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

hoppingbunny123
Rising Star
i tied it to my rift cv1 so they own my cv1 now i guess facebook owns my cv1, but i owned it first. down the rabbit hole we go. turtles and turtles.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary


i tied it to my rift cv1 so they own my cv1 now i guess facebook owns my cv1, but i owned it first. down the rabbit hole we go. turtles and turtles.



I dont think this would apply to the discontinued lines (CV1, Go, Rift-S[1/21] or the Quest-1). This would be directly linked to the low cost of ownership to use the Quest-2.
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

hoppingbunny123
Rising Star
incorrect, they tied it to my rift In The Future (2023). Saying they own my cv1 when i owned it first. if i lose facebook i lose my rift!

nalex66
MVP
MVP
The physical product is wholly owned; Facebook cannot demand that I return it to them, and if I choose to destroy it, I don’t think they can charge me for damages. Any non-ownership of the physical hardware by the purchaser would have to spelled out in an EULA or a lease contract. Now, the software that runs on it and makes it functional, that is a service, provided by Facebook and subject to their terms. 

I assume this in relation to the attempts to jailbreak the device. If Facebook goes after the people attempting this, it won’t be on grounds of who owns the hardware, it will be about the software that runs on it. Modifying the OS and base software would be a violation of the TOS, but also could subject them to a lawsuit over IP infringement. If they were distributing a modified version of the OS to allow users to bypass Facebook, that’s piracy, and could lead to some severe penalties. Replacing the whole OS from scratch would not be a trivial matter; there’s a lot of development in the software to do the tracking, maintain spacial awareness, etc. 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. 

DK2, CV1, Go, Quest, Quest 2, Quest 3.


Try my game: Cyclops Island Demo

cmat100
Adventurer
It would have to be sold on that basis, which it isn't.  Also, there would have to be T&Cs for the device to be returned to FB.  But I do agree that it's a loss leader.

I think there is a legal void with regards to denying use of local apps i.e. the device, based on an online account disable.  It's never been done before, so I think that in a court, somewhere, precedent will be set.

hoppingbunny123
Rising Star

nalex66 said:

The physical product is wholly owned


without software the product is nothing. same principle as gas for a car or electricity for electronics. they call this kind of control monopoly and have companies sell their product so they aren't a monopoly like they want to do with the chrome browser. to stop google from monopolizing with the chrome browser. i should have alternatives if my Facebook account goes belly up like a floating fish. but with its monopoly i can't do that. hence they own it even if i can destroy the physical part of it. i owned it then they own it and they didn't even pay me for it.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

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". I still wonder if its a internal perception with Facebook - feeling they are making this ecosystem at a loss, am making available cheap means to enter the experience, but expect to be able to control access?
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

nalex66
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". I still wonder if its a internal perception with Facebook - feeling they are making this ecosystem at a loss, am making available cheap means to enter the experience, but expect to be able to control access?



Absolutely, they want to control the platform, and I’m sure their legal team will go hard after anyone trying to excise Facebook software from the physical hardware. 



nalex66 said:

The physical product is wholly owned


without software the product is nothing.


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. 

DK2, CV1, Go, Quest, Quest 2, Quest 3.


Try my game: Cyclops Island Demo

hoppingbunny123
Rising Star
for instance, with youtube i got a warning that my movieclips video i used was lewd, but they kept the movieclips version and only i got the warning and rebuke. ok, now i set all my videos to 18+ so none of my future videos will get me banned because its what i have to do to be sure for some odd reason i got banned doesn't happen. that 18+ wall is like a new service outside of youtubes control for nurse ratchet like abuse. facebooks control of my rift should be no different if my account gets banned for whatever reason i should have a back door to still be able to use my device. like my 18+ loophole in youtube making their big sister glare meaningless. they wont even respond to my appeal! whoever designed facebooks authoritarian nurse ratchet like control over the oculus should be ashamed of themselves! Facebooks worse than google at least google gave me the 18+ loophole, its not loaded!

https://youtu.be/ujC4W8hJ4mg

https://youtu.be/6u14pLHV3Vw