or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Oculus co-founder defends sale of company amidst backlash, says Facebook a better home than Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oculus co-founder defends sale of company amidst backlash, says Facebook a better home than Apple - Page 2

post #41 of 104
Oculus needs to be integrated by a hi tech company not a Social media company. Oculus is in early stages and with a high tech firm behind it it could really move. Is Facebook which is a social media company high tech enough to handle this??? The answer is no and Oculus will falter not that the creators care they got their money
post #42 of 104
If funding was an issue and Facebook really wanted to keep Oculus independent they could have funded them (directly or indirectly) not buy them out.
Anyway,, I am waiting for The Matrix type VR.
post #43 of 104
Imagine how realistic FarmVille and Candy Crush will look! ūüėí
post #44 of 104

IMHO, Facebook doesn't help Rift at all. Rift needs a good content platform and it needs hardware manufacturing expertise.  Facebook provides neither, and perhaps hurts the perception of Rift as many have already described.

 

Time for Apple to jump in.  Why?

 

Imagine an Apple VR headset, but with stereo cameras on the front and stereo mics on the sides.  Maybe call it "iVision".  Now connect it to any current iPhone or iPad. Then add a 3D API to xCode. That combination would crush the Rift or any similar competitor.

 

Imagine "Facetime VR". You could remotely see and hear exactly what someone else is remotely experiencing. As if you were transported there. Imagine live broadcasts or podcasts delivered this way.  How cool would that be?

 

Imagine 3D VR games delivered via the App Store and played from your iDevice, even using your iDevice as the controller. Developers would jump all over this, thus iVision would immediately have way more games than Rift or Sony, and they will probably be cheaper.

 

Imagine 3D VR movies delivered via iTunes. Finally, a great immersive way to deliver and experience 3D movies, plus it would create a new revenue stream for Apple and content providers.

 

Imagine VR porn. Just saying.  :smokey:

 

Would you pay $400 for an iVision headset?  I would ... in a heartbeat.

 

This is potentially a new multi-billion dollar platform, and Apple has everything they need to create it and own it.  And Apple could extend this new platform to the Mac. Google would not be able to compete, because Android and its hardware are too fragmented.

 

I hope Apple decides to work on this. I think it's the "next big thing" people have been waiting for.  I think my AAPL would double again.  :D

post #45 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

If Facebook is a better destination for Oculus than Apple or Microsoft, then Oculus had no future anyway... and $2B is $2B! Cha-ching!!!

It is mostly in Facebook stock.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #46 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

It is mostly in Facebook stock.

Oh dear.

post #47 of 104

I agree with you, I will never signed up for facebook as well .

post #48 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post
 

 

To be fair, that's what my mom says about the internet... just saying. If you are in the tech dev field, you go where your clients are. Most people on line are on Facebook. Hell, I know people who are staunch hold outs on mobile devices in their personal life, but have a Facebook account. 

 

No smartphone. Not even an iPhone.

Never created a Facebook account. Fuk that.

Yet have years in the tech field, love technology, and owned APPL since 2000 when it was $28 or so.

It's all about a life balance, being present and privacy.

post #49 of 104

Buddy, you said it!

 

I think why all these kids who just immerse themselves into staring at screens and playing games all day so they do not have to make real person-to-person connections is fallout from the original "nerd/geek" folks of yesteryear who always felt isolated. Now they have brought a bunch of crap tech to the world to move us ever farther away from  having to deal with people and emotions. These techno-dweebs have basically given us the Kardashians and  television-dribble of their over-the-top narcissism and sense of entitilement.

post #50 of 104
As a global community of internet users we need to have a serious discussion in how we can decouple our future from total alignment with the core business values of the likes of Facebook and Google.

It's very well to say "just don't use these services" but for many people that effectively means social isolation.
post #51 of 104
I love Oculus and I hate Facebook (the service more than the company), but even I don't see much downside here. Money = good! It helps one of my favorite technologies take off.

