13 ms·

Wrong and Right Reasons To Be Upset About Oculus – with Carmack response

211 points by julespitt 12y ago

Pxl_Buzzard 12y ago
> John Carmark: The experience is too obviously powerful, and it makes converts on contact. The fairly rapid involvement of the Titans is inevitable, and the real questions were how deeply to partner, and with who. Carmack is correct in saying the Titans will get involved, but I think many people (including the post author) are disappointed that Oculus has forgone becoming a Titan themselves. Committing to such a deep partnership at this stage feels like a big misstep. Imagine where Facebook would be if they had sold out to a company like Apple right before they allowed non-college kids to use the service.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Another point I haven't seen raised: when it comes to VR hardware and software, anyone who doesn't get in bed with a Titan will end up mired in one bullshit patent suit after another.
- alexkcd 12y ago
  You left out the previous paragraph, which explains why Carmack feels the need to partner with a Titan, rather than go at it alone. Not sure that I agree this move was necessary at this point in time, but I definitely see his fear of the potential consequences of refusing to strike such a partnership.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Exactly right. Would Zuckerberg give himself the same advice he gave Palmer when trying to convince him to sell the company? My guess is he wouldn't. He'd say "Don't touch the money, and keep going on your own - especially when you have such great hype around your company and product. You'll make 100x more this way."
codeflo 12y ago
What's interesting to me, and we've seen this with WhatsApp only a few weeks ago, is that being acquired by Facebook seems to destroy the public image of a product. Positive public perception has value, and can (at least in theory) be measured in dollars. In accounting terminology, it's part of what's usually called a company's "goodwill". If Facebook continues to so negatively effect the public's opinion of every company it acquires, this means that Facebook might get a lot less out of those acquisitions than they might have hoped.
- virtuabhi 12y ago
  I guess I missed the destruction of WhatsApp's public image after the Facebook acquisition. Can you point me to the numbers?
  - gurkendoktor 12y ago
    How do you measure a company's public image in numbers? If you can't, then discussing it based on anecdotes is the best we can do. (My non-techie friends have left WhatsApp for Threema, but I live inside the German-language bubblesphere, so YMMV.) Or the other way around: Before the acquisition, I was already on the fence about the Oculus Rift, but now I won't touch one with a ten-foot pole. In which statistic would my change of mind even show up?
- sehr 12y ago
  It's been days since Oculus was acquired, and weeks since WhatsApp. I don't think public perception has evened out enough to be measured, let alone predicted. Besides, look at Instagram. It was acquired right around the first major Facebook privacy scare (early 2012ish), and it's doing perfectly okay.
- whistlerbrk 12y ago
  Really? Is the public image of instagram 'destroyed'? You're in the tech bubble. In the consumer world no one cares as long products perform well and cheaply.
  - 12y ago
Arjuna 12y ago
Carmack had this to say earlier, in a 3-part Tweet: "Everyone has had some time to digest the FB deal now. I think it is going to be positive, but clearly many disagree. Much of the ranting has been emotional or tribal, but I am interested in reading coherent viewpoints about objective outcomes. What are the hazards? What should be done to guard against them? What are the tests for failure? Blog and I'll read." Also, this: "I would expect Facebook to not exert any overt control over Oculus unless Oculus fumbles badly a few times, at which point they SHOULD." ~~~~ My personal take: At the end of the day, it takes more than vision and hard work to drive a dream into existence... it takes investment. It takes capital. This is what the deal brings to the table. Not only that, as you probably know by now, Michael Abrash has joined the team. I mean, read Michael's blog and note all of the technical challenges and issues with implementing VR. Read Carmack's technical writings on latency issues. There are a lot of problems to solve, on top of building and delivering a solid, commercial-quality hardware and software experience. For example, there is tracking head position and orientation, rendering without shearing and judder, latency issues, etc... everything must be perfect in order to deliver the perfect experience. Facebook brings the needed investment, plus the scaling infrastructure experience to the table. John has said, "I have a deep respect for the technical scale that FB operates at. The cyberspace we want for VR will be at this scale." I have a lot of confidence in Oculus VR and their extremely capable team. These good people are experienced and they know the technical and business challenges that are ahead. This is why the acquisition occurred. The passion is still there. I mean, watch this video again [1]. John hasn't changed. After the acquisition, he said, "For the record, I am coding right now, just like I was last week. I expect the FB deal will avoid several embarrassing scaling crisis for VR." And with Michael coming on board, it's a veritable VR Dream Team with the already talent-heavy team of Palmer Luckey, Tom Forsyth [2], Atman Binstock [3], et al. As Michael said, "That worry is now gone. Facebook's acquisition of Oculus means that VR is going to happen in all its glory." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYa8kirsUfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYa8kirsUfg [2] http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/category/tom-forsyth http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/category/tom-forsyth [3] http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/welcome-atman-binstock-chief-architect http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/welcome-atman-binstock-chief-ar...
- biff 12y ago
  I think, also, somebody has to be first to bring this technology to the market before it even occurs to others they'd want to compete. Oculus under Facebook might not bring the finished product most of us were looking for, but having a device that's solved the technological challenges of consumer VR is the heavy lifting. And it puts Facebook in the position of being The Name in consumer VR. Are they going to alienate that right off the bat by building a walled garden, putting heavy content locks on it, watching everything you do? Or will they do the soft touch of making their helmet the easiest (and perhaps only) way to tie your VR into the Facebook network when you wish, get special savings on new software, offer perks to developers that find Facebook-friendly features for their VR software? I think if they squeeze too hard people will upgrade right out of them into the competition. Which is sure to follow shortly if the hardware is a massive success and the implementation is driving people away. So, cautiously optimistic.
baby 12y ago
> I wasn't personally involved in any of the negotiations -- I spent an afternoon talking technology with Mark Zuckerberg, and the next week I find out that he bought Oculus. He's a CTO and he finds it out like that? There's something I don't understand.
- thirsteh 12y ago
  Likely the deliberation happened in board meetings.
  - seth1010 12y ago
    Carmack is the CTO.
    - thirsteh 12y ago
      CTOs rarely sit on boards.
      - briantakita 12y ago
        @pfraze Welcome to the corporate world :-/
        pfraze 12y ago
        Where's the escape hatch! :|
      - pfraze 12y ago
        He should still be consulted.
- mikegioia 12y ago
  Yea, I thought that was bizarre. It makes you wonder what Carmack actually thinks of Facebook buying Oculus.
  - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
cm127 12y ago
> "Honestly, I wasn't expecting Facebook (or this soon). I have zero personal background with them, and I could think of other companies that would have more obvious synergies." This is the heart of the controversy. Facebook could have easily written an application / demo to integrate with Facebook, but instead they bought the whole company.
- mentos 12y ago
  This stood out to me too. What hardware has Facebook brought to market? I don't recall anything specific. What companies might have offered more obvious synergies? Google, Amazon, Apple who have shipped successful hardware?
RobotCaleb 12y ago
I don't use this platform. Where is the response from Carmack?
- jeroen 12y ago
  http://peterberkman.tumblr.com/post/80827337212/wrong-and-right-reasons-to-be-upset-about-oculus#comment-1310233365 http://peterberkman.tumblr.com/post/80827337212/wrong-and-ri...
  - RobotCaleb 12y ago
    Thanks. I couldn't see any comments from the mobile interface.
  - njloof 12y ago
    Still not seeing a comment from Carmack. Can someone cut&paste?
    - sehr 12y ago
