96
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
96 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37739 readers
725 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's a double-edged sword.
Oculus' vision was to bring VR to the mainstream. They really didn't have the cash to make that happen on their own. They were using leftover parts from the mobile and tablet industry to hack together some headsets. It was a good proof of concept, but that was it.
With Meta's backing they put VR on the map. Others jumped in on it. Without them the Vive probably wouldn't have happened, nor would WMR. Then the transition to self-contained VR, the Quest but also others like the Pico, the Pimax Crystal and now the Vision pro. I know PCVR is pretty dead now but to me it was more of a transitory phase (and I still use it a lot but wirelessly now). VR was never going to be mainstream if you needed a powerful PC to do it and with all the cable mess.
I don't think these would have happened without the meta investment. I think it was good for the industry as a whole. However yeah, for consumer privacy it's not great that it was Meta that did the investment and not someone else (except Google or Amazon which would have been just as bad)
I don't really view it as a sellout and I was one of the earliest kickstarter backers. Serious money was needed to make it fly.
I think that's a fair take. This product category needs people willing to throw boatloads of cash at it for an extended period of time and there's only so many companies capable and willing to do that. I think if another company had bought them, there's a very good chance they would have quit by now. I'm not sure Google would have stuck it out this long, they love acquiring and then murdering products.
Very good take, thank you for the insight! You're more than likely right; they need the money, and it was the best offer (if ill advised ...). Industry got kick-started (pun intended), and there was much rejoicing.
I get the sarcasm ;) Well, rejoicing, no, of course. It's not the best thing that could have happened.
But, I'm pretty sure if meta hadn't invested, we would have heard nothing more of VR after the DK1 had come out.
I'm not supporting meta or saying they're a great company. But they are sinking a lot of money into a phenomenon they care about, which is good for the industry one way or another. It gets the opportunity to prove its merits.
I haven't had a FB account since Cambridge Analytica, though I temporarily had one to use the Quest 2, while it was necessary (rigged so nobody could discover me so it was literally no more than a placeholder). But yeah I do use the Quest because as a technologist I do want to be on the front line. And Apple is just really absolutely not an option for me because of its price (and for being in Europe for that matter).
I wasn't being sarcastic, I was just trying to be funny with the Month Python reference at the end 😅
I think you're completely right, and your take on it is a lot more nuanced than my low-effort 'fuck Facebook' comment 👌
Ah thanks, I didn't get the reference 😅