Rift, Vive, and Virtual Reality

[eastmen]

this is very sad news.

Hopefully someone else enters the market. I'm hoping ms with Kinect + vr would make a splash for both pc and console.


"not a hardware company, not going to make a profit from them long term, we do this as a software and services thing.
where if we can make it so that this becomes a network where people can be communicating and buying things and virtual goods, and there might be advertising in the world but need to figure that out down the line that's probably where the big bucks will come from." -- http://www.shareholder.com/visitors/event/build3/stage/stage.cfm?mediaid=63723&mediauserid=0

 

[ArcticCircle]

2 billion is crazy amount if there's not some important patents that come with it. Oculus Rift might be state of the art tech right now, but if they don't control the patents (as in there's only one good way to do this and we control it via our IPs), someone will do it be better, cheaper and differently. There's already rumour what Valve's experimental tech might be much better. But if it's behind some IP wall that Facebook now owns... well... it's as good as dead.

If it's 2 billion just for Oculus Rift, then Facebook is stupid. Right now market is only those who have really beefy PC's. Sure, they might buy the device. But they'll move to other things as soon as something better is available. They are also notoriously hard to audience to target adds and they'll find the way to disable 'em or move to another product because of 'em. This is bad for the company because nearly all of Facebook revenue comes from selling data and ads.

I tried to search patents but I didn't find anything. But I'm really bad at even in normal Google fu so searching something from normal site like US patents is probably doomed to fail.

 

[DSC]

https://twitter.com/notch/status/448586381565390848

 

[fellix]

Well, let's "face" it, Oculus needed such generous flow of cash, if they are to stay competitive in this still fragile market niche they alone resurrected, since the last fad busted in the 90s. Now that other big players are on the VR bandwagon with much more resources, this acquisition definitely shadows the humble crowd-sourcing efforts until now. I hope, the new owner keeps its hands-off approach as long as possible on this one.

 

[Grall]

They need to diversify or they'll die.

Perhaps that is so, but "need to diversify" = buying oculus? That's the most giant dubya-tee-eff you ever saw. Historically, a company in a wildly different market with no prior experience or investment just randomly buying cool shit for lots of money rarely if ever works out in the end. That's why this deal is so terrible.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Perhaps that is so, but "need to diversify" = buying oculus? That's the most giant dubya-tee-eff you ever saw. Historically, a company in a wildly different market with no prior experience or investment just randomly buying cool shit for lots of money rarely if ever works out in the end. That's why this deal is so terrible.

I wouldn't compare this to Zynga.
Facebook is in the business of digital social activities. VR is a very probable evolution to a pyhsically-apart social experience through computers.

Say you're away from your family. On their side, there's have a simple robot with wheels and two cameras. On the other side, you have an Occulus Rift.
The feeling of "presence" should be many times greater than a simple videocall.

 

[pcchen]

Yes, in my imagination, in the future there'd be no need for commuting. Everyone can just stay at home and use VR to communicate with anyone anywhere. Of course, it's still nice to be outside, but that'd be for leisure.

Look from this perspective, it actually makes sense for Facebook to buy Oculus VR. No doubt Facebook will want to utilise this for their virtual reality social network (maybe something like Second Life), but that does not necessarily mean that Oculus VR will not be supporting games. That'd be a stupid decision.

The fact is that Oculus VR needs money to scale. The small amount of money they raised from VC is not going to be enough, and if it has to be bought by some large corporations, Facebook is likely to be a better choice than Microsoft or Apple.

 

[Grall]

I wouldn't compare this to Zynga.

Neither would I, since actually I didn't.

Facebook is in the business of digital social activities. VR is a very probable evolution to a pyhsically-apart social experience through computers.

It has virtually zero tie-in with facebook's core business - their website - though.

The feeling of "presence" should be many times greater than a simple videocall.

You're seriously going to feel "presence" staring at some other person wearing a giant set of opaque black plastic ski goggles on their head? Video conferencing surely is THE WORST application for oculus rift - ever! - since it hides the entire upper part of your face. WUT!