      I share some of your misgivings about companies "existing and operating only to be acquired". I am a true believer in market economies, and the magic of trade being a positive sum game is most obvious with repeated transactions at a consumer level. Company acquisitions, while still (usually) being a trade between willing parties that in theory leaves both better off, have much more of an element of speculation rather than objective assessment of value, and it definitely feels different. There is a case to be made for being like Valve, and trying to build a new VR ecosystem like Steam from the ground up. This is probably what most of the passionate fans wanted to see. The difference is that, for years, the industry thought Valve was nuts, and they had the field to themselves. Valve deserves all their success for having the vision and perseverance to see it through to the current state. VR won't be like that. The experience is too obviously powerful, and it makes converts on contact. The fairly rapid involvement of the Titans is inevitable, and the real questions were how deeply to partner, and with who. Honestly, I wasn't expecting Facebook (or this soon). I have zero personal background with them, and I could think of other companies that would have more obvious synergies. However, I do have reasons to believe that they get the Big Picture as I see it, and will be a powerful force towards making it happen. You don't make a commitment like they just did on a whim. I wasn't personally involved in any of the negotiations -- I spent an afternoon talking technology with Mark Zuckerberg, and the next week I find out that he bought Oculus. ------------------------------------------------------------- I did skip the data mining issue, mostly because I just can't get very worked up about it. I'm not a "privacy is gone, get over it" sort of person, and I fully support people that want remain unobserved, but that means disengaging from many opportunities. The idea that companies are supposed to interact with you and not pay attention has never seemed sane to me. Being data driven is a GOOD thing for most companies to be. Everyone cheers the novel creative insight and bold leadership that leads to some successes, and tut tuts about companies ending up poorly by blindly following data, but cold analysis of the data is incredibly important, and I tend to think the world will be improved with more and better data analysis. I have never felt harmed by data mining, and I rather like the recommendations that Amazon gives me on each visit. Educate me. What terrible outcome is expected from this? Be specific.
soccergee 12y ago
My only gripe with the sale to Facebook is that it was originally funded by contributions on Kickstarter, and those "funders" will get nothing in return. I just don't see gamers and developers supporting Facebook as much as they supported Oculus... which makes it seem like they did something sleazy by selling to FB.
- sseveran 12y ago
  Thats because they didn't buy equity. They bought the rights to a future copy of a product. If they didn't deliver maybe you can sue them.
- maqr 12y ago
  I backed them on kickstarter and got my dev kit as a result. I'm really unhappy about FB being the first to bring VR to the masses, but it doesn't have anything to do with kickstarter.
Zaephyr 12y ago
There seems to be a disconnect between the the way those in the SV startup community see FaceBook and those outside do. My view of Carmack is positive and I think he does want to understand the FaceBook revulsion, but to quote Sinclair "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
- pjscott 12y ago
  I don't think John Carmack, of all people, has to worry much about his salary.
  - Zaephyr 12y ago
    Well, it was a diplomatic attempt at saying it's easier to like FaceBook when you get a lot of money from them. There is a little more to all of it, but that's the nutshell.
    - Zaephyr 12y ago
      To clarify; his relationship with and view of FaceBook is a business one. I'm implying not greed, but that by virtue of the industry he works in his view is likely to much different from that of those who are not in a position to sell to FaceBook, et al.
  - lawnchair_larry 12y ago
    He does. He wants to fund Armadillo. He ran out of money to sink into it.
    - pjscott 12y ago
      In that case, I stand corrected.
    - someperson 12y ago
      https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/450031715017179136 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/450031715017179136
hibikir 12y ago
I'd expect that Facebook will do for Oculus as much as Zenimax did for id. The best that could happen is that the Zuckster just sends bigger checks to Oculus to expand operations, turning this purchase into more of a round of VC funding than anything else. The worst case scenario is that it's a purchase like we see in the business world. How many products do better when the company that makes them is bought by IBM or Oracle?
- benihana 12y ago
  Facebook isn't IBM or Oracle. Instagram is still doing fine, it's kept its own identity and I would never have known they were bought by facebook if it wasn't such huge news. To me, on the surface, it's following the exact path same as it was before the purchase, but it would be naive to think that Facebook's infrastructure and experience with scalability has nothing to do with the fact that instagram is always up and always works as its grown.
mcphilip 12y ago
The FB acquisition seems to imply that the deeply talented Oculus team will help pioneer VR as a new mechanism for social interactions online. Call me a simpleton, but I'm more interested in Carmack et al revolutionizing gaming. Maybe that will still happen, but this acquisition makes me less interested in VR, for the time being.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  In the long run, gaming will probably be a small but awesome percentage of the total VR industry.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
cwp 12y ago
I have to agree with Carmack here. Companies, governments or individuals having lots of data isn't a bad thing in its self. It's what they do with that data that matters, and what they do can be positive as well as negative. This is not to say that we should blindly trust data-holders to behave responsibly. We should watch them very closely! The recent kerfuffle about Microsoft reading a blogger's mail is a good example: MS took an action many people felt was wrong, it got widely publicized, and MS decided they weren't going to do it again, and made a policy change to codify that decision. What was a grey area became a bright line that they've vowed not to cross. The existence of big data is new, and our civilization hasn't figured out how to deal with it yet. I'm confident that we will figure it out, and the good that comes from it will be much greater than the evil.
- pfraze 12y ago
  > It's what they do with that data that matters Not technically wrong, but it's a bad show to introduce that risk. I say this a lot, but - IT ethics is like medical ethics: you're obligated to protect your clients with expertise regarding things they don't understand. Personal information needs to have strong guarantees of segmentation and authority controls. That's not an open question; it used to be called "good system administration." There's no middle ground on this. Either you're doing your job as an IT professional, or you're exposing users to risk from data-sale, breach exposure, or government overreach.
  - cwp 12y ago
    So it's our duty as IT professionals to prevent people from using IT? The services that large-scale IT provides could not exist without gathering the volume of data they do. Google couldn't provide relevant search results with just an index of the web, it also relies on vast amounts of data about user behaviour. The same is true of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc. It's non-sensical to talk about risk without talking about the actual scenarios you're worried about. How bad are they? How probable are they? What can we do to reduce the harm and/or likelihood of harm? How much, if at all, will those measures reduce the benefits of the services based on big data? That's the discussion we should be having. Most of the "concern" about big data boils down to an appeal to emotion: "Just think what they could do with all that information!"
FD3SA 12y ago
Cross posting my comment from the original article: ---- Hi John, huge fan of all your work. I think the biggest issue with the FB acquisition is over one variable: control. The Oculus team has, by definition, relinquished control of their platform to FB. This is not a decision to be brushed aside, as it has some very severe consequences. Let's for example, consider Oculus' partnership with developers. Prior to the FB deal, Oculus had a direct relationship with developers and would work in tandem with them to guarantee the best user experience. Now, there is a massive Facebook middleman, with all of the decision making power, wedged between Oculus and developers. This is the real reason why Notch and many others have abandoned the platform. Oculus can give us their word, swear an oath, and cross their hearts. But their destiny is no longer in Palmer's, your's or Michael's hands. It's in Mark Zuckerberg's. And if there is, at any point, any sort of disagreement over the smallest issue, there will be no debate because the Oculus team are now nothing more than employees, and will have to put up or shut up when it comes to crucial decisions. Of course, as long as there are no problems, and everything is rosy then all is well. But the second rough seas are encountered and tough decisions need to be made, I fear that the Oculus team will understand that they've made a serious mistake by relinquishing control of their destiny to Facebook. If