Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive(vrfinal.com)
vrfinal.com
Report may suggest that login requirement for Oculus Quest 2 is anticompetitive
https://www.vrfinal.com/report-from-the-house-of-representatives-may-suggest-that-the-facebook-login-requirement-for-the-oculus-quest-2-is-anticompetitive/
184 comments
Tangentially related: newly-created Facebook accounts are a whole lot harder to keep up these days if you’re just using them for a single purpose, like following events.
I created an account last year to get more socially involved in my community but I didn’t want to post any personal information and my account kept getting disabled unless I added pictures and filled out certain sections of my profile. Not sure if it was anti-automation technology or what, but I wound up giving up after trying twice because I didn’t want to give them what they asked for.
Knowing that this is required to use a product like Oculus is unacceptable.
I created an account last year to get more socially involved in my community but I didn’t want to post any personal information and my account kept getting disabled unless I added pictures and filled out certain sections of my profile. Not sure if it was anti-automation technology or what, but I wound up giving up after trying twice because I didn’t want to give them what they asked for.
Knowing that this is required to use a product like Oculus is unacceptable.
I don't use FB personally, but I needed access to Business Manager for some client work so I created an account using my work email and tried to sign up for BM. They immediately locked the account, asked for a copy of my ID, and then permanently banned that account after I provided it. I have no idea why, there's no mechanism for appeal, and I can't even submit a request to have the image of my ID removed because that form is gated behind the account.
Their "KYC" system has no problem with the 10-year-old alt that I created in college using a fake name which has never done anything but manage some ancient meme pages, though...
Their "KYC" system has no problem with the 10-year-old alt that I created in college using a fake name which has never done anything but manage some ancient meme pages, though...
Ask your client to supply the account. I do that for social media sites since I don't use most of them. Don't actually know about TOS, but it hasn't been a problem and certainly isn't mine.
> I can't even submit a request to have the image of my ID removed because that form is gated behind the account.
This sounds like the sort of problem GDPR can solve. Are you in the EU, or the UK, or a place with equivalent provisions for allowing people to require business to show them what information they store, edit that info if it is wrong, and delete that info?
This sounds like the sort of problem GDPR can solve. Are you in the EU, or the UK, or a place with equivalent provisions for allowing people to require business to show them what information they store, edit that info if it is wrong, and delete that info?
Unfortunately not. I've run into so many similar issues lately that I’ve seriously (maybe a little too seriously, if I'm honest) considered temporarily moving to Europe just so I can have access to this.
I have encountered the exact same situation just a few days ago to get a developer account running. I created a new account using my personal phone number and this one hasn't been shut down yet so here's hoping it stays that way.
Facebook is the new catch 22
I had this same experience yesterday. Tried to create a new account and it was insta-locked until I started providing personal information. I hadn't even used it.
twitter did the same thing to me, but worse.
they let me create an account and then locked it and wanted to know my phone number before they would unlock it. I can't even go delete it without giving them personal information.
they let me create an account and then locked it and wanted to know my phone number before they would unlock it. I can't even go delete it without giving them personal information.
Google will not allow use of certain features (setting a thumbnail for a YouTube video) without giving your phone number. So it seems mor can play this game.
Yeah, I was contemplating to maybe start a Twitter account, but didn't because of that. They do this pretty much on every account creation after a couple of hours, I guess so that you'd have some time to get on the hook.
I'm kinda used to that and accepted that, apparently, I will never use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or Google account because of that. Whatever, I don't care. What was really infuriating, though, is when PayPal asked me to enter my phone "to make my account even safer". Fuck them, but having problems with PayPal is quite a bit more annoying than being unable to use some social media bullshit.
I'm kinda used to that and accepted that, apparently, I will never use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or Google account because of that. Whatever, I don't care. What was really infuriating, though, is when PayPal asked me to enter my phone "to make my account even safer". Fuck them, but having problems with PayPal is quite a bit more annoying than being unable to use some social media bullshit.
I hear that. I have a Google account because I still use some Google services and it isn't tied to any social media nonsense unless you count YouTube.
For twitter I just favorite the few people I want to follow.
Surprisingly my instagram account has no personal information and haven't had any issues but I don't know why.
For twitter I just favorite the few people I want to follow.
Surprisingly my instagram account has no personal information and haven't had any issues but I don't know why.
