Facebook buying Oculus
closed account (EwCjE3v7)
Has anyone heard about this?
What are they going to be doing with it? It`s mainly for gaming.
What do you think?
http://time.com/37842/facebook-oculus-rift/
I think they will use it for video call but I do not know what else they are going to be using it for.
What do you think?
What are they going to be doing with it? It`s mainly for gaming.
What do you think?
http://time.com/37842/facebook-oculus-rift/
I think they will use it for video call but I do not know what else they are going to be using it for.
What do you think?
If they maintain the focus on gaming they might make something great, but if the choose to go down the dark path of focusing on social the will screw it up.
I'd say it's extremely unlikely that they just bought it for social media. I can't imagine anyone willing to pay for ability to "enhance" his facebook experience.
I'd actually say that Facebook is going Google - they want to make more money and conquer more IT by having different branches. Oculus may be one of them. It seems nice.
It's similar for me to what Google did by buying few small companies doing research on robots and their AI.
I'd actually say that Facebook is going Google - they want to make more money and conquer more IT by having different branches. Oculus may be one of them. It seems nice.
It's similar for me to what Google did by buying few small companies doing research on robots and their AI.
I think Facebook actually has a good enough reputation to do anything they want with it, as long as they don't monopolize it.
Also, realize that Occulus is still their own division. They're doing whatever they were doing before, just owned and utilized by Facebook as far as I understand it.
Also, realize that Occulus is still their own division. They're doing whatever they were doing before, just owned and utilized by Facebook as far as I understand it.
I think the bigger question is: Is it fair to sell out to Facebook for $2 billion after raising $2 million dollars in crowd funding?
While, there isn't any doubt that it is legal, the morality of such a move is debatable.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/26/fund-my-kickstarter-project-but-dont-get-angry-if-i-sell-to-facebook/
Of course, there are will be other crowd funding sources available that are more rewarding to the funder once the SEC revises the rules for those things.
While, there isn't any doubt that it is legal, the morality of such a move is debatable.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/26/fund-my-kickstarter-project-but-dont-get-angry-if-i-sell-to-facebook/
Of course, there are will be other crowd funding sources available that are more rewarding to the funder once the SEC revises the rules for those things.
I don't see a lot of reasoning. The crowd funding is to reach a goal, the goal is still being reached. A company with more funding can help achieve that, so why would anyone who supported the project be against it?
Where has Facebook stated that it won't allow Occulus to continue it's original goal? Rather, it's quite the opposite in an acquisition, the original company generally continues what it's doing while modifying to the newly owning company. In the case of Sun to Oracle, it was a horrible acquisition that honestly removed every bit of my will to supporting Java ever again, simply because Oracle has some of the worst morals as a company I've ever seen, almost next to Microsoft. And it immediately showed. They closed OpenSolaris, they closed parts of the OpenOffice applications, and so on, to the point that *everything* has been forked to move away from Oracle and keep the original licensing (which includes Java implementation. The open version is called OpenJDK which is indirectly supported by Oracle but Oracle cannot close it if they wished it so, it would just be immediately forked).
Facebook on the other hand has a much cleaner record. Why would it not allow the Occulus Rift to finish? If it's successful, why would it choose to monopolize it for its own purposes? Even further, where has Facebook claimed that it would do such things? Further information and action is required to tell if such things will happen. Assumptions are the worst and it shouldn't sully any reputation just because some people are butthurt even though there hasn't even been enough time to determine what will happen next. Oracle did these things because they sought out money and to be honest, they didn't achieve anything and lost just about anyone worth mentioning that stayed from Sun and a large portion of community.
If you support a product to want it to grow, the fact that it's acquired by a company that can provide it a much larger source of funding is the last thing you should be butthurt about, especially with a company like Facebook. At least wait until something negative happens to criticize the transition.
Where has Facebook stated that it won't allow Occulus to continue it's original goal? Rather, it's quite the opposite in an acquisition, the original company generally continues what it's doing while modifying to the newly owning company. In the case of Sun to Oracle, it was a horrible acquisition that honestly removed every bit of my will to supporting Java ever again, simply because Oracle has some of the worst morals as a company I've ever seen, almost next to Microsoft. And it immediately showed. They closed OpenSolaris, they closed parts of the OpenOffice applications, and so on, to the point that *everything* has been forked to move away from Oracle and keep the original licensing (which includes Java implementation. The open version is called OpenJDK which is indirectly supported by Oracle but Oracle cannot close it if they wished it so, it would just be immediately forked).
