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.
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.
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.
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!!!
I agree with you, I will never signed up for facebook as well .
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.
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.
I'm late coming to AI today, but should have known you'd save me the trouble of getting stuck into that line.
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.
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.
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.
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