Google does a variant of that for one of my (rarely used) email accounts. On every day I attempt to log in, they throw a coin. Heads they let me in, tails they don't let me in unless I provide a phone number.
i got the same issue a few weeks ago, account is almost 2 years old yet they decided to lock it (my following count was set to 0 and i could not tweet anymore), with only way to unlock it being giving them my phone number
however, i managed to unlock it somehow, first i sent them a trouble ticket asking why i could not tweet anymore (which immediately got me an email that said my account was locked for "suspicious activity" and that i needed to confirm my identity with phone number), then i requested all the data they had on me through the profile options, waited 3 days for them to do the archive then when i logged back in to download it they would only ask for a recaptcha challenge to unlock my account
perhaps they consider bots unable to request gdpr data ?
however, i managed to unlock it somehow, first i sent them a trouble ticket asking why i could not tweet anymore (which immediately got me an email that said my account was locked for "suspicious activity" and that i needed to confirm my identity with phone number), then i requested all the data they had on me through the profile options, waited 3 days for them to do the archive then when i logged back in to download it they would only ask for a recaptcha challenge to unlock my account
perhaps they consider bots unable to request gdpr data ?
Just post right wing and qanon stuff and you should be safe. Half /s
I'm 100% in agreement that a Facebook account shouldn't be required to use an Oculus.
But to continue on your tangent, I'm curious what people expect Facebook to do if they don't collect some amount of identifying information. On one hand they have a huge problem with bots, fake likes, and misinformation accounts, and on the other hand people complain about and avoid the steps they take to prevent those accounts. So, any ideas on the solution?
But to continue on your tangent, I'm curious what people expect Facebook to do if they don't collect some amount of identifying information. On one hand they have a huge problem with bots, fake likes, and misinformation accounts, and on the other hand people complain about and avoid the steps they take to prevent those accounts. So, any ideas on the solution?
Simple. In my perfect world, Facebook events would be publicly searchable without an account. I wouldn't need to go through the hassle of setting up the account and they wouldn't need to go through the hassle of making sure I was legit or not. But the walled garden's value is predicated on keeping everyone in the silo and not able to access data publicly.
While problems like fake likes and election misinformation are real, that's feels completely orthogonal to me playing VR games. Making me jump through hoops to keep playing a copy of Beat Saber that I already bought is frankly insulting
If you only want to be a consumer with no "visible action", none of those issues with bots or fake likes matter, same with business accounts or accounts solely for Oculus use.
Why should the public even care?
It’s their business to stay compatible with the society and stay sustainable as a business. If they can’t, they can go.
It’s their business to stay compatible with the society and stay sustainable as a business. If they can’t, they can go.
Disable Shares,Posting, Likes if the account is new or not trusted.
Make it so that a tree in the forest unobserved will fall without a sound.
Microsoft accounts are worse in every possible way because Microsoft can potentially monitor all behaviour on your OS, including what's happening in your browser and Facebook.
The issue isn't with being forced to use social media, it's being forced to use only facebook's network. Privacy is a separate issue. They could just make Oculus also connect to other social networks including facebook's competition. Then the anticompetitive complaint is gone as Oculus's market share no longer gives Facebook an advantage. Yet the creepy privacy-violating continues more than ever. Sort of like IOS and Android, where no matter which option you choose for various apps to perform functions with your phone, you probably get tracked, most of it ending up at Facebook and Google anyway.
> The issue isn't with being forced to use social media, it's being forced to use only facebook's network.
Yes it is, read the article. The report states that regulators take issue with the fact that users have to log into an account that has nothing to do with gaming in order to use a gaming product.
This isn’t about using one social media network over another, it’s about requiring users to hand over personal consumer data in order to use a product that has no reason not to function without it.
Yes it is, read the article. The report states that regulators take issue with the fact that users have to log into an account that has nothing to do with gaming in order to use a gaming product.
This isn’t about using one social media network over another, it’s about requiring users to hand over personal consumer data in order to use a product that has no reason not to function without it.
>Yes it is, read the article.
Assuming we are talking about the same tiny article, you are oddly confident in your interpretation. The "conditioning access" quote is not directly about Facebook. The 400-page linked document talks about conditioning access in reference to google pushing search use via its android apps, analogous to what I stated above with facebook pushing their network.
As for the statements specifically about Facebook which the linked article did quote, they describe Facebook doing exactly what I said is the problem, namely not allowing competitors to use its platform.
Assuming we are talking about the same tiny article, you are oddly confident in your interpretation. The "conditioning access" quote is not directly about Facebook. The 400-page linked document talks about conditioning access in reference to google pushing search use via its android apps, analogous to what I stated above with facebook pushing their network.
