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

Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

thesurge.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 229 posts

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#141

Post by scient »

threeseed wrote: post #118
teacup50 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Oculus has a clear path to monetization" "Monetization" is a bastardization of a term that was necessary to describe how non-profitable companies could somehow make money from giving away their product for free -- usually by abusing the userbase they're handing the free product to. See the second paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization I think what you meant to say is: "Oculus has a clear product that…

> Facebook doesn't know how to make and sell a product that isn't their own users And how is this any different to Google ? They have exactly the same business model as Facebook.

This is a classic example of an armchair CEO at work - has no clue what he is talking about, has no proof, no arguments, but presents his ramblings as facts.

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#142

Post by silentOpen »

superuser2 wrote: post #109
Geee wrote: post #27

Earlier 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…

Yes. With the exception of telephony, each of those industries also delivers material/entertainment/comfort value. Telephony is just voice communication and benefits from a network effect and natural monopoly. Facebook has a far more sophisticated model of communication but is most similar to telephony.

The difference between Facebook and telephony is striking. You pay for a telephone connection. Other people pay for your Facebook experience to be mediated to their wishes. Telephony is p2p and we typically frown on operator intervention and worry about excessive centralization. Facebook could be p2p but is centralized and has heavy operator intervention.

Offering communications services for free and then attempting to 'monetize' the interactions that you mediate is distasteful.

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#143

Post by jader201 »

kyleblarson wrote: post #54
jader201 wrote: post #9

> 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 easy to take the moral high ground when you don't have a three comma offer sitting on the table in front of you.

The point isn't that they made a bad/immoral decision.

The point is that they say this:

> Beyond our core community, we expected it would be positive.

Oculus are brilliant people -- how could they expect this would be received positively, even by those "beyond our core community"?

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#144

Post by SixSigma »

corysama wrote: post #113
SixSigma wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will you do a face to face interaction when you are both wearing VR goggles ?

You and I can be in different locations. But, with the goggles on, we can be face to face inside VR.

An incredible waste of effort and talent for gee-whiz nonsense.

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#145

Post by albeec13 »

threeseed wrote: post #118
teacup50 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Oculus has a clear path to monetization" "Monetization" is a bastardization of a term that was necessary to describe how non-profitable companies could somehow make money from giving away their product for free -- usually by abusing the userbase they're handing the free product to. See the second paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization I think what you meant to say is: "Oculus has a clear product that…

> Facebook doesn't know how to make and sell a product that isn't their own users And how is this any different to Google ? They have exactly the same business model as Facebook.

My initial reaction was to ask why you brought Google into this conversation. Upon further thought, while Google does have a similar business model to Facebook, they have also built actual products and sold them directly to consumers, which Facebook has not. They also build an operating system, Android, used by the majority of smart phones sold worldwide.

So no, they're not quite the same, but ignoring that, why bring up Google when no one is talking about them here?

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#146

Post by loup-vaillant »

Geee wrote: post #134
superuser2 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tog…

> Telephony, Internet, are open technologies without locking you in as a customer for any company.

No, they are natural local monopolies. It takes explicit effort in policy making to avoid actual monopolies. The result is mixed: while it is possible to change your provider, it is much less convenient than changing the theatre you will go to next time. Switching costs aren't negligible. And in the US, I hear you have only two provider at any given place: the DSL provider, and the cable provider.

As you suggest, there is nothing wrong with Facebook wanting to monetize human interactions. The problem is how they do it. If they charged their user for the service, and didn't bother them with ads and constant spying, that would be fine. Heck, they could even prevent most spying and cut down the server costs by selling little servers you could plug into your home, have them talk peer-to-peer, and charge for updates or something.

But no, they had to violate our most intimate conversations constantly. Okay, maybe not the most intimate (those actually go through Gmail), but you get the idea. That is what's wrong with Facebook (and Google, and Apple…). Not charging for the service, but the hidden costs, the spying, and other totalitarian artefacts.

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#147

Post by deletes »

LoganCale wrote: post #53
baby wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anger slowed in a matter of hours though, it was pretty fast.

Not really. Pretty much everyone who was angry is still angry. They just stopped posting about it constantly, because what's the point?

You don't know that, they might as well changed their opinion and are now too embarrassed to speak about it.

I think a lot of people were acting with pure emotion. Once the surprise subsides the logical reasoning kicks in and you get the bigger picture.

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#148

Post by whatevsbro »

threeseed wrote: post #118
teacup50 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Oculus has a clear path to monetization" "Monetization" is a bastardization of a term that was necessary to describe how non-profitable companies could somehow make money from giving away their product for free -- usually by abusing the userbase they're handing the free product to. See the second paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization I think what you meant to say is: "Oculus has a clear product that…

> Facebook doesn't know how to make and sell a product that isn't their own users And how is this any different to Google ? They have exactly the same business model as Facebook.

> And how is this any different to Google ?

It isn't, they're both raping their users' privacy for money, and that is why Oculus selling to Facebook is disgusting. Facebook will only use it for more privacy-raping, since that's just what Facebook does.

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#149

Post by loup-vaillant »

bane wrote: post #107
Geee wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't compete with 'without ads' business model. Look around: Google search, Youtube, Facebook etc. They all had first mover advantage and there's no way someone can compete with these. These services (and companies) operate around the idea of giving away free candy and locking everyone in with network effects. This is what will happen to VR as well under Facebook's control.

> You can't compete with 'without ads' business model. Look around: Google search, Youtube, Facebook etc. They all had first mover advantage and there's no way someone can compete with these. Nonsense, there are dozens of very expensive data providers and search companies out there who do very well for themselves thank you very much.

Could you name three? (I fully expect that you can, but it'll make your argument that much more convincing).

Of the top of my head, I think of DuckDuckGo, which does not spy, but it still have ads.

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#150

Post by bane »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #136
bane wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"…

Absolutely. I wouldn't even look back. I have plenty of other things to occupy my time that isn't work. Painting, writing, photography, music, and the list goes on forever. Freed of the daily grind I would nothing but things I expect no return on simply for the pleasure of it. I'd probably even give away the output of those activities for nothing.
Post reply on HN