the Oculus team was short on cash, I'm sure there would have been a great many investors willing to pour additional money into the venture at very generous valuations. This is because Oculus was a darling of the industry, with legends such as yourself on board. The developer community knew that you would not compromise on the experience, and because you answered to no one but the Oculus team and your investors, you were free to make the Oculus experience the best it could possibly be. Personally, I have watched many interviews with yourself describing the challenges of the Oculus and how you are working on overcoming them. I was sold based on your vision, determination, and most importantly, the freedom and control to deliver the best experience possible. I cannot help but feel that the FB deal has put a sword of Damocles over your heads, as the technical leads will always be the first to have to accept defeat when faced with executive meddling on critical decisions. I would point to Elon Musk, and how he has maintained control of Tesla and SpaceX, not because it was the correct financial decision, but because as a product company he would have been doomed if non-technical executives began vetoing his critical design decisions. Sadly, this latter scenario is the one I believe Oculus has put itself in. I truly hope you can weather these storms as they arise, but history and experience tell me it will be extremely difficult. Forever a fan, FD3SA
greendestiny 12y ago
I feel like we've gone full retard about the potential of VR again. Facebook has bought a promising headset technology, but we're a long way off people living in a virtual world controlled by Facebook. While I fully expect Facebook to data mine any hardware they control I'm not certain how it corresponds with the nightmare vision here. If anything Facebook buying Oculus so early is a good thing for people scared of Facebook's impact on VR. I think there is a long and involved period of VR being refined by hardcore gamers before it tentatively ventures into virtual sports and virtual meetups et al. I just don't see the big gaming companies wanting to do deals with Facebook - they hate Steam for its platform control and its communication overlays - they'll be very wary of a Facebook chat overlay finding its way into to Oculus driver v1.2. And I just don't think Oculus as funded by Facebook is going to be living or dieing with gamers feedback like they would as an independent company. I doubt they are going to sacrifice enough to meet those demands and be reshaped by them.
- gravitasaxe 12y ago
  The problem with buying them early is that Oculus could become the Microsoft of the industry on PC. They could set precedents/biases we'll have to live with for decades to come. For example there might be other headsets that rely on Oculus API/SDK, etc. IDK we'll just have to wait and find out.
snarfy 12y ago
I recently bought a mechanical keyboard (razer). It has programmable macro keys, but in order to install the driver I have to create an account on the manufacturer's site and log in before the installer will continue. It's complete crap and I will never buy anything from that manufacturer again. Am I going to have to log in to facebook to use the occulus headset or install the software? Probably.
- scott_karana 12y ago
  > Am I going to have to log in to facebook to use the occulus headset or install the software? Probably. That's not true about WhatsApp or Instagram. Nothing suggest it'll be the same with Oculus. The only company to blame for your poor experience is Razer.
  - snarfy 12y ago
    I mentioned the story about Razer to give an example of shitty things companies do to leverage a user base. G+ and YouTube. Microsoft and Skype. Anything Apple. Even without a suggestion that this might happen with Facebook and Oculus, it happens all over the industry. There might not be a suggestion of it, but there is definitely a fear of it.
- onedev 12y ago
  Do you have to do that for instagram?
- gtremper 12y ago
  You don't even need a Facebook acount for Facebook Messenger.
briantakita 12y ago
The vision of Free Software & Hardware is now more relevant than ever.
MisterBastahrd 12y ago
On the one hand, I don't see how Oculus could have survived competing in the consumer market against the likes of Sony and (eventually) Microsoft without large-scale financial backing. On the other hand, Facebook is not a consumer product company, and Oculus has never successfully brought a tangible consumer product to market. I'm not convinced at this point that money is enough to make them successful, but it'll be interesting.
panzi 12y ago
Well, I guess would only use the Rift if there are open source Linux drivers in the mainline kernel. I guess such drivers would only land in mainline if they are technologically and morally ok (then the driver is really just a 3D display driver and has no usage data collection function etc.). How likely is that to happen?
shazow 12y ago
My biggest worry is the destructive effect the acquisition had on the community. Many developers feel that their expectations were betrayed. And of course, the unnoticeably slow corruption through bureaucracy and politics which inevitably seeps in as acquisitions get merged into the greater fold. This thread prompted me to write more about this, so I wrote a letter to Carmack (no response yet, though): https://medium.com/p/f8589a747d11 https://medium.com/p/f8589a747d11
gm 12y ago
There's a right reason to be upset about something one does not control? The buyout is not good or bad, it just is. Don't get upset people, you couldn't prevent it before and you cannot undo it now.
- sgarman 12y ago
  This is not entirely true. In a market like ours we often can vote with our wallet. There is not an obvious product here that we can or can't buy or use but I would not say that we are powerless.
  - gm 12y ago
    Key word was "upset". Vote with your wallet, that's fine. My point is that it's stupid to place your emotional state on something you do not control.
burntroots 12y ago
Unless you've developed games for the facebook platform, it can be hard to understand why so many devs reacted so negatively to the news. I've made facebook games and decided not to spend money on the second dev kit, so maybe I can shed some light as to why. As a gaming platform, Facebook sucks. Pure and simple. The APIs we need to use to make money change, sometimes on a daily basis. We get no notification when these changes happen. We find out because our games suddenly stop working. Facebook also has a history of trying to screw game developers over in an attempt to get a bigger chunk of cash for themselves. Case in point, they tried to mandate that everybody use Facebook Credits for in game currency. Not only did facebook take 30% off the top (effectively slashing our existing revenues by 30%), but we had to use their API to process transactions. Their buggy, buggy API. That lasted for maybe 6 months? I'm not sure, I got out of it just before the facebook credits thing went down. Before everybody jumps on me about Facebook not necessarily locking Oculus game devs into their platform, that doesn't matter. Facebook has a history of treating game devs poorly and as a result I have absolutely no desire to deal with the company again.
pg_is_a_butt 12y ago
right reason: fuck facebook
ghostunit 12y ago
I feel a bit embarrassed to have to say the obvious but: When you sell your company, you don’t own it any more http://pando.com/2014/03/26/a-reminder-to-founders-when-you-sell-your-company-you-dont-own-it-any-more/ http://pando.com/2014/03/26/a-reminder-to-founders-when-you-...
jgon 12y ago
We all bring our own perspectives and experience to our day to day lives and our perspectives, and so I make no bones here about the following being the fruits of my own perspective. Please keep that in mind as you read the following and judge its content. I myself have recently undergone the acquisition of my company, a private company that was well regarded in the field it was operated, by a large multi-billion mult-national. When I read Carmack's comments I feel pulled in two different directions. On the one hand, I am old enough to have grown up with Castle Wolfenstein and Doom being formative experiences in my life on the computer, and my life in general. I can still remember downloading to the first Quake shareware, playing the original Team Fortress, and installing Navy Seals Quake long before its creator had moved onto Counter-Strike. And so Carmack is like a hero to me, he really did make an impact on my life growing up. On the other hand, I see in all of his comments the same sort of sentiment that I saw in all of the upper management and senior members of my firm. They all expressed the exact same sorts of sentiments, that the acquisition would allow our company to reach the next level, giving us greater capital to expand our reach. Of course, now that push has come to shove, actually getting some of that money to spend is proving to be a bit more difficult than they had initially imagined or been promised. It turns out that our parent company was perfectly happy to acquire us for the market position that we help and the money that we could bring in without a substantial capital infusion. I know that the immediate argument will be that facebook will be totally different and will no doubt fund oculus to their heart's content, but I guess it is my cynicism showing when I hear these pronouncements through