Yes, a big corporation with big pockets means more money and stability but it comes at a cost. The cost being whatever you do must at the end of the day feed back into the pockets of your parent company. Twitter used to be a platform too but how many third party applications do you see now? A lot less than what it used to be. What do you think will happen to Oculus applications? Those that are sanctioned by Facebook will thrive and those that aren't will be brutally shut down.<p>At the end of the day this isn't good or bad. It is really more about long term disruptive technology and its viability outside giant dens like Facebook and Google. Looking around I don't see an ecosystem that can support such things without giant corporate backers and that is definitely not a good thing because at the end of the day the values of our corporate overlords tend to be slightly misaligned with that of the individual.
I mean, I hope things go well for them and their partnership brings nothing but good things. From what I've seen, they've put a lot of work in to their device and made significant gains.<p>But Facebook doesn't and won't have a device in my life, and I refuse to buy an Occulus product because I don't believe that Facebook won't get access to usage data (or be involved as a platform middleman).
So IMO that interviewer was terrible. Iribe gave mostly good answers despite the questions - but did anyone actually think that FB was going to put their messenger in the oculus?<p>It is also telling to me that when they talked about the emotions that you could evoke with VR vs a 2D screen that most of them were negative.<p>We have a couple of the DK1's and we really had a lot of hope for the tech - but I remain unconvinced that this acquisition will be a good thing in the long run. I also didn't like how he talked about the kickstarter campaign being the first to prove that the crowdfunding model could be used to create a billion dollar company - I believe if you went back and asked most of the initial investors in the kickstarter I don't think that was something they were hoping for.
So he prefers rapid growth, with the risk of the whole thing becomming a bubble instead of the stability that results from a slow build of users and developer support? That doesn't put a lot of confidence in me either.
I was one of the people disappointed with the acquisition.. but to be honest as long as they put out a decent bit of kit and I actually get to experience VR the way they're demoing it I'll be one happy dude
Was there ever any indication that big developers were holding fire? As far as I'm aware, there wasn't time to even know how the market and developer support was shaking out.
I like how the only way to comment on this article is by your Facebook account.<p>Now, reporters will look at the comments by FB predisposed people and assume there is now acceptance.
No sign of remorse. Screw the community that took him there. Get Facebook's billions under the excuse to get major game studios behind the platform. Huge blow to future crowdfunding. Lovely guy.
I thought this was going to be a story about Zuck being totally wasted, doing lines of blow, and then suddenly shouting to Occulus: "I'll buy it for $2B!"<p>That would have made it make more sense at least.