Besides, who would spend the money on a rift (and your video camera robot thingy) to video conference? Possibly there might be some business applications, but that's not a social activity such as facebook is typically concerned with, and also, not mass market. It'd take ages to make back their $2bn that way, if they ever do.

 

[Daozang]

Really?
Facebook...?
I'm speechless right now.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

It has virtually zero tie-in with facebook's core business - their website - though.

Actually, it's not.
Some articles came around a few months ago saying that facebook's activity through their webpage has been largely surpassed by activity coming from dedicated apps for mobile devices.
Their core business is digital social interaction- regardless of the means used by it.

You're seriously going to feel "presence" staring at some other person wearing a giant set of opaque black plastic ski goggles on their head? Video conferencing surely is THE WORST application for oculus rift - ever! - since it hides the entire upper part of your face. WUT!

Now you're just being limited for what exists today. VR goggles should become VR glasses, and eventually could even become VR contact lenses.

It's pretty clear that Facebook didn't buy Oculus for what they can do today. They did it for what they can do in the long run.

Besides, who would spend the money on a rift (and your video camera robot thingy) to video conference?

If I was living away from my dear ones, I would.
Thousands of others would too.

 

[AnarchX]

Now you're just being limited for what exists today. VR goggles should become VR glasses, and eventually could even become VR contact lenses.

It's pretty clear that Facebook didn't buy Oculus for what they can do today. They did it for what they can do in the long run.

And how should Oculus do this? They are no leading display developing/manufacturing company. They took some to everyone available tech, combined it with easy to duplicate software and initiated some third-party app development for their device and the other copys to come.

Even the 400M cash seem to be over worth for this company.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

People, really.. please stop being so single-minded.

Apple isn't a display manufacturer, yet they're mostly responsible for the surge in IPS panels and interest into high-DPI displays. Google isn't a hardware manufacturer, yet they're largely responsible for the surge of high-quality and low-price 7" tablets.


If Oculus+Facebook guarantee high volume orders for VR glasses or contact lenses and provide the initial investment for R&D, this tech will become available to the consumer much faster and much cheaper.


And again to invest in Oculus VR, I'd much rather have a company that doesn't have a stake in hardware - like Facebook - than one that already has its interest in selling their own hardware while keeping the PC gaming barely alive for PR purposes - like Microsoft.

 

[Grall]

Some articles came around a few months ago saying that facebook's activity through their webpage has been largely surpassed by activity coming from dedicated apps for mobile devices.

Mobile FB apps are nothing but the same database queries as when you use a browser in a different packaging. I don't see (at all) how they would tie in with the rift, TBH. Facebook core business and oculus = complete apples and oranges situation.

Their core business is digital social interaction- regardless of the means used by it.

However, the rift isn't some fucking social interactions tool. It's a single-user VR display.

Now you're just being limited for what exists today.

What a ridiculous statement. What we have today is what will exist for the next decade or so, if VR headsets catch on at all. VR glasses, a la google glass or some variation, are shit, because they have no field of view and terrible contrast due to letting in outside light. They're just toys, and not immersive at all (and not designed to be either.) "Glasses" that don't let in outside light would not be glasses at all of course, they'd be goggles, just like the rift of today, with similar limitations in blocking your face and so on.

VR contact lenses? How on earth would that even begin to be possible. Ludicrous. This is just another of the same BS "in the next 5-10 years" gushingly enthusiastic tech rumors that we've seen about a thousand different pie-in-the-sky concepts such as holographic storage and whatnot. I'm sure you can remember a bunch of perpetually "5-10 years" technologies yourself if you've got a minute to spare.

If at some point in the future it was to be possible to build VR functionality into a set of contacts (I'd say that'd be hugely impractical for all the reasons contacts are impractical for the majority of people - and some additional reasons as well - but whatever), it'd be so far into the future that buying oculus NOW is completely pointless. Their tech, which exists now, would have nothing in common whatsoever with this supposed VR contacts tech.

