Oculus was their first, real consumer hardware release and effort.
The rollout was amateur hour between delays, customer service, etc, but that's forgivable and understandable at some level for a first major release.
But then Vive showed up to the party, shipped nearly on the same time frame, and delivered a product that's in striking distance of headset quality and WINS in interactivity.
This underscores how commoditized hardware is and will continue to be.
But then FB doubles down on protecting their "hardware play" and fucks everybody over with their bizarre Oculus "store" experience which launched with a ridiculous walled garden approach and an experience that's far secondary to Steam.
Meanwhile FB and Zuck keep making noises about wanting to support VR in general to bring about critical mass on VR as a platform so they can take the obvious step and execute THE killer-app for VR, - a truly connected social metaverse.
I get that having a hardware lab provides an incentive to new VR devs to come on board, and lets them press the medium forward.
But if owning that "metaverse" is the end game why bother dickering around with consumer hardware and pissing off / breaking trust with devs & consumers?
Hardware is commoditized but brands are not. Anyone can make handbags but only some can sell them for $5000. Oculus has potential to be as profitable as Apple if they absolutely nail the execution and the experience. But it remains to the be seen if the Rift is an iphone or a newton.
Being tethered to a high end gaming pc "dooms" it to be a niche product. How soon can Oculus either ally with a console or make a console?
Facebook is not trying to build a premium VR business w/margins akin to Apple, that would be completely inverse to their business strategy.
Facebook is much more akin to Google than to Apple because Facebook & Google's primary business is the same - advertising.
And if you're an advertising business your primary objective is driving more eyeballs / more users.
Google's first VR solution demonstrates this - they GIVE it away via Cardboard.
Just look at how Facebook approaches the GearVR initiative - I can't imagine they're making much of a licensing premium but it's dramatically increasing their footprint to be the premier VR solution of Samsung phones (1)
Which is where I come back to why bother with the hardware side as a serious business at all?
Even if I argue that the Oculus Rift is just a red herring to push the medium forward on the hardware side I lose the thread because they seem to be playing such hard defense on the hardware side w/the "app" store . . .
Just release FB Social VR already and win the game, stop damaging your brand w/consumers and developers . . .
I saw facebook's earnings last quarter and my jaw dropped. 40% increase in revenue since same quarter last year. Then I took a look at their quarterly report, and the entire thing -- and I mean, like 99% of it -- is about ads. MAU, DAU, publisher and inventory growth, top-level organizational goals about getting more marketers on the platform, etc. The only other two revenue sources they have are hardware sales and payments, and they didn't even break out how much either of those businesses made apart from the broader facebook advertising business. It became extremely clear reading the report that ads is where the focus, attention, and money are going in the company.
I guess Oculus is going to be a giant ad business. Either that, or fb is going to pull off a major win against the innovator's dilemma, where they get so focused on ads that that focus chokes other initiatives within the company.
I don't doubt Oculus (as well as Messenger) have a ton of ad inventory in front of them. But I think it's a mistake to think fb cares about the hardware per se; they don't, it's all just a doorway to their platform.
And even if they try to build a premium hardware division with Oculus, it's unlikely to work. Culture is incredibly sticky and companies rarely succeed in building products that are orthogonal to their culture.
> Oculus has potential to be as profitable as Apple if they absolutely nail the execution and the experience.
No. VR won't be that popular. I know that's hard for people on HN to hear, but it's true. Sure it'll make money selling to geeks and nerds, but that's all.
I think that I partly agree with you on it. It is not hard to imagine two iPhones per person - private one and company one. And yet I doubt that more than one VR in household will be that common. Probably in case of smartphones cost hiding thanks to carrier plans helped in making it popular. Can similar mechanism work for VR? It is true that nowadays you can get additional things with your mobile plan - laptops and tablets for example. But in case of VR you have to consider also beefier machine. GearVR would probably have advantage in this case.
