Is the Oculus Rift doomed?

[WizardStan]

Oh hey, remember how Disney bought Marvel and everyone lamented the death of the super hero movie and how Disney was going to somehow destroy everything that had been built to make it in line with their "image"? And then the Avengers happened? Do you remember that?

Dear Internet: stop doing this, it makes you look silly. Sometimes companies buy other companies because they want to change things, sometimes they do it because they see an asset and want more money. Assume companies are greedy, not stupid.

 

[Saber]

Oh hey, remember how Disney bought Marvel and everyone lamented the death of the super hero movie and how Disney was going to somehow destroy everything that had been built to make it in line with their "image"? And then the Avengers happened? Do you remember that?


Dear Internet: stop doing this, it makes you look silly. Sometimes companies buy other companies because they want to change things, sometimes they do it because they see an asset and want more money. Assume companies are greedy, not stupid.

True, but let's wait and see how Star Wars VII, VIII, and IX turn out. I'm hoping for a musical number in each film. 

h34r:

 

[ekianjo]

And then the Avengers happened?

The Avengers was such a crappy movie. I don't even know what you guys are quoting it like it was some greatest shit ever or something.

 

[WizardStan]

True, but let's wait and see how Star Wars VI, VII, and VIII turn out.

Indeed, "wait and see" is exactly what I'm advocating with the Rift.

 

[CrazyIvan]

Well, I've chatted a bit more with Palmer yesterday night, and can totally understand why he did it.

I can't tell more (don't know what's public and what not) but with that deal they managed to solve the most annoying issues - and that's doing compromises by using existing hardware (like we do with the SoC and display).

That's huge for them - and we still will have tons of headaches about that in our case.

I guess they [OR founders] want to be the first, category defining consumer-ready VR device above all else. Then FB is a good choice as they have money, the need to expand their business and don't have technologies that compete with OR so they will help develop and produce it and after that milk the customers and/or developers.

We've seen this with the iPhone: strong, category defining product with a big customer base. Locked down as hell, but that's not a problem for its customers.

Well, maybe FB is full of people that think about the greater good but spending a great deal of money to buy OR and then refrain from getting that money back as fast as they can using their little VR monopoly (while it'll last) is too generous in my opinion.

 

[Asmo]

Well, I've chatted a bit more with Palmer yesterday night

Looking at the 'should Pyra have a camera' thread, and your connections with Palmer (& mention of Pyra Oculus support), you should probably consider instead (I'm only half-joking) a pair of fisheye lensed cameras either end of the case - make the Pyra capable of taking stereo 180 degree stills (i.e. hemispherical pairs), viewable as explorable flat images onscreen or as immersive 3D on an attached Oculus...!
There are a few companies playing with (2D) 360 degree lenses and paired GoPro cameras with fisheye lenses for 180degree3D, but nothing (yet) like a camera with integrated editing/viewing/connectivity facility for 180 stereo...


Even as an accessory (especially in light of the facebook deal) an 'Oculus-ready' camera is an inevitability...!


'Slices of Space-Time.. saved!'

 

[WizardStan]

The Avengers was such a crappy movie

Fair enough, but was it crappy because it was a Disney movie or was it crappy just because crappy movies happen sometimes?

 

[PokeParadox]

Here

According to a person involved in the deal who was not allowed to speak publicly because he was not authorized by either company, Facebook eventually plans to redesign the Oculus hardware and rebrand it with a Facebook interface and logo.

Even that might be a no-go for me.

I don't want that.

Well, I've chatted a bit more with Palmer yesterday night, and can totally understand why he did it.

I can't tell more (don't know what's public and what not) but with that deal they managed to solve the most annoying issues - and that's doing compromises by using existing hardware (like we do with the SoC and display).

That's huge for them - and we still will have tons of headaches about that in our case.

Whatever secrets you don't share, I hope Palmer is still the big boss and tells what the product will be in the end.

If Facebook do go ahead with a rebranded version I sincerely doubt that there will be an exclusively Facebook branded version...

 

[Saber]

True, but let's wait and see how Star Wars VI, VII, and VIII turn out.

Indeed, "wait and see" is exactly what I'm advocating with the Rift.

The financial backing and media reach are the two positives in all of this. As you said, it will be anything goes in the long term for the rest of it.

[used the wrong numerals for the SW movies. Oops.]

