
Re: Facebook acquires Oculus, a letter of concern - shazow
https://medium.com/p/f8589a747d11
======
pavlov
I believe that Facebook's acquisition strategy follows Microsoft's 1990s
playbook, even if that's not the conscious intent.

Facebook's core product is now in a similar position as Windows was twenty
years ago. The near term will require pleasing shareholders by milking the
monopoly, but the company is worried about missing future trends. To avoid
that, they buy interesting startups with promises of independence. For
Microsoft, that included companies like WebTV, Hotmail, Softimage, Bungie...

Compared to Facebook's acquisitions, Instagram is more like Hotmail whereas
Oculus is more like WebTV -- a bet on an emerging technology that holds a lot
of potential even though it's not obvious how it will integrate into the
parent company's core product. (Yes, there was a time when "web on a TV"
seemed like a revolutionary idea not unlike "consumer VR" today.)

~~~
wprl
Bungie before Microsoft... thanks for reminding of those great game series
like Marathon and Myth.

~~~
scalenemuscles
Bungie after Microsoft: Halo. Another great memory!

~~~
tzakrajs
Except Halo was developed before Microsoft bought them.

------
DannoHung
Here's the most reasonable disaster scenario I can foresee: Zuckerberg is not
personally invested in the technology, but believes a general audience can
make it very profitable. Technical execution of version 1 is perfectly
successful. Core gamers generally buy the product, but the larger market is
uninterested because of usage limitations (headset size and portability and/or
lack of compelling enough uses outside of gaming). However, the number of
sales is not large enough to justify continued investment. Facebook needs to
find a large buyer to divest themselves of the technology profitably.

If they do not, the patent cache they hold chills any potential competition
for fear of developing a market being ripped out from under them.

~~~
1457389
That's depressing. I completely overlooked the importance of patents for VR.

I'd be interested in finding out the major VR patent holders other than Oculus
and what they are sitting on; it has been argued here and elsewhere that the
requirement for deep pockets for patent suits was one factor driving the deal
with Facebook.

Rephrased for clarity

~~~
forgottenpaswrd
Well, one of the reasons we hear a lot about VR, like 3d printing is that key
patents have expired.

What are they going to patent?

Having a gyroscope in your head? A screen attached to your eyes? low
persistence screens(valve idea)?

------
cyanbane
I could very well be an anomaly, but I don't want to utilize a game device in
which I have to associate my Facebook account (yes, I still have one). I don't
care how fast you get it to market or how much lower it will cost. I don't
want to login to anything with my FB credentials, there is too much personal
information in the weight of that authorization. Way more than what I want to
give to play a game (and I do love gaming).

And Yes, I have a hollow Hotmail account that is linked to my Xbox Live
account - however I like to try to keep everything as segregated as possible.
Its a constant battle to keep my information hubs segregated and this
acquisition is one step closer to me just abstaining from certain tech that
makes me cross hubs.

~~~
allthatisgold
You could create a new account that you only use for playing.

~~~
kaybe
Still no.

------
alphakappa
Carmack says that he wants objective arguments, not emotional ones, and all
this blog presents is yet another emotional argument. All that stuff about the
community 'roaring' is avoidable hyperbole.

~~~
atmosx
Oh you have to define what an _objective argument_ is. In the real world, you
can see where this is going. Do you believe that Zuck gives a damn about
advancing any technology, or that he is trying to position himself as best as
possible in the market?

All these concerns are valid concerns and not just many _if 's_ and if they
are not addressed now, in the future will be (already is actually but anyway)
too late to do anything.

Say you are developing a game (which is the case here) or a 3D application
based on OR. Now you might be ready for a bunch of AppStore-like rules to
kick-in. This could make your product obsolete in no-time.

I don't think that the concerns of the community are irrational, quite the
opposite... The community is concerned out of experience and knowledge of
Facebook's prior policies.

------
FD3SA
Well said. The key point here is autonomy. It is no small matter to relinquish
decision making power of your company to an entirely separate set of
executives. I would argue that, by definition, you are no longer even the same
company. If critical decisions are why executives are so heavily compensated,
then doesn't it follow that randomly replacing your entire executive team will
change the company irreversibly?

As much as we'd love to believe that the Oculus team will still be there to
stop terrible decisions from being made, they will soon realize that autonomy
the most important currency in any business, project, or venture. Employees
have little to no say in big decisions, which is why they do start-ups.

------
StavrosK
TL;DR: "I don't have any rational reasons why I don't like this acquisition,
but... Facebook!"

~~~
shazow
TL;DR: Community felt betrayed and this damaged the ecosystem. Wish I had more
advice for how to make acquisitions more successful, but this is a huge
challenge every acquirer faces which remains largely unsolved (success rates
are not very high).

~~~
phyalow
TL;DR: Those who are leaving will not be missed. Others who see legitimate
business opportunities in this space will fill the void by those that have
departed and reap the rewards.

~~~
anonymousab
> Those who are leaving will not be missed. In other words, let's not
> acknowledge that people might have legitimate gripes, reservations and
> reasons for disliking this event. Let's not assume that they may have
> identified real problems and risks involved that we could address or
> consider.

No, they're just simply wrong in all respects and we're better off without
them. They can be ignored.

~~~
phyalow
If they are unwilling to commit capital, research or development then stuff
them.

------
milesf
For me the explanation is much simpler: I do not trust Facebook.

