I am not sure if this has been discussed on this forum before - but I have been watching a couple of videos
and was struck by a point raised and wanted to discuss this here.
The key premise is that:
>The Quest 2 is so cheap not only because of cost saving in the manufacturing process from the Quest-1 - but fundamentally Facebook are "loaning" this to users, with only the carriage and minimal costs being paid for. With this undertaking and acceptance of the terms and Facebook login the user is agreeing to using a Facebook subsidized device, rather than buying a product they wholly own. That would explain the various control issues of banning improper use, and the removal of access to what Facebook feels is their hardware.
[Facebook has subsidies the Quest-2 and ecosystem, and retain ownership of it]
I wonder how people feel about this, do they think the premise is incorrect and no matter what they wholly own their purchase?
"The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959