the same filter I now apply to announcements from our own parent company. Anyway, as I said, we all view our lives through our own filter, and maybe I am totally swayed in my views. But I can't help but seeing the same sort of naive optimism in Carmack that permeated our organization before it came down to dollars and cents, and cheques had to be signed. And maybe, just like some in our senior management, Carmack is now older and less idealistic, and reflects this is the same way that some in my firm did, in their ability to say one thing publicly, and know something else in their heart, as long as the zeroes added up properly. Something funny happens as you get older, I feel it happening in myself, maybe you just don't feel as ready to go out on your shield. But I got the feeling from at least a few people in our acquisition that they knew how things would go, and were happy to say differently because it would work out better for them. I don't know where John's head is, and so I can't charitably assume negative things, but then again I don't think assuming the best is any more honest or charitable, especially where facebook is concerned. I hope for the future of VR, but when I read the hopelessly positive and/or naive visions of this acquisition I can't help but asking myself "What do they know that I don't?" How can these people be that optimistic, unless they aren't actually that positive. We'll see how it goes, but I don't begrudge anyone feeling pessimistic at this point, especially given the history of tech acquisitions. We'll see how it goes, but in my heart of hearts, I hope for another Oculus and another Palmer, maybe slightly less focused on the bottom line, bringing the promise of VR to us all.
bsaul 12y ago
A very simple reason is the difference in business model between an hardware company, and a ad-based web site. Everyone doubts a single company can sustain the two in parallel. Occulus original vision is to focus on the hardware, sell it with a margin and keep improving at it ( and the software on top). And have an ecosystem of service providers using your device. Much like Apple. Facebook wants to create free services that gets as much information from their user as possible, and create new features ( or buy concurrents) only when they see them slip away. It's pretty easy to predict where the two won't match.
ipsin 12y ago
I'm not really worried about Facebook "exerting control" in one way or another, per se. I hope Facebook doesn't kill Oculus as a product. If it goes to market, my sole criteria for purchase will be "does it require a Facebook login, or a connection to Facebook servers"? I'm fine with hardware that also has a flagship Facebook Space, or whatever. I can choose to avoid that. That's really what I'm hoping for, as it seems like one of the most benign outcomes. But if it's a fundamental part of the design is that Facebook has to participate in every Oculus experience, well, no sale.
pron 12y ago
Facebook is smarter than to include ads directly. There is more value to them in having a happy, captive audience. Don't know about you, but that sounds sinister to me...
netcan 12y ago
One almost off topic reason is that it seems like today an innovative and successful tech company will face irresistible acquisition offers from one of the "titans." When the offer make the founder a billionaire it will be rare that they are rejected. If they are, I bigger offer will soon follow. Everyone has a price and these cashed up companies have deeper pockets than any company has ever had. The near inevitability of this acquisition (hinted at by Carmack) is IMO the significant element. In this environment, Google could have gotten near their IPO value years earlier from an acquiring company. Current crop of titans would have been owned by the previous crop and we would be poorer as a whole. When acquisition offers outpace revenue to this degree it seems almost impossible for a company to stay independent.
jhuckestein 12y ago
In a second comment, John Carmack wrote this: > I'm not a "privacy is gone, get over it" sort of person, and I fully support people that want remain unobserved, but that means disengaging from many opportunities. The idea that companies are supposed to interact with you and not pay attention has never seemed sane to me. > Being data driven is a GOOD thing for most companies to be. Everyone cheers the novel creative insight and bold leadership that leads to some successes, and tut tuts about companies ending up poorly by blindly following data, but cold analysis of the data is incredibly important, and I tend to think the world will be improved with more and better data analysis. > I have never felt harmed by data mining, and I rather like the recommendations that Amazon gives me on each visit. Educate me. What terrible outcome is expected from this? Be specific. I find this slightly alarming. Apparently John Carmack was lucky enough not to have been unfairly prosecuted and doesn't have any secrets that could cost him for example his job. But what happens if one day John Carmack's activities and opinions become illegal? This has happened many times in history and there's no reason to believe it won't happen again. The scariest thing about data collection is not what is currently happening with it, but what oppressive regimes could do with it. Imagine what if the gestapo or the stasi had all the information at its disposal that Facebook has? Or the NSA even?
- VexXtreme 12y ago
  To me it just underscores that even a lot of smart people don't really think about far reaching consequences of data mining. Sure, most people don't care that [insert company here]'s algorithms are crawling your data and sending you product ads based on that, but what about the NSA and their secret courts and secret warrants forcing companies to hand over that data? Even if companies don't comply, SIGINT agencies will just hack their systems and get their hands on the data anyway. And even if there is absolutely nothing incriminating about that data NOW, there's no evidence that will stay the case forever. I've just lost a massive amount of respect for Carmack. I actually thought he'd have an intelligent opinion on subjects like this.
  - hackinthebochs 12y ago
    Perhaps you should offer up your intelligent opinion as a counter? There is no risk in being thrown in jail because of data mining--NSA can directly observe what you do. There is no reason to mine to deduce that you may be or become an X sympathizer (where X is dangerous to the current power structure), they can simply observe you communicating with known X's or viewing information in support of X. Your concerns about data mining are misplaced and overblown. There is simply nothing of interest to the government that can be learned about you by mining that they can't learn through direct means already deployed.
ancarda 12y ago
> there will be a plethora of information to mine along with the ability and intent to do it. It is infinitely easier to mine data in a completely simulated reality - Facebook will know where you’re looking, what you’re doing, and how long you do it. Free software is the solution. I've never been that interested in Oculus so I'm not aware if the device is flashable or how much control a developer has when writing software for it.
igl 12y ago
Pay back all kickstarter contributions. Let carmack build a rocket and admit beeing puny sellouts. Facebook has a record of running a php app and bad policy making. If this isn't about money then it's about carmack thinking Zuckerberg has a sweet ass. Orrrr Facebook was the only place that allowed carmack to open source all things.. Dream on.
Gracana 12y ago
Hey, with the Facebook acquisition it's even more sci-fi than ever. What's more cyberpunk than amazing virtual reality technology that's owned and controlled by a corporation with more money than some countries, whose purpose is to gather information about every aspect of its users lives in order to sell them junk?
pasbesoin 12y ago
If Facebook treats it as they've treated some of their hardware work and initiatives, we may find we can live with it. If they treat it as they've treated their "platform", we are likely to have problems. Which way will it go? Nobody knows... I think most of us feel that the technology itself needs to be "open" and platform agnostic. We've just observed a major change that places this in question. Concern is justified.
DonGateley 12y ago
Cross posted from the blog: The only thing that I really don't like about the acquisition is that it is certain to delay the consumer product by some significant time. The shot that Sony fired over their bow (almost into their ship) made them fully understand that their time was up. Their planned time frame wouldn't work in competition with Sony because their pockets weren't deep enough to technologically one-up Sony. To come out with something at best on par but further down the road than Sony would sink them like a stone. Now those pockets are deep enough and there will be substantial delay as they order the development of new tech and cost reduction engineering to create something truly competitive. This is not speculative, they have stated that they are going to do that but without mention of the time it will take. This may be good in the long run but I think the run-up to their product has been far, far too long already. What this all means is I want one, I want it now and it just got further away, perhaps much further.