They're not shutting the company down, so I don't see a need to panic.
post #52 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-Mind View Post
 

IMHO, Facebook doesn't help Rift at all. Rift needs a good content platform and it needs hardware manufacturing expertise.  Facebook provides neither, and perhaps hurts the perception of Rift as many have already described.

 

Time for Apple to jump in.  Why?

 

Imagine an Apple VR headset, but with stereo cameras on the front and stereo mics on the sides.  Maybe call it "iVision".  Now connect it to any current iPhone or iPad. Then add a 3D API to xCode. That combination would crush the Rift or any similar competitor.

 

Imagine "Facetime VR". You could remotely see and hear exactly what someone else is remotely experiencing. As if you were transported there. Imagine live broadcasts or podcasts delivered this way.  How cool would that be?

 

Imagine 3D VR games delivered via the App Store and played from your iDevice, even using your iDevice as the controller. Developers would jump all over this, thus iVision would immediately have way more games than Rift or Sony, and they will probably be cheaper.

 

Imagine 3D VR movies delivered via iTunes. Finally, a great immersive way to deliver and experience 3D movies, plus it would create a new revenue stream for Apple and content providers.

 

Imagine VR porn. Just saying.  :smokey:

 

Would you pay $400 for an iVision headset?  I would ... in a heartbeat.

 

This is potentially a new multi-billion dollar platform, and Apple has everything they need to create it and own it.  And Apple could extend this new platform to the Mac. Google would not be able to compete, because Android and its hardware are too fragmented.

 

I hope Apple decides to work on this. I think it's the "next big thing" people have been waiting for.  I think my AAPL would double again.  :D

 

No

post #53 of 104
Quote:
"Why would we want to sell to someone like (Microsoft) or Apple?" he asked. "So they can tear the company apart and use the pieces to build out their own vision of virtual reality, one that fits whatever current strategy they have? Not a chance."

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) Yes! Apple and MS are much better equipped to do something with the technology.

2) I would replace Apple with Sony since they make the PS4 and Apple wouldn't pay $2 billion for VR.

3) What do you think Facebook is going to do with your VR tech? Not build their own vision of VR that suits their business model? Come on, Son!*

4) You wanted a quick payday and FB offered you enough money. No shame in that so why not just admit it, Luckey.


* Series finale of Psych is tonight.

 

I'm late coming to AI today, but should have known you'd save me the trouble of getting stuck into that line.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #54 of 104

And so signals the end of Oculus Rift.  RIP.

 

Facebook is competing with Google, so they want their own Glass.  That's why Facebook bought Oculus.

 

Apple didn't buy Oculus because NO.  Just NO.  There is nothing to suggest that Apple needs or wants this tech.  This isn't what Apple does, it's not important, and I'm sure anyone can agree they wouldn't pay that much.  $2B?  That's almost as crazy as $19B for WhatsApp.  At least WhatsApp had users to poach.

post #55 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-Mind View Post
 

Time for Apple to jump in.  Why?

 

 

People telling Apple to chase every squirrel down every blind rabbit hole for fear of missing out on "the next big thing" never gets old.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #56 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by chazwatson View Post
 

Facebook is competing with Google, so they want their own Glass.  That's why Facebook bought Oculus.

 

I was thinking that as well. The fight for the face begins.

 

Facebook is supposedly bleeding young users who no longer think the service is cool. This could be Zuckerberg's attempt at trying to make Facebook cool to young people. Just seems a bad bet as I don't see VR ever really being mainstream. Glass is already causing controversy and its not a bulky black thing strapped to your face.

 

So in a couple years am I going to see people with this visor strapped to their face as they nurse their latte at the local coffee shop?

 

I can understand this in a limited way at home with gamers or communicating with your "friends" across the globe. But in public?