Facebook on the other hand has a much cleaner record. Why would it not allow the Occulus Rift to finish? If it's successful, why would it choose to monopolize it for its own purposes? Even further, where has Facebook claimed that it would do such things? Further information and action is required to tell if such things will happen. Assumptions are the worst and it shouldn't sully any reputation just because some people are butthurt even though there hasn't even been enough time to determine what will happen next. Oracle did these things because they sought out money and to be honest, they didn't achieve anything and lost just about anyone worth mentioning that stayed from Sun and a large portion of community.
If you support a product to want it to grow, the fact that it's acquired by a company that can provide it a much larger source of funding is the last thing you should be butthurt about, especially with a company like Facebook. At least wait until something negative happens to criticize the transition.
Last edited on
| I don't see a lot of reasoning. The crowd funding is to reach a goal, the goal is still being reached. A company with more funding can help achieve that, so why would anyone who supported the project be against it? |
People funded a startup. What they funded is no longer a startup. The sacrifice they made has become a tiny drop in the bucket that could have made a much larger impact elsewhere.
Please refrain from using phrases like "butthurt" when attempting to engage in rational discussion.
I fail to see why everyone is so "angry" for lack of a better word over the deal also. People funded the project so VR technology can become mainstream and available to everyone. At least that is why I donated to the kickstarter campaign.
If anything with this new deal they have a much better chance in making that dream a reality. They now have the capital and resources to see the project through.
I could see the problem if the company that bought them out wanted to change the end goal of the project but as NoXzema pointed out there has been no such proof that they wish to do this.
Also another point that has to be made is that the Oculus project already received funding from other sources that required them to give up control of the company to receive that funding. This all happened after the kickstarter campaign and no one made such a big fuss about that deal, so I don't see why they are doing it now.
In the end this is how I see it. They could have gave the finger to "the man" (In this case Facebook) and struggled with not having enough resources to fully see their dream to reality and have a much longer development period. Or they could accept the deal, get plenty of capital and resources to do things right and have a much shorter and easier development period.
If anything with this new deal they have a much better chance in making that dream a reality. They now have the capital and resources to see the project through.
I could see the problem if the company that bought them out wanted to change the end goal of the project but as NoXzema pointed out there has been no such proof that they wish to do this.
Also another point that has to be made is that the Oculus project already received funding from other sources that required them to give up control of the company to receive that funding. This all happened after the kickstarter campaign and no one made such a big fuss about that deal, so I don't see why they are doing it now.
In the end this is how I see it. They could have gave the finger to "the man" (In this case Facebook) and struggled with not having enough resources to fully see their dream to reality and have a much longer development period. Or they could accept the deal, get plenty of capital and resources to do things right and have a much shorter and easier development period.
Last edited on
The term "butthurt" is meant to be aggressive since in this case, people are negatively criticizing two companies that do not deserve any hatred or criticism (since nothing has even happened yet). I feel sympathy since I know exactly how it feels to be negatively criticized for the dumbest of reasons. When Facebook pulls Occulus Rift off the market and calls it Occulus Facebook for the sole purpose of media usage, then fine, bash it all you want. I will probably be their as well as it's technology with misuse of potential for the purpose of furthering someone's rather selfish goals.
But nothing has even happened yet. You can't judge someone when they've done nothing to be judged on. It's like calling someone retarded before they even take an IQ test, especially when the person in question seems quite intelligent.
But nothing has even happened yet. You can't judge someone when they've done nothing to be judged on. It's like calling someone retarded before they even take an IQ test, especially when the person in question seems quite intelligent.
Last edited on
| NoXzema wrote: |
|---|
| The term "butthurt" is meant to be aggressive since in this case, |
The term "butthurt" is used to belittle and disparage the concerns and feelings of others.