211 points by julespitt 12y ago

> John Carmark: The experience is too obviously powerful, and it makes converts on contact. The fairly rapid involvement of the Titans is inevitable, and the real questions were how deeply to partner, and with who. Carmack is correct in saying the Titans will get involved, but I think many people (including the post author) are disappointed that Oculus has forgone becoming a Titan themselves. Committing to such a deep partnership at this stage feels like a big misstep. Imagine where Facebook would be if they had sold out to a company like Apple right before they allowed non-college kids to use the service.

CamperBob2 12y ago
Another point I haven't seen raised: when it comes to VR hardware and software, anyone who doesn't get in bed with a Titan will end up mired in one bullshit patent suit after another.
alexkcd 12y ago
You left out the previous paragraph, which explains why Carmack feels the need to partner with a Titan, rather than go at it alone. Not sure that I agree this move was necessary at this point in time, but I definitely see his fear of the potential consequences of refusing to strike such a partnership.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Exactly right. Would Zuckerberg give himself the same advice he gave Palmer when trying to convince him to sell the company? My guess is he wouldn't. He'd say "Don't touch the money, and keep going on your own - especially when you have such great hype around your company and product. You'll make 100x more this way."

codeflo 12y ago

What's interesting to me, and we've seen this with WhatsApp only a few weeks ago, is that being acquired by Facebook seems to destroy the public image of a product. Positive public perception has value, and can (at least in theory) be measured in dollars. In accounting terminology, it's part of what's usually called a company's "goodwill". If Facebook continues to so negatively effect the public's opinion of every company it acquires, this means that Facebook might get a lot less out of those acquisitions than they might have hoped.

virtuabhi 12y ago
I guess I missed the destruction of WhatsApp's public image after the Facebook acquisition. Can you point me to the numbers?
- gurkendoktor 12y ago
  How do you measure a company's public image in numbers? If you can't, then discussing it based on anecdotes is the best we can do. (My non-techie friends have left WhatsApp for Threema, but I live inside the German-language bubblesphere, so YMMV.) Or the other way around: Before the acquisition, I was already on the fence about the Oculus Rift, but now I won't touch one with a ten-foot pole. In which statistic would my change of mind even show up?
sehr 12y ago
It's been days since Oculus was acquired, and weeks since WhatsApp. I don't think public perception has evened out enough to be measured, let alone predicted. Besides, look at Instagram. It was acquired right around the first major Facebook privacy scare (early 2012ish), and it's doing perfectly okay.
whistlerbrk 12y ago
Really? Is the public image of instagram 'destroyed'? You're in the tech bubble. In the consumer world no one cares as long products perform well and cheaply.
- 12y ago

Arjuna 12y ago

Carmack had this to say earlier, in a 3-part Tweet: "Everyone has had some time to digest the FB deal now. I think it is going to be positive, but clearly many disagree. Much of the ranting has been emotional or tribal, but I am interested in reading coherent viewpoints about objective outcomes. What are the hazards? What should be done to guard against them? What are the tests for failure? Blog and I'll read." Also, this: "I would expect Facebook to not exert any overt control over Oculus unless Oculus fumbles badly a few times, at which point they SHOULD." ~~~~ My personal take: At the end of the day, it takes more than vision and hard work to drive a dream into existence... it takes investment. It takes capital. This is what the deal brings to the table. Not only that, as you probably know by now, Michael Abrash has joined the team. I mean, read Michael's blog and note all of the technical challenges and issues with implementing VR. Read Carmack's technical writings on latency issues. There are a lot of problems to solve, on top of building and delivering a solid, commercial-quality hardware and software experience. For example, there is tracking head position and orientation, rendering without shearing and judder, latency issues, etc... everything must be perfect in order to deliver the perfect experience. Facebook brings the needed investment, plus the scaling infrastructure experience to the table. John has said, "I have a deep respect for the technical scale that FB operates at. The cyberspace we want for VR will be at this scale." I have a lot of confidence in Oculus VR and their extremely capable team. These good people are experienced and they know the technical and business challenges that are ahead. This is why the acquisition occurred. The passion is still there. I mean, watch this video again [1]. John hasn't changed. After the acquisition, he said, "For the record, I am coding right now, just like I was last week. I expect the FB deal will avoid several embarrassing scaling crisis for VR." And with Michael coming on board, it's a veritable VR Dream Team with the already talent-heavy team of Palmer Luckey, Tom Forsyth [2], Atman Binstock [3], et al. As Michael said, "That worry is now gone. Facebook's acquisition of Oculus means that VR is going to happen in all its glory." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYa8kirsUfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYa8kirsUfg [2] http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/category/tom-forsyth http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/category/tom-forsyth [3] http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/welcome-atman-binstock-chief-architect http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/welcome-atman-binstock-chief-ar...

biff 12y ago
I think, also, somebody has to be first to bring this technology to the market before it even occurs to others they'd want to compete. Oculus under Facebook might not bring the finished product most of us were looking for, but having a device that's solved the technological challenges of consumer VR is the heavy lifting. And it puts Facebook in the position of being The Name in consumer VR. Are they going to alienate that right off the bat by building a walled garden, putting heavy content locks on it, watching everything you do? Or will they do the soft touch of making their helmet the easiest (and perhaps only) way to tie your VR into the Facebook network when you wish, get special savings on new software, offer perks to developers that find Facebook-friendly features for their VR software? I think if they squeeze too hard people will upgrade right out of them into the competition. Which is sure to follow shortly if the hardware is a massive success and the implementation is driving people away. So, cautiously optimistic.

baby 12y ago

> I wasn't personally involved in any of the negotiations -- I spent an afternoon talking technology with Mark Zuckerberg, and the next week I find out that he bought Oculus. He's a CTO and he finds it out like that? There's something I don't understand.

thirsteh 12y ago
Likely the deliberation happened in board meetings.
- seth1010 12y ago
  Carmack is the CTO.
  - thirsteh 12y ago
    CTOs rarely sit on boards.
    - briantakita 12y ago
      @pfraze Welcome to the corporate world :-/
      - pfraze 12y ago
        Where's the escape hatch! :|
    - pfraze 12y ago
      He should still be consulted.
mikegioia 12y ago
Yea, I thought that was bizarre. It makes you wonder what Carmack actually thinks of Facebook buying Oculus.
- 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

cm127 12y ago

> "Honestly, I wasn't expecting Facebook (or this soon). I have zero personal background with them, and I could think of other companies that would have more obvious synergies." This is the heart of the controversy. Facebook could have easily written an application / demo to integrate with Facebook, but instead they bought the whole company.

mentos 12y ago
This stood out to me too. What hardware has Facebook brought to market? I don't recall anything specific. What companies might have offered more obvious synergies? Google, Amazon, Apple who have shipped successful hardware?

