3 ms·

Yes, a big corporation with big pockets means more money and stability but it comes at a cost. The cost being whatever you do must at the end of the day feed ba

Yes, a big corporation with big pockets means more money and stability but it comes at a cost. The cost being whatever you do must at the end of the day feed back into the pockets of your parent company. Twitter used to be a platform too but how many third party applications do you see now? A lot less than what it used to be. What do you think will happen to Oculus applications? Those that are sanctioned by Facebook will thrive and those that aren't will be brutally shut down. At the end of the day this isn't good or bad. It is really more about long term disruptive technology and its viability outside giant dens like Facebook and Google. Looking around I don't see an ecosystem that can support such things without giant corporate backers and that is definitely not a good thing because at the end of the day the values of our corporate overlords tend to be slightly misaligned with that of the individual.

flogic 13y ago
While I don't trust facebook, they do seem like one of the more benign buyers possible. Any of the large gaming companies would have incentive to do some sort of "our products only" deal. Facebook just doesn't have any viable products to do that with.
rtpg 13y ago
>What do you think will happen to Oculus applications? Those that are sanctioned by Facebook will thrive and those that aren't will be brutally shut down. Does Facebook have a history of doing this? Instagram is still completely seperated (there's fb integration but twitter is the one that broke instagram integration, not the other way around). Not even mentioning the fact that the Oculus is not a SaaS, it's a screen. How is Facebook going to "shut down" calls to a device driver (if it's even that)? Why would they do that? People here seem to think that Facebook the company can only consist in Facebook the website, but they have a lot of money to invest in other things.
- allenschen 13y ago
  Just to nitpick about your Instagram integration comment - Instagram broke the integration, not Twitter. See: http://status.twitter.com/post/37258637900/instagram-photo-rendering-issue http://status.twitter.com/post/37258637900/instagram-photo-r...
- dkarapetyan 13y ago
  That's not sustainable. Facebook is not buying these companies because they are adhering to some kind of moral code. Facebook is a corporation like any other that needs to justify things to investors and analysts. That's the model as far as I know. So if they're pouring money into Oculus and its ecosystem then surely they expect to get something out of it. Ultimately they control the technology and as a profit driven corporation they are going to drive the technology in the direction of profits. They are not going to drive it in the direction of sustainability. Facebook is not in this to break even and they are not going to subsidize more benevolent but unprofitable uses of the technologies they acquire. Like I said in my original comment. I don't think this is a good or bad thing. My philosophical stance on technology is different and I'd much rather see a sustainable ecosystem of technologists that are not always driven by profits and quick payoffs from acquisitions.
  - ajcarpy2005 13y ago
    Startups need to be profitable too.
    - dkarapetyan 13y ago
      I don't think that's true. Sustainability makes for a better ecosystem. If you're driving towards breaking even and delivering value instead of profitability then it's a different kind of mentality. It's just that it's not the current status quo.
      - SnakeDoc 13y ago
        How about the gross over-valuation of startup companies? $15 billion for an instant messaging application? $2 billion for a research company without a product? Both companies should have sold for, maybe a few hundred million, at most. This is unsustainable in and of itself (and possibly irresponsible). Not to mention awful for the startup market (causing a startup valuation bubble). Facebook obviously has to make money back from these purchases. Both purchases are technology companies, and therefore Facebook is likely in it short-term, meaning they hope to make their money back in < 5 years. How will they do it? Well, by doing what Facebook does best, selling your privacy.

flogic 13y ago

While I don't trust facebook, they do seem like one of the more benign buyers possible. Any of the large gaming companies would have incentive to do some sort of "our products only" deal. Facebook just doesn't have any viable products to do that with.

rtpg 13y ago

>What do you think will happen to Oculus applications? Those that are sanctioned by Facebook will thrive and those that aren't will be brutally shut down. Does Facebook have a history of doing this? Instagram is still completely seperated (there's fb integration but twitter is the one that broke instagram integration, not the other way around). Not even mentioning the fact that the Oculus is not a SaaS, it's a screen. How is Facebook going to "shut down" calls to a device driver (if it's even that)? Why would they do that? People here seem to think that Facebook the company can only consist in Facebook the website, but they have a lot of money to invest in other things.

allenschen 13y ago
Just to nitpick about your Instagram integration comment - Instagram broke the integration, not Twitter. See: http://status.twitter.com/post/37258637900/instagram-photo-rendering-issue http://status.twitter.com/post/37258637900/instagram-photo-r...
dkarapetyan 13y ago
That's not sustainable. Facebook is not buying these companies because they are adhering to some kind of moral code. Facebook is a corporation like any other that needs to justify things to investors and analysts. That's the model as far as I know. So if they're pouring money into Oculus and its ecosystem then surely they expect to get something out of it. Ultimately they control the technology and as a profit driven corporation they are going to drive the technology in the direction of profits. They are not going to drive it in the direction of sustainability. Facebook is not in this to break even and they are not going to subsidize more benevolent but unprofitable uses of the technologies they acquire. Like I said in my original comment. I don't think this is a good or bad thing. My philosophical stance on technology is different and I'd much rather see a sustainable ecosystem of technologists that are not always driven by profits and quick payoffs from acquisitions.
- ajcarpy2005 13y ago
  Startups need to be profitable too.
  - dkarapetyan 13y ago
    I don't think that's true. Sustainability makes for a better ecosystem. If you're driving towards breaking even and delivering value instead of profitability then it's a different kind of mentality. It's just that it's not the current status quo.
    - SnakeDoc 13y ago
      How about the gross over-valuation of startup companies? $15 billion for an instant messaging application? $2 billion for a research company without a product? Both companies should have sold for, maybe a few hundred million, at most. This is unsustainable in and of itself (and possibly irresponsible). Not to mention awful for the startup market (causing a startup valuation bubble). Facebook obviously has to make money back from these purchases. Both purchases are technology companies, and therefore Facebook is likely in it short-term, meaning they hope to make their money back in < 5 years. How will they do it? Well, by doing what Facebook does best, selling your privacy.