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

91–100 of 185 posts

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

#91

Post by briffle »

kminehart wrote: post #62
hombre_fatal wrote: post #54

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 o…

You can install windows 10 without signing in.

Only if network is disabled in new images

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

#93

Post by protomyth »

millstone wrote: post #42
r3drock wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In principle I would say you are right, but it is actually a far greater hassle to make (or keep) a facebook account than some generic account.

Have you actually had problems making/keeping a Facebook account? I have several throwaways which continue to work fine.

Try being an actual account with a Native American name. Facebook likes to randomly ban them accusing the owner of using a fake name. So, yeah, people around here sometimes have problems keeping an account.

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

#94

Post by millstone »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #82
millstone wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

You can make a TV smart for $30. The difference between standalone and tethered headsets is a wide gulf.

But you bought "a TV". Likewise you buy "a VR headset."

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

#95

Post by hansvm »

millstone wrote: post #42
r3drock wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In principle I would say you are right, but it is actually a far greater hassle to make (or keep) a facebook account than some generic account.

Have you actually had problems making/keeping a Facebook account? I have several throwaways which continue to work fine.

I tried making one a year or two ago. When it asked for a phone number I gave a throwaway. Turns out they verify you have control of the number, so next I tried some VoIP digits. Facebook knows which blocks are owned by the larger VoIP companies and requested a _real_ phone number this time. So...I went out and bought a damned phone so that I'd have a phone number to make this bloody account. I verified that I could make and receive calls and started their registration flow again to be blocked by some other kind of BS (I think they thought the number was still in a VoIP block...guess that misfeature isn't perfect?). Anyway, it wasn't thaat important to me, so I gave up and haven't tried again since.

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

#96

Post by graeme »

chottocharaii wrote: post #13
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…

Learn the difference between ‘monopoly’ and other aspects of the antitrust laws in general (like ‘tying’) perhaps, before commenting

For tying to matter, don’t you need some sort of market dominance? Facebook doesn’t have that in VR. I think you could switch market power for monopoly in my comment and it would have the same meaning: Oculus doesn’t dominate VR.

Your comment sounds smart but provides no information and isn’t obviously correct.

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

#97

Post by graeme »

ebg13 wrote: post #9
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…

> Is the house committee arguing Facebook is a monopoly I believe the phrase right there in the quote you made is "Market power". Being a monopoly is not a requirement for antitrust violations.

I’m not american, and mispoke. But if you switch out monopoly for market power, I’m not sure it changes the comment. It’s not obvious facebook has inordinate market power in vr.

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

#98

Post by tomjakubowski »

chillacy wrote: post #85
harry8 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're conflating "able to do" vertical integration with "must do" there, fwiw.

If you want to use the apple watch you must have an iphone, which somehow seems worse: https://www.imore.com/can-you-use-your-apple-watch-your-andr...

It doesn't seem worse to me. Apple is free to make and sell accessories for its own hardware products. It would be a problem if Apple sold its smart watch while also breaking iPhone's compatibility with third party smart watches.

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

#99

Post by Qub3d »

polyomino wrote: post #92
colordrops wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought one before facebook made the announcement. But thanks for the flippant comment.

So a facebook account isn't required

For now

https://twitter.com/oculus/status/1295769342034849792 https://www.oculus.com/blog/a-single-way-to-log-into-oculus-...

> After January 1, 2023, we will end support for Oculus accounts. If you choose not to merge your accounts at that time, you can continue using your device, but full functionality will require a Facebook account. We will take steps to allow you to keep using content you have purchased, though we expect some games and apps may no longer work. This could be because they include features that require a Facebook account or because a developer has chosen to no longer support the app or game you purchased.

There is a two year grace period, after which everyone will be required to use a facebook account or have the hardware they own retroactively handicapped.

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

#100

Post by ericd »

sprite wrote: post #55

I pre ordered one then realized the fb login requirement and cancelled it. Wonder how many are in the same boat.

I'm sure there are a bunch in the same boat. I owned Oculus' DK1 and DK2, but when I thought through what FB owning Oculus meant, I cancelled my original Rift preorder and bought a Vive instead.

More recently, my resolve against letting FB get their data proboscis into my life was weakening with the Quest 2 launch. Fortunately, they came up with that forceful reminder of why I made that decision in the first place.

Post reply on HN