? Hint: If it's in the social space, it's just derivative. FB acquires purely to secure and reinforce this one-trick pony it's on. If e-mail was run by a single company they'd buy that too. Innovation is not in the company DNA, especially if it doesn't support the path they're on. That's why the only outcome of this is strapping an OVR to your face and getting bombarded by irrelevant ads and "join my game?" requests, but now in 3d or some other "fitting" of the acquisition into the existing and larger "social" momentum the company is on.
    - danabramov 13y ago
      ... or buying companies that know how to innovate.
      - bane 13y ago
        And then what? It's got to be connected to the core competencies of the company, otherwise it's just a conglomerate and FB has shown zero signs that this what they intend to do. All of the language of the acquisition is that they will be using this tech to reinforce what they already do. I'm excited to announce that we've agreed to acquire Oculus VR, the leader in virtual reality technology. Our mission is to make the world more open and connected. For the past few years, this has mostly meant building mobile apps that help you share with the people you care about. We have a lot more to do on mobile, but at this point we feel we're in a position where we can start focusing on what platforms will come next to enable even more useful, entertaining and personal experiences. And that's why people hate this acquisition, because OVR could have been so much more than just yet another vehicle for FB to push social. FB social could have been just one aspect of what OVR could have enabled, now it's the only thing.

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.

bane 13y ago

> I don't understand why most people think Facebook is so dumb in this thread. Because Facebook is dumb. For all the talk of vision, FB is nothing more than organic growth around Zuck's desire to get lists of fellow students on his campus into a directory. FB in 2006 is barely a different experience than FB in 2014. And none of the changes made so far can be charitably described as "smart". For all the wealth of information they have on people, they aren't even that good at placing relevant ads or getting clicks. The main innovations FB is credited with is finding more and more ways to mine and exploit user's data. More importantly, the things that Facebook is good at doing have little to nothing to do with building a persistent on-line world (and decades of experience have shown that in general these are not things that the bulk of people want to inhabit as a replacement for the real world. Walking around a virtual art gallery sucks in comparison to just flipping through a bunch of photos). Facebook and innovation almost never appear positively in the same sentence.

danabramov 13y ago
>FB is nothing more than organic growth You seem to be underestimating how difficult organic growth is. (In terms of product design, not engineering. And yes, Facebook circa 2006 is great product design because it was what people wanted.)
- bane 13y ago
  Organic growth is execution and engineering, not innovation. FB in 2006 is a good design, and magically hit upon what people wanted, an easier to use private email system with a public announcement board. Is FB 2014 fundamentally different? Is there innovation? How about FB's other acquisitions, are they innovative or just derivative? Hint: If it's in the social space, it's just derivative. FB acquires purely to secure and reinforce this one-trick pony it's on. If e-mail was run by a single company they'd buy that too. Innovation is not in the company DNA, especially if it doesn't support the path they're on. That's why the only outcome of this is strapping an OVR to your face and getting bombarded by irrelevant ads and "join my game?" requests, but now in 3d or some other "fitting" of the acquisition into the existing and larger "social" momentum the company is on.
  - danabramov 13y ago
    ... or buying companies that know how to innovate.
    - bane 13y ago
      And then what? It's got to be connected to the core competencies of the company, otherwise it's just a conglomerate and FB has shown zero signs that this what they intend to do. All of the language of the acquisition is that they will be using this tech to reinforce what they already do. I'm excited to announce that we've agreed to acquire Oculus VR, the leader in virtual reality technology. Our mission is to make the world more open and connected. For the past few years, this has mostly meant building mobile apps that help you share with the people you care about. We have a lot more to do on mobile, but at this point we feel we're in a position where we can start focusing on what platforms will come next to enable even more useful, entertaining and personal experiences. And that's why people hate this acquisition, because OVR could have been so much more than just yet another vehicle for FB to push social. FB social could have been just one aspect of what OVR could have enabled, now it's the only thing.