Bring on the competitors to Oculus.

~~~
clef
FB might buy them too. It is sometimes hard to see why big companies buy
smaller companies, no matter what you may hear from their "founders" or CEOs,
VR is certainly a threat to FB (even if it's a long way away from what it
promises)just the same whatsapp was. FB is nothing but a "website" on the
"internet" for the mainstream, VR promises to render " websites" and the
"internet" completely obsolete and irrelevant. zucky may say that his goal is
to have a more connected world, I believe right now that his goal is more to
not have the world "disconnect" Facebook and render it/him obsolete. Either
that or he just likes to buy expensive toys!

------
infra178
CEOs of multibillion dollar corporations do not spend millions acquring other
companies so that they can make friends or support a vision. Anybody who
thinks Zuckerberg wants to make quality VR headsets is delusional.

> Mark Zuckerberg may feel like he is making a benevolent investment in
> society by advancing the roadmap of the Oculus Rift today

Give me a break.

~~~
ianhawes
What do you suggest he acquired the company for, then? To keep it out of the
hands of Microsoft, as has been suggested?

------
return0
A more plain concern is how Zuck works with new platforms. There is the prior
example of their own Facebook Platform, which took off really fast, creating a
new niche with hundreds of thousands of developers, only to be crippled a few
years on, alienating developers with constant shifting technologies, choking
of communication channels and exclusive contracts with certain companies.

Value is created in win-win situations, when both parties benefit. If
developers fear they will not get their part of the win, it's unlikely the
value will be created at all.

------
DanAndersen
_Numerous game developers abandoned their Oculus projects, the community
roared in anger and disappointment._

I'd like to know more specifics about this. I know that Notch canceled plans
for Minecraft on the Rift (though the Minecrift mod of course still exists),
but besides him what projects have been canceled as a result of the Facebook
news? I've been following news on Reddit's /r/oculus pretty closely, and while
I saw some posts by users mentioning that they were no longer developing, I
didn't see info in their post history indicating just what it was that they
were working on that they were stopping. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but
I would have thought that if "numerous" devs were ending their Rift
development that there would have been more noise about the projects
specifically.

EDIT: To offer a counterpoint, I had seen this article that suggests that the
ecosystem may not have been so broken by the news:
[http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/26/oculus-rift-
developer...](http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/26/oculus-rift-developers-
unphased-by-facebook-buyout)

 _“We are as dedicated as ever. We are certain that Palmer and the Oculus team
is sincere; dedicated to doing what 's best for VR in the long-term. We have
some concerns, yes, but the news just broke yesterday. We trust that Oculus is
motivated by doing what's best for VR community and VR developers,” Hrafn
Thorri Thorisson, co-founder of Aldin Dynamics told IGN.

NexyMedia founder Alan Robinson is deep in development on Oculus-powered
survival game Atajrubah. Robinson told IGN that, if anything, the buyout news
has made him even more energized. “I am [now] more determined to stick with my
development plans for the Rift… For myself and the other team members survival
games are just as much about the interactions between players and the
experiences they have in the game world.The news that they want to take the
Rift beyond just gaming in the future and focus on changing how people
interact with each other, the kinds of experiences they have and even how
they're educated can only be good news.”

Robinson isn’t the only developer that remains highly enthusiastic. Titans of
Space developer ‘Drash’ is equally bullish. “Despite the shocking news of
Oculus being acquired by Facebook, I currently feel more motivated than ever
to develop VR software. Having just gotten back from GDC and trying the new
"DK2" Oculus Rift development kit (not once, but six times), there's nothing
in the world that can stop me from being excited for the Oculus Rift and VR
technology as a whole,” he told IGN.

Other developers have a more pragmatic opinion on how this will impact their
ability to work on Rift, but remain optimistic.

“A lot of people in the community have reacted by assuming that all VR games
magically turned into FarmVille and Candy Crush overnight, but my Rift dev kit
works the same today is it did a week ago. So no, this hasn't affected my day-
to-day Rift development. I look at the acquisition as positive reinforcement
that VR tech is on the cusp of something amazing,” hobbyist Rift developer
Holden Link explained to IGN.

We spoke to more than 10 independent Oculus Rift game developers, and only one
indicated an intention to put Rift development on hold as a result of the
Facebook news.

“We already have a working demo for the Oculus Rift, but this is such a big
surprise to us and we're not quite sure what it means yet, so development is
currently on hold. We need to know what kind of plans and ideas Facebook has
for Oculus before making a final decision,” Mediocre co-founder Henrik
Johansson, makers of Smash Hit, told IGN._

~~~
pavlov
It's refreshingly honest to see someone described as a "mediocre co-founder"
rather than "amazing" or "incredible".

(I know, I know...)

~~~
mercurial
Very good attempt at evading the HN humour police!

------
rudin
The core worry for me is that, Facebook represents the social gaming, Zynga,
pay-to-grow-a-plant kind of gaming that is the antithesis of hardcore gaming
which Oculus (especially with Carmack) represents. They are two fundamentally
different modes of games and it will be difficult to integrate them into one
company.

------
phyalow
Honestly this all just seems like a bunch on neck beards who dont understand
business. I fail to see how this is not a positive for consumers.

~~~
atmosx
I see you've been downvoted to oblivion and I'm sorry for that, the short
answer is: Facebook sees users as a product and users don't like that.

~~~
kaybe
And many of us don't want to be just consumers.