RobotCaleb 12y ago

I don't use this platform. Where is the response from Carmack?

jeroen 12y ago
http://peterberkman.tumblr.com/post/80827337212/wrong-and-right-reasons-to-be-upset-about-oculus#comment-1310233365 http://peterberkman.tumblr.com/post/80827337212/wrong-and-ri...
- RobotCaleb 12y ago
  Thanks. I couldn't see any comments from the mobile interface.
- njloof 12y ago
  Still not seeing a comment from Carmack. Can someone cut&paste?
  - sehr 12y ago
    I share some of your misgivings about companies "existing and operating only to be acquired". I am a true believer in market economies, and the magic of trade being a positive sum game is most obvious with repeated transactions at a consumer level. Company acquisitions, while still (usually) being a trade between willing parties that in theory leaves both better off, have much more of an element of speculation rather than objective assessment of value, and it definitely feels different. There is a case to be made for being like Valve, and trying to build a new VR ecosystem like Steam from the ground up. This is probably what most of the passionate fans wanted to see. The difference is that, for years, the industry thought Valve was nuts, and they had the field to themselves. Valve deserves all their success for having the vision and perseverance to see it through to the current state. VR won't be like that. The experience is too obviously powerful, and it makes converts on contact. The fairly rapid involvement of the Titans is inevitable, and the real questions were how deeply to partner, and with who. Honestly, I wasn't expecting Facebook (or this soon). I have zero personal background with them, and I could think of other companies that would have more obvious synergies. However, I do have reasons to believe that they get the Big Picture as I see it, and will be a powerful force towards making it happen. You don't make a commitment like they just did on a whim. I wasn't personally involved in any of the negotiations -- I spent an afternoon talking technology with Mark Zuckerberg, and the next week I find out that he bought Oculus. ------------------------------------------------------------- I did skip the data mining issue, mostly because I just can't get very worked up about it. I'm not a "privacy is gone, get over it" sort of person, and I fully support people that want remain unobserved, but that means disengaging from many opportunities. The idea that companies are supposed to interact with you and not pay attention has never seemed sane to me. Being data driven is a GOOD thing for most companies to be. Everyone cheers the novel creative insight and bold leadership that leads to some successes, and tut tuts about companies ending up poorly by blindly following data, but cold analysis of the data is incredibly important, and I tend to think the world will be improved with more and better data analysis. I have never felt harmed by data mining, and I rather like the recommendations that Amazon gives me on each visit. Educate me. What terrible outcome is expected from this? Be specific.

soccergee 12y ago

My only gripe with the sale to Facebook is that it was originally funded by contributions on Kickstarter, and those "funders" will get nothing in return. I just don't see gamers and developers supporting Facebook as much as they supported Oculus... which makes it seem like they did something sleazy by selling to FB.

sseveran 12y ago
Thats because they didn't buy equity. They bought the rights to a future copy of a product. If they didn't deliver maybe you can sue them.
maqr 12y ago
I backed them on kickstarter and got my dev kit as a result. I'm really unhappy about FB being the first to bring VR to the masses, but it doesn't have anything to do with kickstarter.

Zaephyr 12y ago

There seems to be a disconnect between the the way those in the SV startup community see FaceBook and those outside do. My view of Carmack is positive and I think he does want to understand the FaceBook revulsion, but to quote Sinclair "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"

pjscott 12y ago
I don't think John Carmack, of all people, has to worry much about his salary.
- Zaephyr 12y ago
  Well, it was a diplomatic attempt at saying it's easier to like FaceBook when you get a lot of money from them. There is a little more to all of it, but that's the nutshell.
  - Zaephyr 12y ago
    To clarify; his relationship with and view of FaceBook is a business one. I'm implying not greed, but that by virtue of the industry he works in his view is likely to much different from that of those who are not in a position to sell to FaceBook, et al.
- lawnchair_larry 12y ago
  He does. He wants to fund Armadillo. He ran out of money to sink into it.
  - pjscott 12y ago
    In that case, I stand corrected.
  - someperson 12y ago
    https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/450031715017179136 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/450031715017179136

hibikir 12y ago

I'd expect that Facebook will do for Oculus as much as Zenimax did for id. The best that could happen is that the Zuckster just sends bigger checks to Oculus to expand operations, turning this purchase into more of a round of VC funding than anything else. The worst case scenario is that it's a purchase like we see in the business world. How many products do better when the company that makes them is bought by IBM or Oracle?

benihana 12y ago
Facebook isn't IBM or Oracle. Instagram is still doing fine, it's kept its own identity and I would never have known they were bought by facebook if it wasn't such huge news. To me, on the surface, it's following the exact path same as it was before the purchase, but it would be naive to think that Facebook's infrastructure and experience with scalability has nothing to do with the fact that instagram is always up and always works as its grown.

mcphilip 12y ago

The FB acquisition seems to imply that the deeply talented Oculus team will help pioneer VR as a new mechanism for social interactions online. Call me a simpleton, but I'm more interested in Carmack et al revolutionizing gaming. Maybe that will still happen, but this acquisition makes me less interested in VR, for the time being.

nitrogen 12y ago
In the long run, gaming will probably be a small but awesome percentage of the total VR industry.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

cwp 12y ago

I have to agree with Carmack here. Companies, governments or individuals having lots of data isn't a bad thing in its self. It's what they do with that data that matters, and what they do can be positive as well as negative. This is not to say that we should blindly trust data-holders to behave responsibly. We should watch them very closely! The recent kerfuffle about Microsoft reading a blogger's mail is a good example: MS took an action many people felt was wrong, it got widely publicized, and MS decided they weren't going to do it again, and made a policy change to codify that decision. What was a grey area became a bright line that they've vowed not to cross. The existence of big data is new, and our civilization hasn't figured out how to deal with it yet. I'm confident that we will figure it out, and the good that comes from it will be much greater than the evil.

pfraze 12y ago
> It's what they do with that data that matters Not technically wrong, but it's a bad show to introduce that risk. I say this a lot, but - IT ethics is like medical ethics: you're obligated to protect your clients with expertise regarding things they don't understand. Personal information needs to have strong guarantees of segmentation and authority controls. That's not an open question; it used to be called "good system administration." There's no middle ground on this. Either you're doing your job as an IT professional, or you're exposing users to risk from data-sale, breach exposure, or government overreach.
- cwp 12y ago
  So it's our duty as IT professionals to prevent people from using IT? The services that large-scale IT provides could not exist without gathering the volume of data they do. Google couldn't provide relevant search results with just an index of the web, it also relies on vast amounts of data about user behaviour. The same is true of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc. It's non-sensical to talk about risk without talking about the actual scenarios you're worried about. How bad are they? How probable are they? What can we do to reduce the harm and/or likelihood of harm? How much, if at all, will those measures reduce the benefits of the services based on big data? That's the discussion we should be having. Most of the "concern" about big data boils down to an appeal to emotion: "Just think what they could do with all that information!"