 

And if its not used in public, then it seems a step back to the desktop computer model that Facebook started with versus today where users access Facebook primarily via mobile and on the go in public. Does not compute.

post #57 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4 View Post

Oculus needs to be integrated by a hi tech company not a Social media company. Oculus is in early stages and with a high tech firm behind it it could really move. Is Facebook which is a social media company high tech enough to handle this??? The answer is no and Oculus will falter not that the creators care they got their money

Facebook is an advertising marketer, like Google.
post #58 of 104

Apple shouldn't have been even remotely worried about buying Oculus.  Apple makes things that people can use as they're doing the other / important things in life.  See the Verse ads for proof.  Siri means you only have to time-slice your ears (the easiest /richest sense to do so with) to be more effective than without it.  You can't do those things with a Rift on your face, and it removes the real ("OUCH!") world from your time-slicing.  

 

MS should have been the only logical suitor in the digital ecosystem business.  They make a console that has to have The One Thing Others Don't Have.  This would be it.  It's no big leap from a gamer sitting on a couch to a gamer witting on a couch immersed in a face mask.  

 

Facebook with VR?  So we'll be looking at a version of SecondLife/Skype mashup with texture-mapped faces of your actual friends in a virtual rec room / backyard barbecue / hot tub?  Which would be awesome if the real world was a Dilbert cartoon.  

 

Facebook is a good idea to bridge distance.  It now takes yoga-like discipline to actually use it for that original purpose, as it's so advert-addled to be confounding to those who weren't in it when it was user-focused.  

post #59 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

It amazes me how polarizing technology has become.
So much mistrust of Google and Facebook.
So much disdain for Samsung's blatant plagerism.

At the same time these are mostly Hate/Hate relationships.

Fixed.
‚ÄúI wasted time, and now doth time waste me.‚ÄĚ
Reply
‚ÄúI wasted time, and now doth time waste me.‚ÄĚ
Reply
post #60 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
 

 

People telling Apple to chase every squirrel down every blind rabbit hole for fear of missing out on "the next big thing" never gets old.

 

Your little dig doesn't add much to the conversation. This would be more fun if you clearly rebutted me. It sounds like you're suggesting that VR is a dead-end or temporary fad. That seems illogical based on facts: Sony has jumped in, Oculus has generated tremendous interest among gamers, and Facebook just bought a not-yet product/company for $2 billion.  That's a big squirrel.

 

Apple's history of "next big things" is consistent.  They identify markets where a great idea is being implemented with lousy/incomplete products. Then they swoop in with a great/full product and take/grow the market. First iPod, then ITMS, then iPhone, then iPad. VR could fit this same pattern, because no matter how good Rift is, content for it will be limited and expensive by iOS standards.  Without sufficient content, their Rift platform will languish or fizzle out.  Guess we'll see.

 

BTW ... although I'm a newbie to this blog (post #2),  I've been a developer, customer, and evangelist of Apple since 1987.  Had fun blogging with Ragosta 20 years ago on comp.sys.mac.advocacy.  Ah ... the good ol' days!  :) 

post #61 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

If funding was an issue and Facebook really wanted to keep Oculus independent they could have funded them (directly or indirectly) not buy them out.
Anyway,, I am waiting for The Matrix type VR.

 

You got to have a hole in your head, if you think the VR seen in "The Matrix" will ever become a reality. ;)

post #62 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlSagan View Post

The kind of system we need would be one in which diversity of input matters and community ownership is central (see Libertarian Socialism), similar to what we see within the Open Source community. But the problem is that Capitalism, which thrives, for one thing, on private ownership, would never be able to survive such a system, which is one reason why patents exist and one reason why they are abused. Humanity, on the other hand, would benefit tremendously from such a transparent and universally-available system of innovation and knowledge.