Then it is the issue of having something on your face and not being able to hop-in and hop-out of the experience in case of a second. It makes the experience deeper, but that means you need more time and people don't have time. Even if you play with someone on a console you can, in split second, see them smiling or see that you need to turn off cooker under rice. Never mind about actual appearance of having something on someones pretty face. VR devices are looking probably too Sci-Fi than somewhat elegant iPhone to appeal to public. Elegance appeal to rich people and what appeals to rich people appeals to everyone that would like to be rich. One thing that overcomes elegance is price and it does not apply to VR.
It is deeper experience so it may be closer to cinema than to TV. TV is certainly more popular. I hope that it will enable not only great gaming experiences, but also remarkable development (or professional) environments. Current gen VR is probably not yet there to be used in professional setting, but maybe subsidized by gaming - same as with GPUs - it will get there.
VR makes me nauseous. I think it is because of that slight delay in feedback from head motion. Or, maybe it's the awareness that if I actually move around, I'll collide with something.
I think I'm going to stick to large curved screens for now, and hold out for holograms later.
Not too long ago people assumed that nobody likes to wander around with huge battery packs attached to their smartphones. If the perceived value is great people are willing to put up with a lot of crazy stuff.
Also I know plenty of people who wear glasses to reap the value of better sight. Why isn't it conceptually possible for people to wear other stuff to reap other benefits?
most people with glasses hate glasses, but it's necessary for daily life and survival. i know 0 persons who routinely walk around with battery packs for example, and I work in IT so all techies around me.
as much as I am a tech geek, VR with huge headsets is really niche product. people look like idiots, it's restrictive, many people have health issues with it etc. I'll probably buy a headset after it gains real traction (ie most AAA games will work flawlessly in them), but not sooner.
I worked my way through college in the optical industry. People hate wearing glasses. Sure there are a few that do it for fashion, but most would rather never have to put them on.
I see what you mean. Just to give a different perspective, I'm wearing glasses all the time for the majority of my lifetime (24 y/o now and since I'm 8). For me, it's not that I hate them or something, I just can't imagine life without them. They just became like a body part. Don't love them, don't hate them, they simply exist.
No. I just know people. What's going to happen the first time pretty people have a VR party and headshots of all of them with red, sweaty rings around their faces shows up on FB? They'll never put the VR on again, that's what.
:-) I know people too. And there was a time when looking into a CRT and listening to your modem squawk while the webpage in front of you took 5 minutes to download. The takeaway seems obvious: terrible experience, they'll never use this Internet thing again.
Not sure what you're comparing here. Cable modems replaced analog modems. Ok, wires in wires out. Same. LCD panels replaced CRT displays. Big and bulky to flat.
We're talking putting something on one's _face_. Even if they made it the size and weight of normal glasses, it wouldn't get any where _near_ as popular as geeks and nerds think (hope?) it will. It just won't.
But, hey, let's put a pin in this conversation and revisit it in 5 years. Ok? If I'm wrong, I'll send you lunch.
They haven't nailed execution and/or experience. Simple as that. Do they have time to fix it? Maybe. But it's going to be a battle and it doesn't seem like they are in fighting mode.
I think you nailed it. Oculus is order to not become a niche product needs to be sold as part of a console bundle. That would make premium VR to a one pressed button distance. Maybe Project Scorpio + Oculus? Scorpio specs seems to be enough for a good VR experencie.
I agree the hardware requirements are the real downer for mass adoption. I'm eagerly awaiting the Playstation VR headset (preordered) and I agree that next gen XBox is probably the best strategic partner (since it's close to a PC with graphics focus). It'll be interesting who Microsoft partners with.
It's a real shame oculus has gone down this path. Previously I thought VR was a dumb gimmick that wouldn't go anywhere. After getting a vive though my mind has completely changed. I hope the other companies getting into the space don't try to ruin it.
Edit: For reference, 418 is real. It is the "I am a teapot" error code, from an April fools RFC about teapots being internet connected, which I thought was at least marginally relevant to hardware hacking.