As for the statements specifically about Facebook which the linked article did quote, they describe Facebook doing exactly what I said is the problem, namely not allowing competitors to use its platform.
Isn't that quote also the exact thing Apple and Google are doing by forcing a payment processor on people publishing apps to their app stores?
(which I also think is a behaviour that should be stopped)
(which I also think is a behaviour that should be stopped)
What if they sold it as "Facebook Oculus"?
That wouldn’t change anything.
The issue is that Oculus is a gaming platform, and gaming platforms don’t need social media data to play games. It’s an arbitrary requirement that has no practical function beyond collecting user data.
Imagine needing to log into Facebook in order to use your TV, refrigerator, etc. This is what regulators are trying to get ahead of.
The issue is that Oculus is a gaming platform, and gaming platforms don’t need social media data to play games. It’s an arbitrary requirement that has no practical function beyond collecting user data.
Imagine needing to log into Facebook in order to use your TV, refrigerator, etc. This is what regulators are trying to get ahead of.
> This is what regulators are trying to get ahead of.
Hasn't the exact same thing been happening already for a long time with Google accounts?
Hasn't the exact same thing been happening already for a long time with Google accounts?
The Xbox requires that you have a Microsoft account, right? This seems like an inconvenience but I have a hard time understanding why it’s worth Congress’s time. Isn’t the world full of products that have to be registered by making an account in some system or another?
I guess I could understand if somebody didn’t have internet access and wants to use Oculus, but they wouldn’t be able to download any games either even if no account was required. The complaint seems like more of an ideological thing against Facebook, but I’m attempting to take it at face value.
I guess I could understand if somebody didn’t have internet access and wants to use Oculus, but they wouldn’t be able to download any games either even if no account was required. The complaint seems like more of an ideological thing against Facebook, but I’m attempting to take it at face value.
The difference is that a Microsoft account is just a username and password used to log in to various Microsoft owned services - there's little baggage attached to it otherwise.
In comparison a Facebook account is directly tied to a specific Facebook (the company) owned service - Facebook (the application). You can't just create a Facebook login, you have to also create a (public by default) Facebook profile, probably use your real name and photo to avoid it being banned etc.
Facebook could fix this by letting you create a Facebook (the company) account which is just a username and password, and maybe an email for account recovery reasons. This account would then be used for logging in to all of Facebooks services, Facebook (the application) and Oculus included, while not actually requiring you to ever create a Facebook (the application) profile unless you wanted to.
In comparison a Facebook account is directly tied to a specific Facebook (the company) owned service - Facebook (the application). You can't just create a Facebook login, you have to also create a (public by default) Facebook profile, probably use your real name and photo to avoid it being banned etc.
Facebook could fix this by letting you create a Facebook (the company) account which is just a username and password, and maybe an email for account recovery reasons. This account would then be used for logging in to all of Facebooks services, Facebook (the application) and Oculus included, while not actually requiring you to ever create a Facebook (the application) profile unless you wanted to.
if the shit hits the fan enough with this Congress report, I bet that's what they'll do.
Probably they didn't do it yet for (a) keeping the status quo is more profitable and/or (b) it's going to be a huge architectural change
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe microsoft doesn't care if you have multiple accounts while facebook will ban "non real" accounts.
This is the part that makes it anticompetitive, I would imagine.
This is the part that makes it anticompetitive, I would imagine.
Na it's about deviation of flow of attention AFTER the product has already been acquired and UNNECESSARY to the core function of the product.
The anticompetitive part refers to social VR. Today we have multiple social VR apps (Rec Room, Altspace, Bigscreen and more). While Facebook aims to be a big player in social VR they're not there yet; their Facebook Horizons app is still in closed beta.
Requiring a Facebook login to use the Quest puts the competition at an immediate disadvantage, as they'll have to use their own login or submit to Facebook login as well, often at the cost of cross-platform compatibility. Onboarding friction will always be less with the app where you already have an account.
Facebook told Bigscreen developers to join Facebook or "be crushed": https://twitter.com/DShankar/status/1295825809496629248
Requiring a Facebook login to use the Quest puts the competition at an immediate disadvantage, as they'll have to use their own login or submit to Facebook login as well, often at the cost of cross-platform compatibility. Onboarding friction will always be less with the app where you already have an account.