If I was living away from my dear ones, I would.
Thousands of others would too.

I'm sure a couple thousand customers would be worth two billion bucks for facebook...

 

[Deleted member 13524]

What a ridiculous statement. What we have today is what will exist for the next decade or so

I refuse to discuss technology with someone who has such a limited view on technological evolution.


BTW, a decade ago in 2004 the state-of-the-art in mobile phones was this:

Yeah, pretty much what still exists today

 

[DSC]

http://www.neowin.net/news/new-york...l-put-its-logo-and-ui-on-oculus-rift-hardware

LOL, it just gets worse and worse, you get to see the worthless Facebook logo everywhere now.

Put this one in the deadpool.

 

[Grall]

Yeah, pretty much what still exists today

Fundamentally it's not that different. It's an embedded computer system with cellular radios, using hardware buttons instead of a touch screen.

VR contact lenses is a different league of tech compared to what we have today. It would need radical advances in a number of scientific and technological disciplines. I don't see anything like that happening inside of a decade. Further than that, who the hell can say, except we still drive internal combustion engine vehicles that roll on four wheels, when in the 1950s pop science projections said we'd be having rocket cars and moon bases by now.

 

[thatdude90210]

http://www.neowin.net/news/new-york...l-put-its-logo-and-ui-on-oculus-rift-hardware

LOL, it just gets worse and worse, you get to see the worthless Facebook logo everywhere now.

Put this one in the deadpool.

What's more disappointing is the online press taking advantage of the situation with stuff like this. Both Oculus and Facebook has denied the report. "The un-named source" could very well be the reporter's ass.

The Reddit retardation is even worst, every post by Luckey has been down voted to oblivion so nobody will see them. The "I'm too cool for facebook" crowd is strong there. Some are not only cancelling their DK2 pre-orders, but go as far as asking for refund to their Kickstarter fund. It's simply a ridiculous knee jerk reaction.

The wiser course would be to sit back and see what happens, especially keeping an eye on what Carmack and some ex-Valve employees do. If they stay, then the original Oculus VR vision is intact. If they leave, then we can say the sky is falling.

 

[ERP]

The wiser course would be to sit back and see what happens, especially keeping an eye on what Carmack and some ex-Valve employees do. If they stay, then the original Oculus VR vision is intact. If they leave, then we can say the sky is falling.

I wouldn't put much stock I what employees do, any one with a significant amount of stock will have a vesting period, and they'll have to sit tight at Facebook for probably 3 or 4 years if they want to see the bulk of the money.

It amazes me that anyone believes that a 21 year old offered $2B for a company which is less than 2 years old, with what I believe to be little in the way of defensible IP, and targeting a probably niche market should turn the offer down.

 

[Daozang]

It amazes me that anyone believes that a 21 year old offered $2B for a company which is less than 2 years old, with what I believe to be little in the way of defensible IP, and targeting a probably niche market should turn the offer down.

After the shock, this is apparent.
It also suggests that VR isn't targeting a niche market. To be honest I can't see what FB will do with the hardware at least for the imminent future.

 

[Grall]

It amazes me that anyone believes that a 21 year old offered $2B for a company which is less than 2 years old, with what I believe to be little in the way of defensible IP, and targeting a probably niche market should turn the offer down.

I've never said Ocu shouldn't have sold out (it was inevitable that they would at some point; they'd pretty much HAVE to in order to grow anywhere as R&D and then gearing up for production, establishing support dept and all of those things are expensive); I've said that I see FB as a poor fit for them. Terrible, really.

I REALLY don't want to know how FB of all entities would try to monetize my eyes. Really, I don't. How long until the horror stories of what data FB collects from the rift and what they do with it starts coming out? If the thing launches on a tuesday, I'd say thursday at the latest. (There's ample precedent, as we all know.)