Utter rubbish.
‚ÄúI wasted time, and now doth time waste me.‚ÄĚ
Reply
‚ÄúI wasted time, and now doth time waste me.‚ÄĚ
Reply
post #63 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-Mind View Post

IMHO, Facebook doesn't help Rift at all. Rift needs a good content platform and it needs hardware manufacturing expertise.  Facebook provides neither, and perhaps hurts the perception of Rift as many have already described.

Time for Apple to jump in.  Why?

Imagine an Apple VR headset, but with stereo cameras on the front and stereo mics on the sides.  Maybe call it "iVision".  Now connect it to any current iPhone or iPad. Then add a 3D API to xCode. That combination would crush the Rift or any similar competitor.

Imagine "Facetime VR". You could remotely see and hear exactly what someone else is remotely experiencing. As if you were transported there. Imagine live broadcasts or podcasts delivered this way.  How cool would that be?

Imagine 3D VR games delivered via the App Store and played from your iDevice, even using your iDevice as the controller. Developers would jump all over this, thus iVision would immediately have way more games than Rift or Sony, and they will probably be cheaper.

Imagine 3D VR movies delivered via iTunes. Finally, a great immersive way to deliver and experience 3D movies, plus it would create a new revenue stream for Apple and content providers.

Imagine VR porn. Just saying.  1smoking.gif

Would you pay $400 for an iVision headset?  I would ... in a heartbeat.

This is potentially a new multi-billion dollar platform, and Apple has everything they need to create it and own it.  And Apple could extend this new platform to the Mac. Google would not be able to compete, because Android and its hardware are too fragmented.

I hope Apple decides to work on this. I think it's the "next big thing" people have been waiting for.  I think my AAPL would double again.  1biggrin.gif

I have no interest in what you describe.
‚ÄúI wasted time, and now doth time waste me.‚ÄĚ
Reply
‚ÄúI wasted time, and now doth time waste me.‚ÄĚ
Reply
post #64 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidsky617 View Post

No smartphone. Not even an iPhone.
Never created a Facebook account. Fuk that.
Yet have years in the tech field, love technology, and owned APPL since 2000 when it was $28 or so.
It's all about a life balance, being present and privacy.

If more people were like you, me included, the world would be a better place.
‚ÄúI wasted time, and now doth time waste me.‚ÄĚ
Reply
‚ÄúI wasted time, and now doth time waste me.‚ÄĚ
Reply
post #65 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidsky617 View Post
 

Yet have years in the tech field, love technology, and owned APPL since 2000 when it was $28 or so.

This always cracks me up.

post #66 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post
 

 

You got to have a hole in your head, if you think the VR seen in "The Matrix" will ever become a reality. ;)

 

I guess someone didn't get the joke ;)

post #67 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post
 

It amazes me how polarizing technology has become.

So much mistrust of Google and Facebook.

So much frustration with Apple's heavy handed control.

So much disdain for Samsung's blatant plagerism.

 

At the same time these are mostly Love/Hate relationships.

 

False equivalence.

post #68 of 104
You see how often Facebook changes/breaks its UI, changes/breaks its privacy settings,.. Soon it will change/break WhatsApp, Oculus won't be far behind 1tongue.gif
post #69 of 104

It feels weird. Didn't Oculus crowdfund their product on Kickstarter first? 

post #70 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-Mind View Post
 

 

Your little dig doesn't add much to the conversation. This would be more fun if you clearly rebutted me. It sounds like you're suggesting that VR is a dead-end or temporary fad. That seems illogical based on facts: Sony has jumped in, Oculus has generated tremendous interest among gamers, and Facebook just bought a not-yet product/company for $2 billion.  That's a big squirrel.

 

Apple's history of "next big things" is consistent.  They identify markets where a great idea is being implemented with lousy/incomplete products. Then they swoop in with a great/full product and take/grow the market. First iPod, then ITMS, then iPhone, then iPad. VR could fit this same pattern, because no matter how good Rift is, content for it will be limited and expensive by iOS standards.  Without sufficient content, their Rift platform will languish or fizzle out.  Guess we'll see.

