111–120 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who ever said those people aren't going to get the product? Why do you think the product will get swallowed up? > "Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook" --Mark Zuckerberg
Yes, just as every CEO of every big company that has just acquired a smaller company has ever said, back unto the dawning of the world. Nothing is ever going to change, until suddenly it all does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, just as every CEO of every big company that has just acquired a smaller company has ever said, back unto the dawning of the world. Nothing is ever going to change, until suddenly it all does.
Disney picked up pixar and didn't screw it up (too) much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, just as every CEO of every big company that has just acquired a smaller company has ever said, back unto the dawning of the world. Nothing is ever going to change, until suddenly it all does.
Disney picked up pixar and didn't screw it up (too) much.
No need to tinker. It's not like when you buy a startup that's bleeding money with 50 engineers that you could add to your existing products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition He really puts his finger on one of the reasons why this deal feels so weird here, I think. Nobody who contributed to the Oculus Kickstarter did so because they were hoping Oculus would get flipped to a mega-corp. They didn't do so because they wanted the Oculus team to have a big, splashy VC-style exit. They…
Personally, I think this illustrates a severe gap in how crowd-funding works. 10K drops by an individual are no different than an angel investor. There should be a chip-in-level for crowd-funding campaigns that require the OP to provide some % equity into the project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haha. Then I'll hope I'm wrong, but come up with clear reasons why this will be mainstream and mass market.
Simple: it provides a hyper-compelling experience that is completely unavailable through any other means, and does so for merely the price of a peripheral. Doubters will visit a friend's house and use it and be instantly sold. VR is a Big Deal.
From Notch: > Don’t get me wrong, VR is not bad for social. In fact, I think social could become one of the biggest applications of VR. Being able to sit in a virtual living room and see your friend’s avatar? Business meetings? Virtual cinemas where you feel like you’re actually watching the movie with your friend who is seven time zones away? Do people really see this as the mainstream use of VR? Do people really se…
'People watching a mobile device all the time!?' Look at we are now...
I wouldn't be surprised when we will be programming with a VR set so you can put almost unlimited lines of code on your retina.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disney picked up pixar and didn't screw it up (too) much.
Yeah but Pixar was already a mature business minting money by that point, with a mature business model, which is very similar to Disney's: Make animation. Release to the big screen. Profit. No need to tinker. It's not like when you buy a startup that's bleeding money with 50 engineers that you could add to your existing products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I think we'll have to see how the next few decades pan out to see whether the future holds more overt computing (VR, stuff stuck to your face) or more subtle computing (in your pocket, information when you need it). My money is on the latter for mainstream, with the former being reserved for a subset entertainment and niche uses. I'd watch a movie with someone using an Oculus, sounds fun. But I can't see it beat…
I think you're exactly right. Look at 3d television: they aren't selling. People don't want to wear glasses just to watch a movie. Which is why Google is focusing on AR not VR. The use cases for AR seem more immediately obvious and valuable to a mainstream audience. VR's killer use case is gaming. This is why I'm sad about this acquisition. Zuck's post about VR being the future of social seemed way off base. First, g…
For me, 3D does nothing to get more immersed into the story. Frankly most of the 3D movies suck. Weak plots sprinkled with in your face 3D effects. Booooring.
It is about the plot and the acting. The content, not the form. Look at Hitchcocks movies. Would adding 3D do anything for them? Look at Jim Jarmushs movies or at "Lost in translation", would adding 3D do anything for those? Would adding VR do anything for those? I don't think so.
In the end it is about content. Second life and "there" was all the hype around 2005 but the hype wore off. Maybe it is time for 3rd life with the OR and the myo armband now. I think it depends on whether there is something in there that makes it worth while to come back after the initial "whoa this is awesome, wow" effect wears off.
For my own part, I'd love to see a VR based construction application like Sketchup where you are IN the model and build something with gestures. I'm pretty sure that would fly with the maker possy.
Even though Notch writes that he wants to utilize VR for games and not 'social', I'm open to all the experiences that VR can provide, gaming or otherwise. But I think the bigger issue here is I just don't want Facebook involved at all. Because all roads for Facebook lead to ads, and that is the last thing I want tagged to my eyeballs when I'm trying to enjoy my VR experience. Even on the desktop/mobile side, I'd glad…
I agree. People are hating on social VR here, I think, just because they are upset to see the facebook acquisition and don't know how else to disparage the deal. Don't get me wrong- I'm extremely upset about it due to facebook's clearly evil history - I don't know how anyone could deny this, given user exploitation and tracking[0] - and the fact that Oculus Rim values the combined ideas of virtual reality and augment…
Uh? Notch very specifically notes social VR would likely be great, and that he does not mind, just does not care.