Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive

vrfinal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 185 posts

Re: Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive

#81

Post by shajznnckfke »

coding123 wrote: post #78
millstone wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually had problems making/keeping a Facebook account? I have several throwaways which continue to work fine.

I have created accounts that got immediately locked the same day. I have also had accounts that got locked about 2 months in.

I had an experience with Facebook locking my account once, and I came to suspect that they were doing it to punish me for logging in on a mobile browser to promote the app. The UX really seemed to be designed to be painful - interfaces where the buttons were just out of reach unless you scrolled a particular way, scary language implying it was unsafe to use the site that way. I felt like someone was getting a bonus based on how many people they could push off the browser into using the app.

Re: Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive

#82

Post by Dylan16807 »

millstone wrote: post #51
ericflo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standalone absolutely is a separate product cateogory. It's the difference between a computer monitor and an iPad: even though they both have screens, they are different in kind. They target different market segments, have completely different software ecosystems both for end-users and developers, orders of magnitude more R&D requirements, higher switching costs, etc.

It's the difference between a smart TV and a dumb TV. They have different guts but the market is the same. Major titles like Beat Saber or Half Life Alyx can be played on either standalone or tethered headsets. Facebook offers both under the Oculus brand and positions them together: https://www.oculus.com/compare/

You can make a TV smart for $30. The difference between standalone and tethered headsets is a wide gulf.

Re: Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive

#83

Post by LegitShady »

save_ferris wrote: post #27
save_ferris wrote: post #19

> The report states that, “conditioning access to a product or service in which a firm has market power to the use of a separate product or service is anticompetitive.” I agree with this. I shouldn’t have to have a social media account in order to use a product that isn’t directly related to social media. Accounts like Microsoft aren’t the same as Facebook IMO because they tie products and services I’ve purchased to…

Tangentially related: newly-created Facebook accounts are a whole lot harder to keep up these days if you’re just using them for a single purpose, like following events. I created an account last year to get more socially involved in my community but I didn’t want to post any personal information and my account kept getting disabled unless I added pictures and filled out certain sections of my profile. Not sure if it…

twitter did the same thing to me, but worse.

they let me create an account and then locked it and wanted to know my phone number before they would unlock it. I can't even go delete it without giving them personal information.

Re: Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive

#84

Post by sova »

polyomino wrote: post #68
sova wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Na it's about deviation of flow of attention AFTER the product has already been acquired and UNNECESSARY to the core function of the product.

I think the core function of a product should be up to the people making it, not congress.

Not if your product is harassing people by phone or something annoyingly similar. The line blurs and moves often.

Re: Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive

#85

Post by chillacy »

harry8 wrote: post #25
softwaredoug wrote: post #22

The problem with antitrust enforcement w/ Big Tech will be users actually want vertical integration in a lot of contexts. And this vertical integration aligns consumers with the large tech companies in a way that hasn't been true with previous antitrust cases. Yes we could have more open standards, but the cartesian product of every integration eventually doesn't scale. What Microsoft did with Windows in this regard…

I think you're conflating "able to do" vertical integration with "must do" there, fwiw.

If you want to use the apple watch you must have an iphone, which somehow seems worse: https://www.imore.com/can-you-use-your-apple-watch-your-andr...

Re: Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive

#86

Post by jcrawfordor »

It seems to me that the fundamental difference between this and other platforms that require login is this: for Facebook, having an account is the product. Facebook has designed everything about the Facebook experience to funnel users from registration to "engagement," and this is their main line of business and revenue source. Anything Facebook does to require someone to have an account is also forcing them to be a customer of their principle product.

The same situation doesn't really apply to Microsoft or Apple. No doubt there are examples of both trying to monetize account holders (e.g. cross-promotion of products) but neither of them views the "having an account experience" as being the product. You don't "sign up for Microsoft" in the sense that you sign up for Facebook, the account is not a feature but just a tool for providing identity to various products.

This lets Microsoft and Apple make a far stronger argument that requiring an account to use a product is just a technical aspect of the working of the product. Facebook would find it extremely challenging to make this same argument. Google might find itself in a position that is more of an awkward in-between, except for basically all of their attempts at either generalized social media or meaningfully unifying the social aspects of their products have failed, so if they're trying to funnel Google Docs users into being YouTube users they're at least miserably bad at it.

Re: Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive

#87

Post by nodamage »

I expect a class action lawsuit will be filed over this if it hasn't already. Requiring the use of a Facebook account in order to access a VR headset is a pretty clear case of tying, especially since this policy changed after Oculus customers had already bought their headsets.

Re: Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive

#88

Post by fartcannon »

save_ferris wrote: post #19

> The report states that, “conditioning access to a product or service in which a firm has market power to the use of a separate product or service is anticompetitive.” I agree with this. I shouldn’t have to have a social media account in order to use a product that isn’t directly related to social media. Accounts like Microsoft aren’t the same as Facebook IMO because they tie products and services I’ve purchased to…

Microsoft accounts are worse in every possible way because Microsoft can potentially monitor all behaviour on your OS, including what's happening in your browser and Facebook.

Re: Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive

#89

Post by colordrops »

polyomino wrote: post #70
colordrops wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vertical integration already existed before they decided to force people to log in. You could already log in using your Facebook account. I just don't want to be forced to do so.

Don't buy one?

I bought one before facebook made the announcement. But thanks for the flippant comment.

Re: Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive

#90

Post by briffle »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #54

If you enable wifi during Win10 installation (haven't tested otherwise), it requires you to provide a valid Microsoft account (Outlook, Skype, ...) to install Windows. I don't see how this is different from OP. Windows even tells you it supports local logins, but to put in a valid Skype account first or whatever so you can complete the installation before opting into a local logic. I shouldn't need to give my Skype o…

Hilariously, if it's a work computer, and your employer uses office365 for email, etc, those accounts don't work.
Post reply on HN