4 ms·
Cross posting my comment from the original article: ---- Hi John, huge fan of all your work. I think the biggest issue with the FB acquisition is over one va
by FD3SA 13y ago
Cross posting my comment from the original article:
----
Hi John, huge fan of all your work.
I think the biggest issue with the FB acquisition is over one variable: control. The Oculus team has, by definition, relinquished control of their platform to FB. This is not a decision to be brushed aside, as it has some very severe consequences.
Let's for example, consider Oculus' partnership with developers. Prior to the FB deal, Oculus had a direct relationship with developers and would work in tandem with them to guarantee the best user experience. Now, there is a massive Facebook middleman, with all of the decision making power, wedged between Oculus and developers. This is the real reason why Notch and many others have abandoned the platform.
Oculus can give us their word, swear an oath, and cross their hearts. But their destiny is no longer in Palmer's, your's or Michael's hands. It's in Mark Zuckerberg's. And if there is, at any point, any sort of disagreement over the smallest issue, there will be no debate because the Oculus team are now nothing more than employees, and will have to put up or shut up when it comes to crucial decisions.
Of course, as long as there are no problems, and everything is rosy then all is well. But the second rough seas are encountered and tough decisions need to be made, I fear that the Oculus team will understand that they've made a serious mistake by relinquishing control of their destiny to Facebook.
If the Oculus team was short on cash, I'm sure there would have been a great many investors willing to pour additional money into the venture at very generous valuations. This is because Oculus was a darling of the industry, with legends such as yourself on board. The developer community knew that you would not compromise on the experience, and because you answered to no one but the Oculus team and your investors, you were free to make the Oculus experience the best it could possibly be.
Personally, I have watched many interviews with yourself describing the challenges of the Oculus and how you are working on overcoming them. I was sold based on your vision, determination, and most importantly, the freedom and control to deliver the best experience possible. I cannot help but feel that the FB deal has put a sword of Damocles over your heads, as the technical leads will always be the first to have to accept defeat when faced with executive meddling on critical decisions.
I would point to Elon Musk, and how he has maintained control of Tesla and SpaceX, not because it was the correct financial decision, but because as a product company he would have been doomed if non-technical executives began vetoing his critical design decisions. Sadly, this latter scenario is the one I believe Oculus has put itself in. I truly hope you can weather these storms as they arise, but history and experience tell me it will be extremely difficult.
Forever a fan,
FD3SA
- dmoy 13y agoI don't know John Carmack's financial background, so what I'm about to say might be totally wrong. Your comparison to Elon Musk is kind of odd. Elon Musk's first company sold to a larger company for a giant pile of money. Actually even his second company sold for a giant pile of money. It appears (at least from my perspective) that only after he sold two companies for billions of dollars did he follow the route we see with Tesla & SpaceX of not selling.
- FD3SA 13y agoAnd where are those products today? Elon Musk has openly said that PayPal has become a disappointment since he sold it. Relinquishing control of design decisions for a product company is suicide. Product companies make things whose functions are the selling point. Tesla, SpaceX and Oculus all fall into this category.
- dmoy 13y agoAh yes, sorry. I should have been a bit more verbose in my response. I totally agree with you about the long term health of the product/company itself. I have no doubt that they could have raised capital by other means, and continued to do cool things for VR. What I don't agree with is the comparison to Elon Musk, because Elon Musk already sold companies for billions of dollars. When someone offers billions of dollars, that changes things for a lot of people. Elon Musk did exactly what Oculus is doing right now. He sold, because that's a hell of a lot of money. In some respects, it has allowed him to do whatever the hell he damn well pleases, to great effect (launching space rockets and making incredible cars). So I understand why the fan base of VR & Oculus is upset, but I cannot at all fault them for selling, because giant piles of money, holy crap.
- jamesisaac 13y agoFrom what I gather, Musk had aspirations to make advancements in renewable energy and space travel from has early as his time in college, but obviously those industries have rather large barriers to entry. So I believe Zip2 and Paypal were acting as stepping stones so he could build up capital/experience before he could move onto his true passion. Virtual reality has a low enough barrier to entry that the kickstarter and existing investments had already solved that problem. And as far as I'm aware, VR are some of the highest aspirations held by the Oculus team, take this recent quote from Palmer Luckey for example: > "I’m obsessed with VR. I spend every day pushing further, and every night dreaming of where we are going. Even in my wildest dreams, I never imagined we’d come so far so fast." So I personally see the comparison with SpaceX/Tesla as a fairer comparison than Musk's first two businesses.