Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> They did so because they wanted the Oculus product.

Let's not forget that a huge part of the pitch was to be part of a developer community that sets out into an as of yet unknown realm.

I don't think people are worried about what Facebook might do to Oculus, the product. They have a hard time seeing Facebook the social engine and Oculus, the developer community coexisting peacefully. In a way, they're already making a rather concrete case against it.



That is a very strong point I had not considered. Facebook does not have a smooth relationship with developers. Oculus requires involvement from the developers in order to further develop their product. I reason the Facebook culture of move fast-break things (but don't document it too well) might hurt Oculus.

Plus, I saw Oculus as a technology to build upon. I was already planning to use it with robotics. Now, its merely a pawn in Facebook's game.


Heh, just had a bit of a wry thought: At least they didn't get bought by Twitter.


I see this as Oculus being a pawn in the Google/Facebook war for the future of owning all of us. Google is doing Glass(which admittedly is nothing like Oculus) and here comes FB buying Oculus.

I'd like to know why Oculus sold to Facebook. That's bullshit. If there's ever been a company that didn't need to sell because its so obvious they are going to be huge, its Oculus.


According to John Carmack:

"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."

"I have a deep respect for the technical scale that FB operates at. The cyberspace we want for VR will be at this scale."

Source: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: