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

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 107
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,620member

    Immensely naive to believe any promise that an acquiring corporation makes.  Just say "they offered more money".  People in general won't hold that against you.  Chide you for it, maybe, but that's just hypocrisy unless they have turned down billion dollar offers to do something perfectly legal.

  • Reply 42 of 107
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Now we just need Facebook to buy Sony. Then maybe in a few years we''ll see FaceStation 5 with VR.
  • Reply 43 of 107
    "...which he argued Facebook is a better landing spot for the company than Apple or Microsoft."

    Real World Interpretation: Facebook actually wanted to buy us, unlike those other guys.
  • Reply 44 of 107
    bushman4bushman4 Posts: 806member
    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
  • Reply 45 of 107
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,157member
    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.
  • Reply 46 of 107
    Imagine how realistic FarmVille and Candy Crush will look! ????
  • Reply 47 of 107

    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

  • Reply 48 of 107
    cpsro wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 49 of 107
    darklitedarklite Posts: 229member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    It is mostly in Facebook stock.

    Oh dear.

  • Reply 50 of 107

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

  • Reply 51 of 107
    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.

  • Reply 52 of 107
    satch99satch99 Posts: 16member

    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.

  • Reply 53 of 107
    dunksdunks Posts: 1,240member
    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.
  • Reply 54 of 107
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    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.
  • Reply 55 of 107
    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

  • Reply 56 of 107
    sennensennen Posts: 1,466member

    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.

  • Reply 57 of 107

    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.

  • Reply 58 of 107
    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.

  • Reply 59 of 107
    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.

  • Reply 60 of 107
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 2,270member
    bushman4 wrote: »
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.