Earlier quoted context omitted.
aka Flipboard by Facebook?
Execution is king.
Why is Hacker News hating on Paper? I'm genuinely curious.
Three downvotes for mentioning it in response to
>the product is stagnating
Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook
131–140 of 229 posts
Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right on, Facebook's goal is to connect the world. That's why they've acquired companies that range from cloud hosting (Parse) to Internet-delivering drones (Ascenta/Internet.org).
I thought their goal was to make money, go figure.
Successful companies do not think like you.
They focus on making the very best products/services they can and have the money be a secondary consideration.
Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Organic growth is execution and engineering, not innovation. FB in 2006 is a good design, and magically hit upon what people wanted, an easier to use private email system with a public announcement board. Is FB 2014 fundamentally different? Is there innovation? How about FB's other acquisitions, are they innovative or just derivative? Hint: If it's in the social space, it's just derivative. FB acquires purely to secu…
... or buying companies that know how to innovate.
And then what?
It's got to be connected to the core competencies of the company, otherwise it's just a conglomerate and FB has shown zero signs that this what they intend to do. All of the language of the acquisition is that they will be using this tech to reinforce what they already do.
I'm excited to announce that we've agreed to acquire Oculus VR, the leader in virtual reality technology.
Our mission is to make the world more open and connected. For the past few years, this has mostly meant building mobile apps that help you share with the people you care about. We have a lot more to do on mobile, but at this point we feel we're in a position where we can start focusing on what platforms will come next to enable even more useful, entertaining and personal experiences.
And that's why people hate this acquisition, because OVR could have been so much more than just yet another vehicle for FB to push social. FB social could have been just one aspect of what OVR could have enabled, now it's the only thing.
Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you see it? Facebook can't currently monetize face-to-face interactions, but in virtual reality they can. The purchase makes a lot of sense for Facebook. Facebook's business model is to monetize human interactions. Today, most of human interaction happens over the Internet (with messages and images), and in the future, it will happen in virtual environments. VR will be the ultimate platform, and Facebook wants…
Other businesses that are about monetizing human interaction: telephony (pay us to talk to people), restaurants (pay us for a venue to have a conversation/date, show off your wealth), clothing (pay us to increase your apparent status/attractiveness), theater and movies (pay us to have an activity with your friends/date), beyond-low-end housing (pay us so you can entertain and impress and be in a city with lots of hum…
There's the obvious difference that there's no platform lock-in with these, and therefore there's choice and competition. Telephony, Internet, are open technologies without locking you in as a customer for any company.
Think back when we lived in caves. We shared stories, we shared cave paintings, we shared music by singing together, we had fun together, we explored and shared our curiosity, we created new things together. Most technology today is still just tools to do these same fundamental things, but in novel ways. Facebook wants to be the middleman in this. They didn't invent 'social', they brought it into digital world, they want to own it, and they want to monetize it.
Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook
#135[deleted]
Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook
#136> Beyond our core community, we expected it would be positive. > If you actually understand [Facebook’s] vision of letting us be who we’re going to be, just like they wanted to let Instagram be who they are. The reason people don't get this -- or at least, why I don't get it -- and thus responded negatively, is because VR should have nothing to do with Facebook's vision, and Facebook -- or social gaming in general --…
> It's hard for many to see anything under the umbrella of Facebook doing a service to gaming -- look at the direction social gaming has taken us. Yes, look at social gaming. At least inside the retrogaming communities, people who take a very long view of gaming, social gaming is not well loved. It's seen as a shackle not a new experience by and large. Even among new games, Skyrim and GTA V are hugely popular even th…
> But to be honest, if somebody waived $2b in my face I'd take it and skip off to a comfortable retirement in Malta without giving two shits about the community that supported it in the beginning.
Would you? Really? It is my understanding the Oculus folks were working on that partly for fun, partly because they have a purpose (the purpose being "VR gaming would be soo cool!"). Their idea of a "comfortable retirement" may very well be to continue working on the Rift. I would also be surprised if they didn't care at all about the community.
Seriously, what would you do if you won $2b tomorrow? I know I wouldn't retire in Malta or such, because it would quickly bore me to death. I would need to do something, and I suspect, so do you.
Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook
#137[deleted]
Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook
#138> Beyond our core community, we expected it would be positive. > If you actually understand [Facebook’s] vision of letting us be who we’re going to be, just like they wanted to let Instagram be who they are. The reason people don't get this -- or at least, why I don't get it -- and thus responded negatively, is because VR should have nothing to do with Facebook's vision, and Facebook -- or social gaming in general --…
Spot on. The problem is that it's very difficult to conceptualize a merger of the two companies' products that ISN'T really, really unpleasant. Most people are already tired of and/or annoyed with Facebook and having it strapped to your face and watching everything you do in a "virtual reality" is very offputting. Facebook is linked to publication and noise, and it creates an aura of intrusion. When you post on Facebook, you are performing for your hundreds of acquaintances and friends. People don't want to feel like they'll have to be doing that every time they use an Oculus product, let alone one so intimate that you literally strap it to your face. I know no one who sits back and thinks, "I need more Facebook in my life".
I don't know why they didn't see it coming, but almost anyone would've been less creepy than Facebook. People would have still have concerns, but I think they'd be more optimistic if it was Google or something.
Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook
#139> Beyond our core community, we expected it would be positive. > If you actually understand [Facebook’s] vision of letting us be who we’re going to be, just like they wanted to let Instagram be who they are. The reason people don't get this -- or at least, why I don't get it -- and thus responded negatively, is because VR should have nothing to do with Facebook's vision, and Facebook -- or social gaming in general --…
Oculus probably did not expect people to be so short-sighted. If you acquire new businesses, they dont have to align with your current field of operations. Thats actually the main point of diversification.
What matters here is the sheer scale of resources available for FB to push absolutely _anything_. And one would expect at least somewhat intelligent people to understand this, instead of mindlessly raging and throwing utterly stupid arguments around about why this is bad.
Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you see it? Facebook can't currently monetize face-to-face interactions, but in virtual reality they can. The purchase makes a lot of sense for Facebook. Facebook's business model is to monetize human interactions. Today, most of human interaction happens over the Internet (with messages and images), and in the future, it will happen in virtual environments. VR will be the ultimate platform, and Facebook wants…
Other businesses that are about monetizing human interaction: telephony (pay us to talk to people), restaurants (pay us for a venue to have a conversation/date, show off your wealth), clothing (pay us to increase your apparent status/attractiveness), theater and movies (pay us to have an activity with your friends/date), beyond-low-end housing (pay us so you can entertain and impress and be in a city with lots of hum…
All your examples are charging the user for facilitating interaction rather than monetizing on information gleaned from surveilling the interaction. That's a substantial difference.
I would say that the walled garden aspect also makes it pretty substantially different from those industries. I think we all agree that if there was only one restaurant chain or one movie theatre chain it would be a pretty awful experience in comparison to our current reality. It would make financial sense to degrade the experience quite a bit for a relatively small increase in profit per customer. In telephony this experiment was already run and the answer was, yes, it was substantially worse.
So yes, Facebook really is that different from your example industries.