cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

A Possible Reason Why The Quest 2 is So Cheap ?

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
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? 
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "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
70 REPLIES 70

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

nalex66 said:
....
That’s true, but the physical product is the only part that you unequivocally own when you buy it. Everything else is a service with a license to use, subject to the EULA. If you want to turn your Quest 2 into a wind chime or a piece of sculptural art, go for it. If you want to wipe the OS and replace it with something else, you’d better be confident that what you install doesn’t infringe on Facebook’s intellectual property, because they will protect that by whatever legal means they have at their disposal. 



I just heard an eluent response to my point:

>"...you are not buying a standalone VR product, you are being given access to buy a "Facebook VR ecosystem viewing system" - this is the same argument as was used with the 'Cable TV Boxes'. You buy them, you own them, but without the cable (content) then they are useless, and you needed to have an account to get access to the content that the provider controlled. Trying to use the cable box without permission - hacking into the cable content, or modifying the box, broke the ToS and also laid the user open to action."

I think this is a very simple definition of what Facebook is trying to achieve - do you agree?
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "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

OmegaM4N
Expert Trustee
^^^Do you know what is the funniest thing about all this, when this device gets jailbroken, FB will have subsidised the cheapest pcvr wireless gaming streaming device for Steamvr. Lol
CV1/Vive-knuckles)/Dell Vr Visor/Go/Quest II/ PSVR.

cmat100
Adventurer
The analogy has several flaws, e.g. Cable TV is sold as a subscription service, and doesn't rely on ToS (civil) but copyright law (civil/criminal).  The jailbreak wasn't the issue so much (AACS encryption key controversy), but the TV piracy was....

But, yeah, that is what FB has achieved with the Quest 2.  Without the pesky subscription though 😉  Until the s**t hits the fan that is.

EDIT:  AACS isn't the best analogy either, but best I can think of ATM.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

cmat100 said:

The analogy has several flaws, e.g. Cable TV is sold as a subscription service, and doesn't rely on ToS (civil) but copyright law (civil/criminal).  The jailbreak wasn't the issue so much (AACS encryption key controversy), but the TV piracy was....

But, yeah, that is what FB has achieved with the Quest 2.  Without the pesky subscription though 😉  Until the s**t hits the fan that is.

EDIT:  AACS isn't the best analogy either, but best I can think of ATM.



May be showing my age, but when the BSkyB cable boxes were launched, you had to buy the cable box and satellite receiver separately and then the subscription @cmat100
 - I know when I moved to the US the cable box deal was different in some States. 

nibtr7lmb2yd.png


https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "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

cmat100
Adventurer
Oh, I remember the SVA1 and the Marcus Khun / Voyager days very well 😉 🙂  D2MAC as well, but we digress 🙂

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
Agree back on topic @cmat100 ::smile:

But the issue of the OS of the headset is the real issue - most of the Jailbroken systems that have missed legal action have avoided serious manipulation or alteration of the core operation infrastructure, for the Quest-2 to be jailbroken to the needs of running STEAMVR or avoiding the login element will see manipulation of the core, and in walks the legal argument. Very much how Warner tried to catch video pirates back in the day. 

I still think the TV Cable Box is an eloquent metaphor. 
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "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

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

kevinw729 said:


nalex66 said:

......
It would be an almost impossible task to recreate the Quest OS while also not copying anything from the original. Anyone attempting this is walking into a legal minefield. 



Agree, I have been clear about the "infringement of brand and proprietary software" issue, but we have seen claims that as Nintendo does not do anything over Jailbroke Switches then Facebook wont - and I have my doubts this is measuring "apples with oranges".



Yes, I brought up the Nintendo comparison, but I think I'm being misquoted. As I never said that Facebook "wont" do anything.

Here's my actual statements:

Facebook has enough money to address this issue, and it wouldn't surprise me if they do make updates to their software that makes this sort of thing difficult. 

In the end, this "jailbreak Quest 2" situation will have just as much impact on Oculus VR as jailbreaking the Nintendo Switch has on Nintendo, etc.

https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/discussion/comment/771101#Comment_771101


In my first quote, I specifically state that they will do something (update their software to make it more difficult). I even called out the potential return for the DRM Check.

The fact does remain that Nintendo does not try to stop people from posting YouTube Videos about how to hack in to their devices.

Anyone can see for themselves:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jailbreak+nintendo

Comparing the Quest to the Nintendo Switch is not "apples to oranges" whatsoever. They are both stand alone gaming devices, and Nintendo switch does have VR capabilities:
https://www.amazon.com/OIVO-Headset-Nintendo-Virtual-Reality/dp/B07TBPLQJS

I suppose that for the average consumer, the fact that Nintendo is more of a hand-held gaming device as its primary function... it can be "viewed" as "entirely different" than the Oculus Quest. However, as a developer and engineer myself, they are very much apples-to-apples.

  • Switch runs on a proprietary OS and runs software
  • Quest runs on Android OS and runs software.
  • Both are used for Gaming, Media, and Entertainment. 
  • Both have VR Capabilities.
  • Both are portable.
  • Both use WiFi.
  • Both require user accounts.

It doesn't get more Apples-to-Apples than that. But perhaps I'm missing something here?

Lastly, while I do believe that Facebook will do something about this (e.g. the return of the DRM check), I still stand by my statement that any jailbroken Quest's will have as much impact on Facebook/Oculus as a jailbroken Switch has on Nintendo.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP
Regarding the main post,

With this undertaking and acceptance of the terms and Facebook login the user is agreeing to using a Facebook subsidized device

I'm pretty sure that "subsidizing" doesn't work this way, since subsidizing requires payment of real money; and signing up for a Facebook account, which is entirely FREE, doesn't really qualify.

At best, this whole situation is a sneaky way for Facebook to gain more users. But considering that the Oculus VR users can sign up for their Facebook account and then "set it and forget it," the overall value it provides Facebook would be rather minimal. Facebook makes revenue based on its ads, and if you aren't using their social media platform, then you aren't viewing those ads. As of yet, Oculus VR has zero ads. I suppose if we start seeing Ads in Oculus VR, then sure, maybe we're closer to a subsidized situation. But even that is a bit of a stretch, and really does butcher the whole idea of subsidizing.

I am currently wrapping up an Audible about the Stock Market and Finance. The key phrase is, "there aint no such thing as a free lunch."

That very strongly applies here, moreso than subsidizing.

Anonymous
Not applicable
Free lunch? There is if you nick it ?

Anonymous
Not applicable
Going back to the original OP's comment its cheap because they cut a few corners, simplified the construction and also the fact ( like any product ) once you mass produce the cost drops significantly for each unit. Given the fact the price is now in reach of the average person they stand to sell double or triple sales of the Quest .. Its not overly complicated its done with most products.