Not everyone has the same opinion of the ad platform, Facebook, that you seem to and with good reason. As far as I'm concerned, with Facebook's reputation, people are perfectly justified feeling betrayed and leery of what the future may bring with regards to the acquisition.
For those unfamiliar with what I'm referring to with Facebook's reputation, you might find the following article useful:
http://time.com/40323/with-oculus-facebook-can-reinvent-itself-and-its-reputation/
| NoXzema wrote: |
|---|
| It's like calling someone retarded before they even take an IQ test, especially when the person in question seems quite intelligent. |
If we're going with dramatic analogies, I think it's more like you saying someone with a history of pedophilia is not likely to commit such an act again. I mean, it hasn't happened yet? Why would people expect it to happen? Facebook never modified the user's license for Instagram to make it possible to sell your content did they?
At any rate, I'm done with you. It's clear you're incapable of or uninterested in seeing this from any perspective other than your own.
[edit: formatting]
Last edited on
| At any rate, I'm done with you. It's clear you're incapable of or uninterested in seeing this from any perspective other than your own. |
The same could be said about you cire. He is stating his opinion and you stated yours. Just because they differ doesn't mean he is incapable of seeing it from other perspectives then his own.
If anything you are the one being unreasonable and unwilling to see others perspectives by saying "At any rate, I'm done with you." because it implies that you are unwilling to discuss the difference in opinion.
Last edited on
| KnowYourMeme wrote: |
|---|
| Butthurt is an online slang term used to describe a strongly negative or overemotional response. It is used to draw attention to a person who shows signs of being irritated due to a perceived insult, an unfavorable situation, or a lack of decent communication. On occasions, it can be also used to describe unreasonable users behaviors without an apparent explanation. |
| Wiktionary wrote: |
|---|
| (slang) Overly annoyed, bothered or bugged because of a perceived insult; needlessly offended. |
It's slang so you won't find an official definition. These definitions are how society perceives them and how others define it. Where did you get your definition from? I gave my reasons for using the word and you pulled out a personal definition that others don't really see similarly. It was meant to be aggressive but your depiction of it meant to belittle is a bit dramatic.
Anyways, Instagram was acquired by Facebook but realize that the CEO of Instagram stayed the same. It was he who originally supported the idea and it was also him who later supported backing out anyways due to displeasure seen by users:
http://www.cnet.com/news/instagram-apologizes-to-users-we-wont-sell-your-photos/
http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening
In addition, the problem was never about whether or not you could sell your content, it was what was going to happen to your current content and what happened to the licensing currently applied to that. Basically, they said, "If you don't delete your account by date XXXXXX, we will attain all rights to them". Obviously, this is a no go for those who have actually invested into the photo website.
Even in the case the users wanting to sell his content, the original licensing never explicitly allowed such a thing so if a user joined wanting to do that under clear legality, that was their own poor choice and probably not what the site was meant for anyways. You can look at the current licensing terms here: http://instagram.com/legal/terms/
EDIT: If it wasn't clear, the current terms do allow you to sell to 3rd parties, expressly:
| YOUR CORRESPONDENCE AND BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH THIRD PARTIES FOUND THROUGH THE SERVICE ARE SOLELY BETWEEN YOU AND THE THIRD PARTY. |
Last edited on
| CodeGazer wrote: |
|---|
| The same could be said about you cire. He is stating his opinion and you stated yours. Just because they differ doesn't mean he is incapable of seeing it from other perspectives then his own. |
No, actually I haven't stated mine. I don't have any investment in the subject, I just thought it was an interesting development. I would never contribute to a Kickstarter fund. If I'm going to give away my money, I can find better ways to do it.
Regardless, I will not carry on discussions with people who sling words like "butthurt" and "retard" around and are unable to intuit that a word that is used to describe a "strongly negative or overemotional response" does trivialize said response and the concerns that caused it.
I think you're being way to dramatic over nothing. I find it odd you still respond if you keep saying you won't carry on discussions.
I'm not concerned. Facebook, just like Google and any other company in the world make business ventures and either succeed or fail. If they fail, they mark it as a fail and move on, if they succeed, they mark it as a success and try to help it grow, but still move on looking for the next venture that will keep them in business.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.