 

BTW ... although I'm a newbie to this blog (post #2),  I've been a developer, customer, and evangelist of Apple since 1987.  Had fun blogging with Ragosta 20 years ago on comp.sys.mac.advocacy.  Ah ... the good ol' days!  :) 

 

Some good points, but I'm not seeing this as something Apple will be looking at.  One thing that you have missed when looking at Apple's strategy is that they focus on consumers and creative professionals. They do not service the needs of nerds. There are just not enough people who play games at this level to make it worth Apple's time. Maybe that will change, but right now, spending that kind of money on something like this not the right way to go.

 

 And the fact that Facebook dropped $2billion does not make it a 'big squirrel'; it makes it an expensive squirrel. Let's see how Facebook plans to make that investment worth while.

 

But I agree with what the fella from Oculus said: Facebook is a better partner for them than Apple anyway. Apple tends to buy technology and expertise that will move their strategies forward. The actual product is of very little interest to them.  Facebook was looking to make an acquisition that may bring them another revenue stream should in case the world population decides  to turn around and talk to each other face to face.  So, the chances are they will be pretty hands-off with Oculus until they figure out what they can do with them. 

 

Apple looks to enhance lifestyles; Facebook seeks to replace lifestyles with Facebook. That's why Oculus is a better fit for Facebook than Apple.

post #71 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-Mind View Post

Your little dig doesn't add much to the conversation. This would be more fun if you clearly rebutted me. It sounds like you're suggesting that VR is a dead-end or temporary fad. That seems illogical based on facts: Sony has jumped in, Oculus has generated tremendous interest among gamers, and Facebook just bought a not-yet product/company for $2 billion.  That's a big squirrel.

Apple's history of "next big things" is consistent.  They identify markets where a great idea is being implemented with lousy/incomplete products. Then they swoop in with a great/full product and take/grow the market. First iPod, then ITMS, then iPhone, then iPad. VR could fit this same pattern, because no matter how good Rift is, content for it will be limited and expensive by iOS standards.  Without sufficient content, their Rift platform will languish or fizzle out.  Guess we'll see.

VR will be like 3D, a fad.
post #72 of 104

Surely one of the graphics card companies like Nvidia or AMD would be the most sensible home. Or a console maker. Don't really understand the Facebook angle. But wow, did he get a good price. Had they even shipped a product yet or were they still at the prototype stage?

post #73 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidsky617 View Post
 

 

No smartphone. Not even an iPhone.

Never created a Facebook account. Fuk that.

Yet have years in the tech field, love technology, and owned APPL since 2000 when it was $28 or so.

It's all about a life balance, being present and privacy.

 

I can respect that, however I have an iPhone, and a Facebook account and I know who to balance my life and be present as well as these devices have off switches and do not disturb functions. It's all about will power.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

If more people were like you, me included, the world would be a better place.

 

Why? No disrespect to Liquidsky617, I'm sure he's a lovely person but being connected doesn't make the world a bad place, poor willpower and allowing trends to take over your life does. It's no different than twitter or vine for that matter. You control how much of your life is on these services ‚Äď it doesn't have to be a black or white, all or nothing¬†situation.


Edited by websnap - 3/28/14 at 5:54am
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #74 of 104

I don't know what prompted the co-founder to say Facebook is a better home than Apple but I'm not surprised he thinks that way. Why would he bite the hand that fed him? 

post #75 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

I actually like this deal quite a bit. Oculus was never going to make it on their own since they couldn't even source displays in sufficient quantity to build their existing devkits, let alone ever go mainstream. In one fell swoop they've solved most of their problems and make it a zillion times more likely that their product will actually happen. I'm a huge Apple fan, but the Rift does not feel like an Apple product, and I'm sure as heck glad it didn't fall down the Microsoft well. The Rift has truly innovative potential in telepresence, art, and other forms of communication and I think Facebook and Oculus will make a good team.