FD3SA 12y ago

Cross posting my comment from the original article: ---- Hi John, huge fan of all your work. I think the biggest issue with the FB acquisition is over one variable: control. The Oculus team has, by definition, relinquished control of their platform to FB. This is not a decision to be brushed aside, as it has some very severe consequences. Let's for example, consider Oculus' partnership with developers. Prior to the FB deal, Oculus had a direct relationship with developers and would work in tandem with them to guarantee the best user experience. Now, there is a massive Facebook middleman, with all of the decision making power, wedged between Oculus and developers. This is the real reason why Notch and many others have abandoned the platform. Oculus can give us their word, swear an oath, and cross their hearts. But their destiny is no longer in Palmer's, your's or Michael's hands. It's in Mark Zuckerberg's. And if there is, at any point, any sort of disagreement over the smallest issue, there will be no debate because the Oculus team are now nothing more than employees, and will have to put up or shut up when it comes to crucial decisions. Of course, as long as there are no problems, and everything is rosy then all is well. But the second rough seas are encountered and tough decisions need to be made, I fear that the Oculus team will understand that they've made a serious mistake by relinquishing control of their destiny to Facebook. If the Oculus team was short on cash, I'm sure there would have been a great many investors willing to pour additional money into the venture at very generous valuations. This is because Oculus was a darling of the industry, with legends such as yourself on board. The developer community knew that you would not compromise on the experience, and because you answered to no one but the Oculus team and your investors, you were free to make the Oculus experience the best it could possibly be. Personally, I have watched many interviews with yourself describing the challenges of the Oculus and how you are working on overcoming them. I was sold based on your vision, determination, and most importantly, the freedom and control to deliver the best experience possible. I cannot help but feel that the FB deal has put a sword of Damocles over your heads, as the technical leads will always be the first to have to accept defeat when faced with executive meddling on critical decisions. I would point to Elon Musk, and how he has maintained control of Tesla and SpaceX, not because it was the correct financial decision, but because as a product company he would have been doomed if non-technical executives began vetoing his critical design decisions. Sadly, this latter scenario is the one I believe Oculus has put itself in. I truly hope you can weather these storms as they arise, but history and experience tell me it will be extremely difficult. Forever a fan, FD3SA

greendestiny 12y ago

I feel like we've gone full retard about the potential of VR again. Facebook has bought a promising headset technology, but we're a long way off people living in a virtual world controlled by Facebook. While I fully expect Facebook to data mine any hardware they control I'm not certain how it corresponds with the nightmare vision here. If anything Facebook buying Oculus so early is a good thing for people scared of Facebook's impact on VR. I think there is a long and involved period of VR being refined by hardcore gamers before it tentatively ventures into virtual sports and virtual meetups et al. I just don't see the big gaming companies wanting to do deals with Facebook - they hate Steam for its platform control and its communication overlays - they'll be very wary of a Facebook chat overlay finding its way into to Oculus driver v1.2. And I just don't think Oculus as funded by Facebook is going to be living or dieing with gamers feedback like they would as an independent company. I doubt they are going to sacrifice enough to meet those demands and be reshaped by them.

gravitasaxe 12y ago
The problem with buying them early is that Oculus could become the Microsoft of the industry on PC. They could set precedents/biases we'll have to live with for decades to come. For example there might be other headsets that rely on Oculus API/SDK, etc. IDK we'll just have to wait and find out.

snarfy 12y ago

I recently bought a mechanical keyboard (razer). It has programmable macro keys, but in order to install the driver I have to create an account on the manufacturer's site and log in before the installer will continue. It's complete crap and I will never buy anything from that manufacturer again. Am I going to have to log in to facebook to use the occulus headset or install the software? Probably.

scott_karana 12y ago
> Am I going to have to log in to facebook to use the occulus headset or install the software? Probably. That's not true about WhatsApp or Instagram. Nothing suggest it'll be the same with Oculus. The only company to blame for your poor experience is Razer.
- snarfy 12y ago
  I mentioned the story about Razer to give an example of shitty things companies do to leverage a user base. G+ and YouTube. Microsoft and Skype. Anything Apple. Even without a suggestion that this might happen with Facebook and Oculus, it happens all over the industry. There might not be a suggestion of it, but there is definitely a fear of it.
onedev 12y ago
Do you have to do that for instagram?
gtremper 12y ago
You don't even need a Facebook acount for Facebook Messenger.

briantakita 12y ago

The vision of Free Software & Hardware is now more relevant than ever.

MisterBastahrd 12y ago

On the one hand, I don't see how Oculus could have survived competing in the consumer market against the likes of Sony and (eventually) Microsoft without large-scale financial backing. On the other hand, Facebook is not a consumer product company, and Oculus has never successfully brought a tangible consumer product to market. I'm not convinced at this point that money is enough to make them successful, but it'll be interesting.

panzi 12y ago

Well, I guess would only use the Rift if there are open source Linux drivers in the mainline kernel. I guess such drivers would only land in mainline if they are technologically and morally ok (then the driver is really just a 3D display driver and has no usage data collection function etc.). How likely is that to happen?

shazow 12y ago

My biggest worry is the destructive effect the acquisition had on the community. Many developers feel that their expectations were betrayed. And of course, the unnoticeably slow corruption through bureaucracy and politics which inevitably seeps in as acquisitions get merged into the greater fold. This thread prompted me to write more about this, so I wrote a letter to Carmack (no response yet, though): https://medium.com/p/f8589a747d11 https://medium.com/p/f8589a747d11

gm 12y ago

There's a right reason to be upset about something one does not control? The buyout is not good or bad, it just is. Don't get upset people, you couldn't prevent it before and you cannot undo it now.

sgarman 12y ago
This is not entirely true. In a market like ours we often can vote with our wallet. There is not an obvious product here that we can or can't buy or use but I would not say that we are powerless.
- gm 12y ago
  Key word was "upset". Vote with your wallet, that's fine. My point is that it's stupid to place your emotional state on something you do not control.

burntroots 12y ago

Unless you've developed games for the facebook platform, it can be hard to understand why so many devs reacted so negatively to the news. I've made facebook games and decided not to spend money on the second dev kit, so maybe I can shed some light as to why. As a gaming platform, Facebook sucks. Pure and simple. The APIs we need to use to make money change, sometimes on a daily basis. We get no notification when these changes happen. We find out because our games suddenly stop working. Facebook also has a history of trying to screw game developers over in an attempt to get a bigger chunk of cash for themselves. Case in point, they tried to mandate that everybody use Facebook Credits for in game currency. Not only did facebook take 30% off the top (effectively slashing our existing revenues by 30%), but we had to use their API to process transactions. Their buggy, buggy API. That lasted for maybe 6 months? I'm not sure, I got out of it just before the facebook credits thing went down. Before everybody jumps on me about Facebook not necessarily locking Oculus game devs into their platform, that doesn't matter. Facebook has a history of treating game devs poorly and as a result I have absolutely no desire to deal with the company again.

pg_is_a_butt 12y ago

right reason: fuck facebook

ghostunit 12y ago

I feel a bit embarrassed to have to say the obvious but: When you sell your company, you don’t own it any more http://pando.com/2014/03/26/a-reminder-to-founders-when-you-sell-your-company-you-dont-own-it-any-more/ http://pando.com/2014/03/26/a-reminder-to-founders-when-you-...