Facebook told Bigscreen developers to join Facebook or "be crushed": https://twitter.com/DShankar/status/1295825809496629248
I'm not sure what about that has to do with competition.
Feed me, Seymour!
But seriously what a dark pattern and just like Little Shop of Horrors feeding the beast really doesn't benefit you. This is exactly why I never purchased an Oculus: because the price of entry for playing a VR game is too high.
But seriously what a dark pattern and just like Little Shop of Horrors feeding the beast really doesn't benefit you. This is exactly why I never purchased an Oculus: because the price of entry for playing a VR game is too high.
In principle I would say you are right, but it is actually a far greater hassle to make (or keep) a facebook account than some generic account.
Have you actually had problems making/keeping a Facebook account? I have several throwaways which continue to work fine.
I tried making one a year or two ago. When it asked for a phone number I gave a throwaway. Turns out they verify you have control of the number, so next I tried some VoIP digits. Facebook knows which blocks are owned by the larger VoIP companies and requested a _real_ phone number this time. So...I went out and bought a damned phone so that I'd have a phone number to make this bloody account. I verified that I could make and receive calls and started their registration flow again to be blocked by some other kind of BS (I think they thought the number was still in a VoIP block...guess that misfeature isn't perfect?). Anyway, it wasn't thaat important to me, so I gave up and haven't tried again since.
Try being an actual account with a Native American name. Facebook likes to randomly ban them accusing the owner of using a fake name. So, yeah, people around here sometimes have problems keeping an account.
I have created accounts that got immediately locked the same day. I have also had accounts that got locked about 2 months in.
I had an experience with Facebook locking my account once, and I came to suspect that they were doing it to punish me for logging in on a mobile browser to promote the app. The UX really seemed to be designed to be painful - interfaces where the buttons were just out of reach unless you scrolled a particular way, scary language implying it was unsafe to use the site that way. I felt like someone was getting a bonus based on how many people they could push off the browser into using the app.
I have had mine locked in the past. Obviously facebook has some system that is locking accounts because so many people have faced this issue
Facebook is in the business of tracking user activities and then showing them ads to change their consumer behavior. I will not be surprised if facebook starts showing ads in the game.
Also VR is not only for games. It can be used for remote meetings, design, tourism etc. VR is a different way to work and consume content.
Also VR is not only for games. It can be used for remote meetings, design, tourism etc. VR is a different way to work and consume content.
Agreed, we need to be railing against all of this unnecessary account bullshit. Hardware devices need to function as hardware, and not software-based extensions of corporate control.
I own an Oculus Quest. I do not have a Facebook account, nor will I get one. For me, this will eventually deprive me of a product I bought and enjoy once they start enforcing it.
It’s an attempt to force people like me to use another product of theirs so they can extract value from me.
It’s an attempt to force people like me to use another product of theirs so they can extract value from me.
from an antitrust perspective, it's because facebook is using oculus to push its other product (facebook) and profit from the tracking information. It's similar to MS using windows to push an unrelated program (internet explorer). Creating an xbox account doesnt seem to affect the MS Office revenue or damage competition
Does the Xbox stop working if your Microsoft account gets banned?
Nope but your console might get banned from xbox live in certain cases (all consoles have similar).
To an extent, yes https://www.reddit.com/r/xboxinsiders/comments/cj5b0a/what_h...
I skimmed this, but this goes over getting banned from Xbox Live, the network service, not a system that prevents you from using the console
It also covers your ability to use the console itself. It seems reasonably fair.
tl;dr The banned account can still play games in offline mode but can't re-download them since this is done through the XBox Live service. Other users of that XBox can do everything as normal including play and re-download games that were installed by the banned account.
tl;dr The banned account can still play games in offline mode but can't re-download them since this is done through the XBox Live service. Other users of that XBox can do everything as normal including play and re-download games that were installed by the banned account.
[deleted]
I think xbox shouldn't require an account either.
Xbox Live is a Microsoft service that requires an account, you don't need an Xbox Live account to use the Xbox.
I tried to look this up, and I found people saying you don’t need an Xbox Live account, but you still need a Microsoft account. Would appreciate any authoritative source that can answer the question.
You need a Microsoft account to do anything with an Xbox One or Xbox Series, including playing offline games. If you don't have one, you get a series of prompts to create one. Doesn't need to be linked to anything, not even an email.
If this is being used to bypass a ban, the console will get banned.
If this is being used to bypass a ban, the console will get banned.
