Wait, who expected the acquisition to change the world?
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
66 points (97.1% liked)
Hardware
5925 readers
1 users here now
This is a community dedicated to the hardware aspect of technology, from PC parts, to gadgets, to servers, to industrial control equipment, to semiconductors.
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to electronic hardware
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
It's shallow marketing blabla? - Always has been.
Dropped a comma. Here, I'll put it back.
"Facebook’s Oculus acquisition hasn’t changed the world, as expected."
Not a native English speaker, but if I understand correctly, that changes the meaning to the opposite?
Indeed
Yes. I changes the sentence to read "We expected Facebook's Oculus to not change the world, and then it did not change the world."
But it changed the world as much as I expected?
Like the Metaverse?
Does it still exist? Never heard anything about it after the initial marketing budget was burned through.
Nope
i want legs
As expected, ten years later Facebook’s Oculus acquisition hasn’t changed the world
I think Facebook buying Oculus kind of killed the buzz there was around 3D gaming. It did for me.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It evokes a flood of romanticized images of Homebrew Computer Club nerds soldering together circuit boards in South Bay garages.
Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face — just by putting on goggles in your home.”
Mark Zuckerberg is probably as guilty as any single person for perpetuating that perception, happily working his hardest to make the company’s Horizon Worlds platform synonymous with conceptions of the metaverse.
As an HTC Vive exec told me back in February at MWC, “I think Meta has adjusted the market perception of what this technology should cost.” Other companies can’t compete on price and content in the customer space, so the savviest of the bunch have moved over to enterprise, where clients have much deeper pockets.
Apple is targeting business customers at that price point, while Meta is far more committed to democratizing access by — again — losing money on a per-unit basis.
As we mark a decade since the Oculus acquisition, I find myself returning to the above Zuckerberg comment: “Imagine enjoying a courtside seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face — just by putting on goggles in your home.”
The original article contains 1,350 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face — just by putting on goggles in your home.”
None of that seems appealing to me!
Why would I "see" anyone remote as an avatar over prohibitively expensive gear when a cheap webcam delivers the original picture with all the cues and information we get from conversations face to face? (And without motion sickness as a bonus.)
This vr crap only makes sense for people who don't want to interact or who can't interact like normal human beings. Or who aren't human beings like that insectoid that inhabits Zuckerbergs skin.
Sorry, I do agree with you...but...
This vr crap only makes sense for people who don't or do can't
Whut?
Fixed it.