cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

New of Possible ¥5b VR Acquirsition

kevinw729
Level 15

kevinw729_0-1630190521518.png

 



https://pandaily.com/bytedance-reportedly-buys-pico-for-5-billion-yuan/

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
59 REPLIES 59

I was thinking that the Facebook login move was a way to integrate Quest 2 into the Facebook economy, and thereby to facilitate the low price of $299 due to direct Facebook funding. This may allow Quest 2 to reach a price level where other competitors cannot compete. Interesting what will happen in the long run, also as RoadToVR posted here:

 

https://www.roadtovr.com/ftc-sues-facebook-monopolization-oculus-vr/

 

Would be interesting to see how Pico Neo 3 could compete if made globally available. 

Valve Index & Oculus Rift CV1, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 8TB
"Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

Pixie40
Level 10

I've long held that the required FB account is a bad idea, while also acknowledging that there was never a way to keep Facebook from getting your data. After all, the Oculus terms of service specifically mentioned that all the data they collect is given to Facebook anyway, regardless of if you have a FB account or not. And to be honest, I've yet to find a single VR headset manufacturer that doesn't include a "we gather all this data" passage hidden in the ToS. In fact, the Facebook/Oculus one is down right shockingly clear in what they collect.

Lo, a quest! I seek the threads of my future in the seeds of the past.


@kevinw729 wrote:


Those that defend or down play the severity of this move, brand themselves in a difficult light. 


This is a very divisive and antagonistic comment. These types of personal jabs at people simply because they have a different viewpoint than you is likely the thing that @Oculus_RyanS has referred to when asking us to consider comments around "being a jerk."

 

You have been around this forum long enough to know that this type of comment sparks unnecessary personal attacks. There are those on this forum who have disagreed with you, and "defend" (as you put it) the reasoning behind the Facebook Login requirement based on the business decision to use the Login Requirement to help bring down the cost of Quest 2 to make it more affordable.

 

For you to suggest that those of us who understand this business move are "branding ourselves in a bad light" is just pure ad hominem.

 

We should all be respectful of each others views and opinions. It is fine if you disagree with Facebook's decision, but you shouldn't insult others simply because they can see the other side of the coin.


@Nekto2 wrote:

I think there is misunderstanding that "FB" and "fb" is the same. So "FB login" is not "social media site" login actually. But that misunderstanding is based on the thing that you can't "turn off/uninstall/not buy media site feature". If "social media site" feature will be just like any app in Oculus store (like "Move" or "Oculus video" etc) then you will not think that FB login is the same as "web site".

Google has it. Login is one thing and all apps like youtube, maps, .... are just apps. You could select not to "install/enable" them. Or just "clear all data" in any of app and disable it.


 

Exactly. I know people who simply set up the FB Account and "set it and forget it." Nobody has to ever install the Facebook Social Media App on any of their devices, nor login to the website again beyond creating the account for VR Purposes.

 

Taking this approach, Facebook has no more or less ability to "track you" than they would with a standard Oculus Account.


@kevinw729 wrote:

@Pixie40
- "mandatory FB account for Quest 2 was a bad idea."

No argument from the peanut gallery 🙂
It is one of the most devisive moves, and one of the most contiversal within the VR community. 
The way in which we have seen the conspiracy of attacking the attempt for the Jailbroken alternative underlined the business move this introduction engendered, and for many it was a line crossed. 

Those that defend or down play the severity of this move, brand themselves in a difficult light


You got that right!

Rift CV1| Rift S| Quest| Reverb G2| Index| Vive Pro 2


@Pixie40 wrote:

I'm among the many who think the mandatory FB account for Quest 2 was a bad idea. It didn't really affect me, since I had already linked my FB and Oculus accounts. But I recognize that's not the case for everyone. And having a social media site be required to use your VR hmd is a bad idea.


Yep fully agree with that, It is why I did not get a Quest 2.

Rift CV1| Rift S| Quest| Reverb G2| Index| Vive Pro 2

cmat100
Level 6

Well, I would like to point out that the oculus account privacy policy differs greatly to the FB account policy, but I'm trying not to deviate from topic....as much as I can 🙂 I joined these forums because of this issue, and I remember.........I'm afraid I agree with the broad thrust of kevinw729's assessment.  Might of changed “defend” to “rebuke” if I was the author,  but I’m not.

 

But back on topic - So another VR company has been brought out by a social media company. Is this the new business model??? Set up a VR business then flog it to social media? How many more social media companies are left to sell out to?


@cmat100 wrote:

Well, I would like point out that the oculus account privacy policy differs greatly to the FB account policy,


 

That is not quite accurate. Oculus is just a brand, and the policy is actually with Facebook Technologies, LLC. By having an Oculus Account, the User agrees to have their data shared with the parent company, Facebook Inc.

We'll have to agree that we disagree.  Not going in circles / off-topic.  Onwards and Upwards!


@cmat100 wrote:

We'll have to agree that we disagree.  Not going in circles


 

Not really sure what there is to disagree on, as it is spelled out explicitly in the Oculus TOS:

 

To operate our global Oculus Products, we need to store and distribute content and data in our data centers and systems around the world, including outside your country of residence. This infrastructure may be owned or operated by Facebook Technologies, LLC, Facebook Technologies Ireland Limited, Facebook Inc., Facebook Ireland Limited, or their affiliates.

 

https://www.oculus.com/legal/terms-for-oculus-account-users/

 

Anyone who agrees to the Terms of Service with their Oculus Account is agreeing to the above condition, as well as many others. And that condition clearly outlines that the primary parent company, Facebook Inc., has the Users permission to own and operate the "infrastructure." Infrastructure very much includes user data.

 

I am not saying that people must agree to the TOS. But there is no denying what the TOS outlines clear as day.