 

[doragasu]

But for some reason the fact that facebook is behind the scene seems to affect my interest. Well maybe it shouldn't.

Oh I didn't say that. There are lots of reasons to be wary of Facebook. They're a big company that does a lot of questionable things and maybe you don't want to give them any incentive at all. Or probably a great many other things.
I'm just saying that this one particular fear, that you'll need a Facebook login, or that games will be required to put ads that send revenue back to Facebook, or any of these other changes that people seem to be worried about, are pretty unlikely to happen. The final product will almost certainly be the same and if you're OK giving money to an "evil" company to get a cool product I'm sure we won't be disappointed. Just don't install the CD that comes with it.

What I'm afraid about the OculusVR - Facebook deal, is that Facebook will use it to track you even more. And unfortunately they do not need you to login to FB to track you, the same way they do not need you to login to FB to track your movements on the Internet (thanks to ubiquous FB plugins in most if not all big web pages).

Why would they want to buy OculusVR if they are not planning to use it to track you? They spent 19 billions on WhatsApp just to track you even more.

Also I'd like to add there is a huge pile of good reasons to sell your soul to the devil, but that doesn't mean that is the only option you have.

 

[SNESFAN]

 

[God Ginrai]

Here

According to a person involved in the deal who was not allowed to speak publicly because he was not authorized by either company, Facebook eventually plans to redesign the Oculus hardware and rebrand it with a Facebook interface and logo.

 That's the kind of wording that the press uses when they are trying to use bad information because they know it will increase ratings. I don't trust that quote at all.

Which premise? The one about people having unfounded fears about new technology?

At the risk of being misunderstood, yes.The idea that some people will prefer virtual interaction vs real world interaction for a multitude of reasons, in the same way that some people prefer using short txts instead of email, or email vs calling, or calling vs writing a letter, or writing a letter vs visiting more often, that this is a "horrid" thing that is necessarily damaging to a person and needs to be worried about; that is what I am against.

Yes, fine, I can temper that with an "individuals may become addicted, just as they can get addicted to anything else, from books to meth to video games" and then wrap it around with "but that's something to be worried about with the individual, not the technology: we need friends worrying about friends trying to escape, not about the specific medium they are using to escape".

Your friend got addicted to WoW, but would you argue that (in general) someone who prefers playing video games is "horrid" and it would be better if they were restricted so more people had to read books?

 My point is not that this technology, due to its ease of use for virtual face-to-face and its convenience, will increase the number of people likely to fall to such vices. Not that everyone would succumb, but that more people would be likely to than previously. I don't think we need to ban it or fight it, just be aware of what we are getting ourselves into, and come up with plans for dealing with it.

Well, I've chatted a bit more with Palmer yesterday night, and can totally understand why he did it.

I can't tell more (don't know what's public and what not) but with that deal they managed to solve the most annoying issues - and that's doing compromises by using existing hardware (like we do with the SoC and display).

That's huge for them - and we still will have tons of headaches about that in our case.

 Yea, that's basically what he's been saying on reddit.

And then the Avengers happened?

 The Avengers was such a crappy movie. I don't even know what you guys are quoting it like it was some greatest shit ever or something.

That's your opinion. The Avengers was a commercial success.

I was never too much into the Avengers, so I can't comment on its accuracy with regards to the comics, but I thought it was not a bad movie.

-God Ginrai

 

[WizardStan]

Facebook will use it to track you even more

They won't be able to do that without requiring massive changes to the SDK, which I've argued against.They may change the SDK to ensure that such things are available but I can't see them making it a requirement that third party developers forward that data to Facebook.

If they so much as require an internet connection then it'll put a huge damper on sales and they don't want to do that, they need the hardware in the hands of as many people as possible.

Why would they want to buy OculusVR if they are not planning to use it to track you?

Of course they want to track you. If I'm right they're going to develop their own social network based around VR with the OR at the center. The plan should be to get as many people as possible using the OR, put a bunch of fancy features in that you want to use, and then people will naturally try out this new social experience. That's how they'll track you. They may also include a bunch of apps that would try to "improve" your experience, of course this software would also track usage patterns, but it would be optional. Don't install their software and they won't be able to track you. The average consumer will though. They'll buy the OR because it means they can play EVE or Doom 3, or whatever bunch of games they had their eye on, and they'll just install the software without thought whether it's required or not. And they may even try this 3D Facebook social experience, whatever it happens to end up being.The OR is based on open standards: it uses HDMI and USB HID for its I/O and it would not be in Facebook's interest to change that; using these standards was a key selling point, it meant you could literally develop a game for anything and it would work. I can't see Facebook pulling an Adobe: they want to be king of the 3D internet, they'll want the hardware to be compatible with as many devices as possible. The best way to stifle competition is to be the best. Leave a gap in the market and someone might sneak in with a better product.