Well they definitely have the resources to create something amazing, but only time will tell if those resources actually mean anything. From the basis of what they are currently building, the lab is overkill. They must have something secret/bigger hardware projects going on.
Zuck have recently said that their 1 billion VR users are going to come from mobile phone and not PC so the real reason behind this hardware lab could be that fb is going to develop a real phone (sw + hw) and not like earlier.
All I've got at work is a 4kW laser cutter and a 5 tonne overhead crane, oh and a 220 tonne press and a 4m guillotine. About 30 mig welders. There's a machine shop next door too.
Because diversity in America is an emotionally-based internal and external marketing, not a statistically rigorous initiative to truly measure and hold companies and Universities accountable.
Better similar questions are, what is the ratio of East Asian and South Asian middle-management and senior management in Silicon Valley over their individual contributor head count (vs. the same ratio for Caucasian counterpart)?
What is the ratio of black students and employee's in a company, when broken down specifically by class (e.g., middle and upper-middle class black people living in suburbs of DC vs. first generation black college students from inner city Baltimore) and by immigration (e.g., Nigerian's who have the same immigrant/culture work-ethic's as East Asian's are just as over-represented in elite American schools)?
I think the unspoken assumption is that Indians and East Asians have no trouble getting hired based just on their academic and technical merits, despite not being caucasian. If you think about this for a while you'll realise that the "diversity" being championed is not diversity of race or gender.
No company is so racist that it will refuse to hire someone who's going to make them a profit.
They are nowhere near even being close to Google in terms of revenue, technology, innovation, invention etc. After all, they started off just copying myspace and calling their users dumb f*cks. Facebook is the next AOL.
As the article say: "The lab will be a space for engineers to design energy-efficient servers for Facebook data centers ...". Those servers are open compute servers that are totally open source. You can get the blue prints online
Not necessarily. I block FB at my router at home and via DNS on my phone, reject mail from them at my server and use a browser blocker for their web bugs at work. And still "my" data leaks to them via other people who apparently upload address books, tag me in photos and whatever other mechanisms for soliciting data on nonmembers they've ginned up.
I know this because before I started bouncing their mail I'd get an endless stream of spam from them about how many friends desperately wished I'd sign up.
but you're not the one giving them that data - your friends/others are. Not sure how that can be avoided in any social networking type of application. Those applications are pretty much 'public' space in today's world. People who really need to keep their real identities private today (ie some law enforcement personnel) are in a tough place these days.
Correct. And one of my biggest gripes with F*%#book. Perhaps it can't be entirely avoided in a social networking app, but there's a difference between unwanted leakage and active encouragement. Providing incentives to people to rat out my data is scummy.
Unfortunately, scummy is what I've come to expect from them.
Educate your surroundings. No pictures by default, if they do make pictures and you're in them no facebook. Tag me on facebook and you're off my IRL friends list and if you're family then you can strike me off the birthday invite list.
Oculus was their first, real consumer hardware release and effort.
The rollout was amateur hour between delays, customer service, etc, but that's forgivable and understandable at some level for a first major release.
But then Vive showed up to the party, shipped nearly on the same time frame, and delivered a product that's in striking distance of headset quality and WINS in interactivity.
This underscores how commoditized hardware is and will continue to be.
But then FB doubles down on protecting their "hardware play" and fucks everybody over with their bizarre Oculus "store" experience which launched with a ridiculous walled garden approach and an experience that's far secondary to Steam.
Meanwhile FB and Zuck keep making noises about wanting to support VR in general to bring about critical mass on VR as a platform so they can take the obvious step and execute THE killer-app for VR, - a truly connected social metaverse.
I get that having a hardware lab provides an incentive to new VR devs to come on board, and lets them press the medium forward.
But if owning that "metaverse" is the end game why bother dickering around with consumer hardware and pissing off / breaking trust with devs & consumers?