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

Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 121 posts

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#61

Post by pushrax »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #28
modeless wrote: post #2

This is the real shame in the Oculus acquisition. If Oculus had been able to give away just 10% equity, every single Kickstarter backer would be $20,000 richer today. The sentiment would be completely different. The SEC needs to get in gear and start allowing equity crowdfunding pronto. The SEC's classification of millionaires as "accredited investors" who get first crack at all the best investment opportunities is e…

Don't be ridiculous. That's not how it works. Every dollar, and then some, needed to be spent on the headsets. Oculus wasn't going to give away 10% of the company in exchange for negative dollars. If the SEC does allow equity via crowdfunding you'd have to be relatively insane to take them up on the offer. It just doesn't make sense.

I don't understand your reasoning – the point of selling equity is to have more money available for immediate use. If they had followed this path, they might have raised even more capital.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#62

Post by pushrax »

rtpg wrote: post #57
GBond wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real shame is not that the backers didn't a get a financial payout ('tho they should). The real shame is how Oculus' most passionate enthusiasts got burnt. They were in it for the shared vision but got a tough lesson in capitalism instead.

what about the product they bought? I don't expect financial payout from a McDonald's franchisee because I bought some hamburgers from them.

The $10 backers didn't receive anything other than a pat on the back.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#63

Post by dlp211 »

gfodor wrote: post #55
dlp211 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is a stupid way to feel. Using your kid analogy, they didn't turn their backs on anyone, they took a better paying gig so that they can do more stuff for you. So that they can get you a quicker ROI by having more assets at their disposal, by being legitimized. I don't understand any of your reactions to this. They took money, and so what? For a site that is dedicated to the entrepreneurial spirit, making it…

Most of the biggest tech companies we respect today started with a lot of potential, a lot of risk, and offers for early exits that would have made the founders rich. The founders believed enough in themselves and their vision to tell these people to go fuck themselves, they were going to go their own way. The reason people react negatively to this is because they see huge potential in Oculus and don't feel Facebook…

What utter nonsense. Larry and Sergey were shopping Google around and no one wanted to buy, Apple was acquired from within by their investors, FB, Yahoo, Amazon all took on a massive amount of VC to get off the ground. That is the cost of doing business and when companies like Sony begin to encroach on the space that you are pioneering, it might be in your best interest to get to market, and you need cash to do that.

Palmer doesn't want to run a company, he wants to make VR a thing, and the same goes for Carmack. You have no idea what the terms of the acquisition was, so don't throw around your conjecture about who has the final say on what. Why don't we just wait and see what the outcome is before we go all Harry Caray.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#64

Post by forrestthewoods »

pushrax wrote: post #61
forrestthewoods wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be ridiculous. That's not how it works. Every dollar, and then some, needed to be spent on the headsets. Oculus wasn't going to give away 10% of the company in exchange for negative dollars. If the SEC does allow equity via crowdfunding you'd have to be relatively insane to take them up on the offer. It just doesn't make sense.

I don't understand your reasoning – the point of selling equity is to have more money available for immediate use. If they had followed this path, they might have raised even more capital.

$300 doesn't get you a headset AND equity. You might take $300 from person A to manufacture a headset to sell to person B for $300. But person A doesn't get both.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#65

Post by alexqgb »

asdfologist wrote: post #53
alexqgb wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the dude (heavily) edited his original post after a bunch of people pointed out that he didn't know what he was talking about.

Oh I see. This highlights an interesting flaw in the HN edit functionality - it can make the child posts look stupid.

Yes, and moreso to people who are not, themselves, terribly careful readers.

Savvier folks can read a string of knowledgable corrections to a point that (apparently) wasn't made then work out what must have happened easily enough.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#66

Post by booruguru »

I've always found it bizarre that people would willing give hundreds (if not, thousands) of dollars to fund a business venture for some paltry token of appreciation while the founders (and investors) receive all of the financial rewards. (The "Veronica Mars" movie comes to mind.)

Also, I find it deeply upsetting that I am be allowed to give my life savings to a startup founded by a friend or family member, but I can't do this with a stranger...because the government wants to protect me or something.

But, really, I can't really blame regulators for this paternalistic policies since most people blame the banks for the financial crisis while pitying those impoverished home owners who stupidly purchased homes they couldn't afford.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#67

Post by gbelote »

gojomo wrote: post #6
modeless wrote: post #2

This is the real shame in the Oculus acquisition. If Oculus had been able to give away just 10% equity, every single Kickstarter backer would be $20,000 richer today. The sentiment would be completely different. The SEC needs to get in gear and start allowing equity crowdfunding pronto. The SEC's classification of millionaires as "accredited investors" who get first crack at all the best investment opportunities is e…

Indeed, I don't see anywhere else that Americans accept a "wealth test" to exercise a basic economic right (ownership of production). Note, the accredited-investor rules are not an "ability-to-pay" test. That would be fair: if you can write the check, you're in. The rules also are not a creditworthiness test: they don't evaluate reliability, and investors want to give money, not take it from others. And they're not a…

The rules are indeed a little ridiculous, especially when juxtaposition against gambling.

The distinction is in the process of being removed with the JOBS Act. It was signed into law in 2012 but the SEC has been slow to enact the regulations. Hopefully it can be used to support the future Oculuses! (Occuli?)

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#68

Post by gfodor »

dlp211 wrote: post #63
gfodor wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the biggest tech companies we respect today started with a lot of potential, a lot of risk, and offers for early exits that would have made the founders rich. The founders believed enough in themselves and their vision to tell these people to go fuck themselves, they were going to go their own way. The reason people react negatively to this is because they see huge potential in Oculus and don't feel Facebook…

What utter nonsense. Larry and Sergey were shopping Google around and no one wanted to buy, Apple was acquired from within by their investors, FB, Yahoo, Amazon all took on a massive amount of VC to get off the ground. That is the cost of doing business and when companies like Sony begin to encroach on the space that you are pioneering, it might be in your best interest to get to market, and you need cash to do that.…

Wtf are you talking about? This was an acquisiton, by definition the CEO of the buying company has the final say. Taking VC money is completely different.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#69

Post by jiggy2011 »

gbelote wrote: post #67
gojomo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, I don't see anywhere else that Americans accept a "wealth test" to exercise a basic economic right (ownership of production). Note, the accredited-investor rules are not an "ability-to-pay" test. That would be fair: if you can write the check, you're in. The rules also are not a creditworthiness test: they don't evaluate reliability, and investors want to give money, not take it from others. And they're not a…

The rules are indeed a little ridiculous, especially when juxtaposition against gambling. The distinction is in the process of being removed with the JOBS Act. It was signed into law in 2012 but the SEC has been slow to enact the regulations. Hopefully it can be used to support the future Oculuses! (Occuli?)

The difference is that gambling firms usually aren't allowed to advertise by promising a positive expected ROI.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#70

Post by clef »

modeless wrote: post #2

This is the real shame in the Oculus acquisition. If Oculus had been able to give away just 10% equity, every single Kickstarter backer would be $20,000 richer today. The sentiment would be completely different. The SEC needs to get in gear and start allowing equity crowdfunding pronto. The SEC's classification of millionaires as "accredited investors" who get first crack at all the best investment opportunities is e…

This is a giant casino for people that have a lot of money they can afford to lose.
Post reply on HN