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.
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.
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
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 ‘80s, early to mid ‘90s? Back when safety and security was literally job one for users? “Never use your real name on the Internet!” “Never give out personal information!” Now we have Google, et. al. trying to force people to use their real names by making you change your username to something that “doesn’t sound made up”.
Originally Posted by Maestro64
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.
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?
This.. in the article should have been enough of a clue for you...
"That led the co-founder of Oculus to take to the Internet to defend the sale, in which he argued Facebook is a better landing spot for the company than Apple or Microsoft."
I don't see Google mentioned there...
Augmented Reality and VR are two very different markets don't you know.
Oh and... I doubted Google _would_ be interested...
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.
Good point, but the device I described would go far beyond just gaming. It could also be used for VR collaboration and communication, VR content authoring, and provide the world's best 3D movie experience. To understand the sense of immersion that a good VR headset can provide, one has to experience it. It's as close to a Star Trek "holodeck" as one can get.
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.
Read the rest of my post, I actually believe Mark Z sold them a bill of goods and does have other plans, but we will see but these devices are not a $2B market in any time horizon.
I wonder if they will have the same issue as the google glass with people getting headaches after wearing them for a period of time.
Every Apple "next big thing" has been met with that same response.
Yeah, but that’s always wrong. Since when has Facebook’s “next big thing” ever been big, next, or even a thing? " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Yeah, but that’s always wrong. Since when has Facebook’s “next big thing” ever been big, next, or even a thing? " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
So we agree that since Rift + Facebook = Mediocrity, and that will set the stage for
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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 ‘80s, early to mid ‘90s? Back when safety and security was literally job one for users? “Never use your real name on the Internet!” “Never give out personal information!” Now we have Google, et. al. trying to force people to use their real names by making you change your username to something that “doesn’t sound made up”.
I’m to understand that the exact opposite is true. I’ll try to find the article.
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?
This.. in the article should have been enough of a clue for you...
"That led the co-founder of Oculus to take to the Internet to defend the sale, in which he argued Facebook is a better landing spot for the company than Apple or Microsoft."
I don't see Google mentioned there...
Augmented Reality and VR are two very different markets don't you know.
Oh and... I doubted Google _would_ be interested...
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.
Good point, but the device I described would go far beyond just gaming. It could also be used for VR collaboration and communication, VR content authoring, and provide the world's best 3D movie experience. To understand the sense of immersion that a good VR headset can provide, one has to experience it. It's as close to a Star Trek "holodeck" as one can get.
I don’t see Google mentioned there...
SO?! What does that have to do with anything?
Augmented Reality and VR are two very different markets don't you know.
Can that really be said?
Okay. Why.
VR is cool, but hard to commercialize at this stage.
Mark is just buying an expensive entertainment for himself.
SO?! What does that have to do with anything?
Can that really be said?
Okay. Why.
Everything.
Yes.
Already stated.
Originally Posted by Maestro64
I’m to understand that the exact opposite is true. I’ll try to find the article.
Read the rest of my post, I actually believe Mark Z sold them a bill of goods and does have other plans, but we will see but these devices are not a $2B market in any time horizon.
I wonder if they will have the same issue as the google glass with people getting headaches after wearing them for a period of time.
I dunno. I always thought looking like Daft Punk would someday be mainstream fashion. /s
Everything.
So one article doesn’t say it; that means it cannot possibly be true?
No! Seriously?!
Not really, no. “No because no” isn’t an answer.
Nice strawman. When you figure out their similarities, how about you give some evidence as to why Google wouldn’t be interested.
Funny. I was thinking exactly the same thing.
VR will be like 3D, a fad.
Every Apple "next big thing" has been met with that same response.
Every Apple "next big thing" has been met with that same response.
Yeah, but that’s always wrong. Since when has Facebook’s “next big thing” ever been big, next, or even a thing? " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Yeah, but that’s always wrong. Since when has Facebook’s “next big thing” ever been big, next, or even a thing? " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
So we agree that since Rift + Facebook = Mediocrity, and that will set the stage for
iVision + iDevice + iTMS = NextBigThing!
Glad we got that straightened out! :-)
Interesting read.
http://edge-online.com/features/how-clones-fear-sanitisation-and-free-to-play-soured-the-ios-gaming-revolution/
Or computers that fit in your pocket.