jgon 12y ago

We all bring our own perspectives and experience to our day to day lives and our perspectives, and so I make no bones here about the following being the fruits of my own perspective. Please keep that in mind as you read the following and judge its content. I myself have recently undergone the acquisition of my company, a private company that was well regarded in the field it was operated, by a large multi-billion mult-national. When I read Carmack's comments I feel pulled in two different directions. On the one hand, I am old enough to have grown up with Castle Wolfenstein and Doom being formative experiences in my life on the computer, and my life in general. I can still remember downloading to the first Quake shareware, playing the original Team Fortress, and installing Navy Seals Quake long before its creator had moved onto Counter-Strike. And so Carmack is like a hero to me, he really did make an impact on my life growing up. On the other hand, I see in all of his comments the same sort of sentiment that I saw in all of the upper management and senior members of my firm. They all expressed the exact same sorts of sentiments, that the acquisition would allow our company to reach the next level, giving us greater capital to expand our reach. Of course, now that push has come to shove, actually getting some of that money to spend is proving to be a bit more difficult than they had initially imagined or been promised. It turns out that our parent company was perfectly happy to acquire us for the market position that we help and the money that we could bring in without a substantial capital infusion. I know that the immediate argument will be that facebook will be totally different and will no doubt fund oculus to their heart's content, but I guess it is my cynicism showing when I hear these pronouncements through the same filter I now apply to announcements from our own parent company. Anyway, as I said, we all view our lives through our own filter, and maybe I am totally swayed in my views. But I can't help but seeing the same sort of naive optimism in Carmack that permeated our organization before it came down to dollars and cents, and cheques had to be signed. And maybe, just like some in our senior management, Carmack is now older and less idealistic, and reflects this is the same way that some in my firm did, in their ability to say one thing publicly, and know something else in their heart, as long as the zeroes added up properly. Something funny happens as you get older, I feel it happening in myself, maybe you just don't feel as ready to go out on your shield. But I got the feeling from at least a few people in our acquisition that they knew how things would go, and were happy to say differently because it would work out better for them. I don't know where John's head is, and so I can't charitably assume negative things, but then again I don't think assuming the best is any more honest or charitable, especially where facebook is concerned. I hope for the future of VR, but when I read the hopelessly positive and/or naive visions of this acquisition I can't help but asking myself "What do they know that I don't?" How can these people be that optimistic, unless they aren't actually that positive. We'll see how it goes, but I don't begrudge anyone feeling pessimistic at this point, especially given the history of tech acquisitions. We'll see how it goes, but in my heart of hearts, I hope for another Oculus and another Palmer, maybe slightly less focused on the bottom line, bringing the promise of VR to us all.

bsaul 12y ago

A very simple reason is the difference in business model between an hardware company, and a ad-based web site. Everyone doubts a single company can sustain the two in parallel. Occulus original vision is to focus on the hardware, sell it with a margin and keep improving at it ( and the software on top). And have an ecosystem of service providers using your device. Much like Apple. Facebook wants to create free services that gets as much information from their user as possible, and create new features ( or buy concurrents) only when they see them slip away. It's pretty easy to predict where the two won't match.

ipsin 12y ago

I'm not really worried about Facebook "exerting control" in one way or another, per se. I hope Facebook doesn't kill Oculus as a product. If it goes to market, my sole criteria for purchase will be "does it require a Facebook login, or a connection to Facebook servers"? I'm fine with hardware that also has a flagship Facebook Space, or whatever. I can choose to avoid that. That's really what I'm hoping for, as it seems like one of the most benign outcomes. But if it's a fundamental part of the design is that Facebook has to participate in every Oculus experience, well, no sale.

pron 12y ago

Facebook is smarter than to include ads directly. There is more value to them in having a happy, captive audience. Don't know about you, but that sounds sinister to me...

netcan 12y ago

One almost off topic reason is that it seems like today an innovative and successful tech company will face irresistible acquisition offers from one of the "titans." When the offer make the founder a billionaire it will be rare that they are rejected. If they are, I bigger offer will soon follow. Everyone has a price and these cashed up companies have deeper pockets than any company has ever had. The near inevitability of this acquisition (hinted at by Carmack) is IMO the significant element. In this environment, Google could have gotten near their IPO value years earlier from an acquiring company. Current crop of titans would have been owned by the previous crop and we would be poorer as a whole. When acquisition offers outpace revenue to this degree it seems almost impossible for a company to stay independent.

jhuckestein 12y ago

In a second comment, John Carmack wrote this: > I'm not a "privacy is gone, get over it" sort of person, and I fully support people that want remain unobserved, but that means disengaging from many opportunities. The idea that companies are supposed to interact with you and not pay attention has never seemed sane to me. > Being data driven is a GOOD thing for most companies to be. Everyone cheers the novel creative insight and bold leadership that leads to some successes, and tut tuts about companies ending up poorly by blindly following data, but cold analysis of the data is incredibly important, and I tend to think the world will be improved with more and better data analysis. > I have never felt harmed by data mining, and I rather like the recommendations that Amazon gives me on each visit. Educate me. What terrible outcome is expected from this? Be specific. I find this slightly alarming. Apparently John Carmack was lucky enough not to have been unfairly prosecuted and doesn't have any secrets that could cost him for example his job. But what happens if one day John Carmack's activities and opinions become illegal? This has happened many times in history and there's no reason to believe it won't happen again. The scariest thing about data collection is not what is currently happening with it, but what oppressive regimes could do with it. Imagine what if the gestapo or the stasi had all the information at its disposal that Facebook has? Or the NSA even?

VexXtreme 12y ago
To me it just underscores that even a lot of smart people don't really think about far reaching consequences of data mining. Sure, most people don't care that [insert company here]'s algorithms are crawling your data and sending you product ads based on that, but what about the NSA and their secret courts and secret warrants forcing companies to hand over that data? Even if companies don't comply, SIGINT agencies will just hack their systems and get their hands on the data anyway. And even if there is absolutely nothing incriminating about that data NOW, there's no evidence that will stay the case forever. I've just lost a massive amount of respect for Carmack. I actually thought he'd have an intelligent opinion on subjects like this.
- hackinthebochs 12y ago
  Perhaps you should offer up your intelligent opinion as a counter? There is no risk in being thrown in jail because of data mining--NSA can directly observe what you do. There is no reason to mine to deduce that you may be or become an X sympathizer (where X is dangerous to the current power structure), they can simply observe you communicating with known X's or viewing information in support of X. Your concerns about data mining are misplaced and overblown. There is simply nothing of interest to the government that can be learned about you by mining that they can't learn through direct means already deployed.

ancarda 12y ago

> there will be a plethora of information to mine along with the ability and intent to do it. It is infinitely easier to mine data in a completely simulated reality - Facebook will know where you’re looking, what you’re doing, and how long you do it. Free software is the solution. I've never been that interested in Oculus so I'm not aware if the device is flashable or how much control a developer has when writing software for it.

igl 12y ago

Pay back all kickstarter contributions. Let carmack build a rocket and admit beeing puny sellouts. Facebook has a record of running a php app and bad policy making. If this isn't about money then it's about carmack thinking Zuckerberg has a sweet ass. Orrrr Facebook was the only place that allowed carmack to open source all things.. Dream on.

Gracana 12y ago

Hey, with the Facebook acquisition it's even more sci-fi than ever. What's more cyberpunk than amazing virtual reality technology that's owned and controlled by a corporation with more money than some countries, whose purpose is to gather information about every aspect of its users lives in order to sell them junk?

pasbesoin 12y ago

If Facebook treats it as they've treated some of their hardware work and initiatives, we may find we can live with it. If they treat it as they've treated their "platform", we are likely to have problems. Which way will it go? Nobody knows... I think most of us feel that the technology itself needs to be "open" and platform agnostic. We've just observed a major change that places this in question. Concern is justified.

DonGateley 12y ago

Cross posted from the blog: The only thing that I really don't like about the acquisition is that it is certain to delay the consumer product by some significant time. The shot that Sony fired over their bow (almost into their ship) made them fully understand that their time was up. Their planned time frame wouldn't work in competition with Sony because their pockets weren't deep enough to technologically one-up Sony. To come out with something at best on par but further down the road than Sony would sink them like a stone. Now those pockets are deep enough and there will be substantial delay as they order the development of new tech and cost reduction engineering to create something truly competitive. This is not speculative, they have stated that they are going to do that but without mention of the time it will take. This may be good in the long run but I think the run-up to their product has been far, far too long already. What this all means is I want one, I want it now and it just got further away, perhaps much further.