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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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 – it doesn't have to be a black or white, all or nothing situation.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
Fixed.
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!
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.
Utter rubbish.
I have no interest in what you describe.
If more people were like you, me included, the world would be a better place.
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.
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
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.
It feels weird. Didn't Oculus crowdfund their product on Kickstarter first?
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.
VR will be like 3D, a fad.
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?
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:
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 – it doesn't have to be a black or white, all or nothing situation.
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?
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.
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.
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.