Facebook can not help them with this, they do not have a supply chain which has relationships with required suppliers. Face it Apple and Samsung and all the Laptop Manufactures have the supply of display all tied up, There is no way Facebook is going to command any respect or authority with those suppliers especially if they do not see a large market for this product. This is a niche geek market, the may sell a few million units bit there is no sustainable business model. The founder of this company knows this (maybe not since most inventor/geeks fail to under the business world) and you probably found out really fast that Apple and maybe MS both told him his idea have not merit and he found a sucker in Facebook and Mark Z was probably think grab it before Google takes it.

post #76 of 104

I too am creeped out by this.

 

How is Facebook not going to want to use this device as a way to gather facial recognition data, including retina scans? That is extremely valuable data. Once they introduce some gimmicky way to get their Facebook users to put these on, they have what they need. There will be some hidden privacy setting that nobody knows about and the default will be consenting to the release of your rights. And even when this consent by default setting is found out, people will still willingly give them this personal data by the millions.

 

Creepy.

 

Ok all of you, "they would never do that, you are paranoid" flame throwers, bring it on.

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #77 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

Facebook can not help them with this, they do not have a supply chain which has relationships with required suppliers. Face it Apple and Samsung and all the Laptop Manufactures have the supply of display all tied up, There is no way Facebook is going to command any respect or authority with those suppliers especially if they do not see a large market for this product. This is a niche geek market, the may sell a few million units bit there is no sustainable business model. 

 

 

Facebook does not care about any of that. All they want is the data collection.

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #78 of 104

I thought the backlash was from Kickstarter backers who collectively raised 2.4 million for not just one sole 1.0 product. That's the storyline circulating on the Interwebs, while this article focuses more on Apple.

post #79 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by techno View Post
 

 

Facebook does not care about any of that. All they want is the data collection.

Actaully I believe Mark Z plans to leave it alone and let it go as is,  But you can not collect data if you can not supply the product to the market. I think this is Mark Z new hobbies, he is probably a gamer at heart.

 

Than again the Founder of Oculus  could be a naive geek and does not realize Mark Z told him what he wanted to hear and plans to take it over and make it some sort of social media device, similar to people being able to share their PS3 experience over twitter. Not the first time an techno geek of a company sold out only to find out they plan push him out the door later. Only time will tell let see how long he stick around.

 

back to my point Facebook is in no position to capitalize on hardware product they lack any and all knowledge to make that happen, most likely they will outsource it but they is not a easy task either.


Edited by Maestro64 - 3/27/14 at 11:52am
post #80 of 104

I’d planned to get a release Oculus to use with SpaceEngine, among other games. Never buying one now. Not until Facebook is bankrupted and its assets sold off.

 

Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post
I doubt Google were even interested.

 

Really? You doubt that Google, the company heavily invested in augmented reality and which already has their own pair of glasses to bring that to you, wouldn’t be interested in the single biggest thing to happen to VR since the Virtual Boy?

 

Remember the old days of the Internet? Late ‚Äė80s, early to mid ‚Äė90s? Back when safety and security was literally job one for users? ‚ÄúNever use your real name on the Internet!‚ÄĚ ‚ÄúNever give out personal information!‚ÄĚ Now we have Google, et. al.¬†trying to force people to use their real names by making you change your username to something that ‚Äúdoesn‚Äôt sound made up‚ÄĚ.¬†:no:¬†

 

Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
Actaully I believe Mark Z plans to leave it alone and let it go as is…

 

I’m to understand that the exact opposite is true. I’ll try to find the article.


Edited by Tallest Skil - 3/27/14 at 9:17am

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5‚ÄĚ iPhone exists], it doesn‚Äôt deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5‚ÄĚ iPhone exists], it doesn‚Äôt deserve to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Oculus co-founder defends sale of company amidst backlash, says Facebook a better home than Apple