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

51–60 of 185 posts

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

#51

Post by millstone »

ericflo wrote: post #40
millstone wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Standalone" is a nice feature but not a separate product category. Facebook rightly considers Sony, Microsoft, HTC as competing with Oculus.

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/

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

#52

Post by tmsh »

I think not forcing Facebook login will speed up adoption of VR and will benefit Facebook in the long run anyway.

Source: my brother in law this weekend was going to buy an Oculus Quest 2 after I showed him my Oculus Quest 1. But the Facebook login requirement gave him pause.

There’s a lot of intersection between early adopters and people consciously not on Facebook (maybe on other Facebook properties but not Facebook itself).

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

#53

Post by [deleted] »

taneq wrote: post #31
shajznnckfke wrote: post #6

The Xbox requires that you have a Microsoft account, right? This seems like an inconvenience but I have a hard time understanding why it’s worth Congress’s time. Isn’t the world full of products that have to be registered by making an account in some system or another? I guess I could understand if somebody didn’t have internet access and wants to use Oculus, but they wouldn’t be able to download any games either eve…

Does the Xbox stop working if your Microsoft account gets banned?

[deleted]

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

#54

Post by hombre_fatal »

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 or Outlook credentials to install an OS.

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

#57

Post by LexGray »

notsuoh wrote: post #43
andrelayer wrote: post #34

How is this any different than the iPhone and Apple Id?

I think one of the key differentiators is that an Apple ID isn’t required to use an iPhone. There are other differences, but I believe this is the main relevant one.

Only to use non-Apple apps on an iPhone since you can only install things tied to the Apple App Store.

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

#59

Post by ericflo »

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/

Rift S is discontinued, their marketing materials notwitstanding. Half Life Alyx can only be played by a standalone headset if you let a computer run the all the graphics and game logic, similar to how an iPad can be used as a second monitor for Apple devices. It's really quite different from smart/dumb TV.

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

#60

Post by iRomain »

graeme wrote: post #4

> 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 Is the house committee arguing Facebook is a monopoly in....VR? From the stats I found Oculus has a 20-30% share. I don’t like the Facebook requirement for Oculus, but not everything I don’t lime constitutes a monopoly. Other have commented that the house assumes what it sets o…

I agree they could have formulated this in a better way.

But in the end, I believe this ruling is all about restricting data gathering from Big Tech as much as possible and I also believe that's a good thing.

Post reply on HN