 

[WizardStan]

My point is not that this technology, due to its ease of use for virtual face-to-face and its convenience, will increase the number of people likely to fall to such vices. Not that everyone would succumb, but that more people would be likely to than previously. I don't think we need to ban it or fight it, just be aware of what we are getting ourselves into, and come up with plans for dealing with it.

And my point is not that people won't become addicted to it nor that we shouldn't be aware of the possibility, my point is that someone who uses the technology, perhaps almost exclusively even, is not something that is necessarily "horrid" or a bad thing. It's a different method of interaction, just because isn't the way you like to talk to people doesn't mean someone else is suffering because of it.

 

[fusion_power]

Well, I've chatted a bit more with Palmer yesterday night, and can totally understand why he did it.

I can't tell more (don't know what's public and what not) but with that deal they managed to solve the most annoying issues - and that's doing compromises by using existing hardware (like we do with the SoC and display).

That's huge for them - and we still will have tons of headaches about that in our case.

The Pyra Hardware is an compromise? Hm, I was sure it is a pretty solid thing yo uare designing, good chipset, good components, good display, where is the compromise? Even with more money I guess it would not be easy to find better components for this kind of (niche) device. ^^

However, you have a now very rich friend that is also interested in the Pyra, I see some possiblities there...

P.S.: Minecraft "notch" himself tweeted about this thread! Prepare the boards for beeing "notched". ^^

https://twitter.com/notch/status/449184188756160512

 

[ghostpatch]

Again, the same thing has been said pretty much every time new communications technology comes along. But supposing it's true, suppose large portions of the population take to realistic online interaction. Would that really be so bad? Get a hug from your girl friend who is visiting her parents over seas; live meeting with investors from a foreign country where you can draw on a virtual white board and hand out digital samples of your product; play board games in your friends basement even though you're scattered, or maybe you're just sick. Who decided that face-to-face interaction was the epitome of social interaction?

I agree with WizardStan progress is not bad or good. It's what we make out of it.

However living "half our lifes" (exaggeration) in VR, socially interact with people, friends, work related persons, family, lovers while your social connecions, your content, your emotions etc. are being recorded and analysed by Facebook is just sick!!! At some point you'll forget that you’re being watched and start talking carelessly becomes it has become normal. It's freakin DANGEROUS!!. Remember privacy is one the basic foundations of a real democracy. You don't even have to be taking part in that social network madness. Other people will gladly leak information about you!

Well its common for humans to play with fire and get burnd, only to forget about it after a while -.-

WizardStand what you talk about could be really cool and useful someday but only when using appropriate privacy/security - open source software, peer to peer, modern encryption, PGP, Forward Secrecy, deniability....

I'll wait how it turns out before I make a decision

 

[ekianjo]

However, you have a now very rich friend that is also interested in the Pyra, I see some possiblities there...

Hhaa, no more funding issues for the production

 

[panik]

I thought the acquisition of OR was a desperate attempt to save Facebook. Is it still a thing?

OK, I'll crawl back under my rock...

 

[Askarus]

Also I'd like to add there is a huge pile of good reasons to sell your soul to the devil, but that doesn't mean that is the only option you have.

Become Ghost Rider!

You think you can control the daemon inside?

Hell, no you can't!

The Rider will gain control.

He has hunger for souls.

If he looks into ones eyes he can see his entire sins and burns his soul.

Well, isn't that what Facebook is?

It's the daemon that OR can't control.

It wants/needs more souls. Not to burn but to track.

Once it gets you you're done.

The comparison fits so well.

 

[ekianjo]

attempt to save Facebook

Yeha, Facebook is actually facing a bleak future - decreasing revenue from advertising, potentially shrinking active user base down the road, too... To stay relevant they have to absorb other companies, anyway. WHat's good for them is that they have piles of cash to do so.