Isn't the accessory line pretty blurred with a device like the Apple Watch? The Apple Watch is about as powerful as computers from the 2000s (if not even more recently)[1] & has it's own line of accessories [2], & has its own cellular & WiFi connections. In theory Apple could make setup not require an iPhone if they wanted & even allow wireless displays. Smartwatches really are more companion devices that are tethered to phones to speed up the setup/input process & the phone acts like a smarter virtual display.
[1] Can't find the speed of the latest one but the S5 is a 64-bit dual-core 2.4 Ghz CPU (I think the S6 is 20% faster than that?) with 1 GB of RAM & 32GB of storage. That's a pretty hefty device & will eventually consume a lot of needs for a phone. [2] https://www.apple.com/shop/watch/watch-accessories
[1] Can't find the speed of the latest one but the S5 is a 64-bit dual-core 2.4 Ghz CPU (I think the S6 is 20% faster than that?) with 1 GB of RAM & 32GB of storage. That's a pretty hefty device & will eventually consume a lot of needs for a phone. [2] https://www.apple.com/shop/watch/watch-accessories
I believe Apple is already heading in the direction of independent watches. The latest update lets you set up a new watch for family members that don’t have an iPhone. After the setup it will function independently. Right now it’s mostly meant for kids.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211768
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211768
Ah. This is my bad then. My last experience was with the 360. I did not know they changed it with the One.
It seems to me that the fundamental difference between this and other platforms that require login is this: for Facebook, having an account is the product. Facebook has designed everything about the Facebook experience to funnel users from registration to "engagement," and this is their main line of business and revenue source. Anything Facebook does to require someone to have an account is also forcing them to be a customer of their principle product.
The same situation doesn't really apply to Microsoft or Apple. No doubt there are examples of both trying to monetize account holders (e.g. cross-promotion of products) but neither of them views the "having an account experience" as being the product. You don't "sign up for Microsoft" in the sense that you sign up for Facebook, the account is not a feature but just a tool for providing identity to various products.
This lets Microsoft and Apple make a far stronger argument that requiring an account to use a product is just a technical aspect of the working of the product. Facebook would find it extremely challenging to make this same argument. Google might find itself in a position that is more of an awkward in-between, except for basically all of their attempts at either generalized social media or meaningfully unifying the social aspects of their products have failed, so if they're trying to funnel Google Docs users into being YouTube users they're at least miserably bad at it.
The same situation doesn't really apply to Microsoft or Apple. No doubt there are examples of both trying to monetize account holders (e.g. cross-promotion of products) but neither of them views the "having an account experience" as being the product. You don't "sign up for Microsoft" in the sense that you sign up for Facebook, the account is not a feature but just a tool for providing identity to various products.
This lets Microsoft and Apple make a far stronger argument that requiring an account to use a product is just a technical aspect of the working of the product. Facebook would find it extremely challenging to make this same argument. Google might find itself in a position that is more of an awkward in-between, except for basically all of their attempts at either generalized social media or meaningfully unifying the social aspects of their products have failed, so if they're trying to funnel Google Docs users into being YouTube users they're at least miserably bad at it.
There is already a concept of Oculus account that works well, created mine in 2013. Linking this Oculus account to a Facebook account should be an option for people that are interested in using social aspects of VR, access to that link should be a permission grantable on a per-application basis.
Since there is already an account system that works it's impossible and bad faith for them to pretend it's mandatory to use a different product accounts.
Why can't they keep their hands away like for Instagram and Whatsapp?
Since there is already an account system that works it's impossible and bad faith for them to pretend it's mandatory to use a different product accounts.
Why can't they keep their hands away like for Instagram and Whatsapp?
I expect a class action lawsuit will be filed over this if it hasn't already. Requiring the use of a Facebook account in order to access a VR headset is a pretty clear case of tying, especially since this policy changed after Oculus customers had already bought their headsets.
I think Quest 2 will be extremely influential device and this decision will shape the market for years to come. The Quest 2 is important because it's being mass-produced at very affordable retail price. It will be the first and most impactfull VR experience for huge amount of people. I only have experience with Quest 1, but it's already apparent that Q2 is improvement in every way while being noticeably cheaper. Q1 was out of stock for most of it's product lifetime. BTW I'm enjoying Q1 quite a lot. It is an open Android platform with no DRM and good support for independent developers.
The VR is merely a playground for AR. A really tiny market that's brewing technology for the post-smartphone revolution. The AR hardware might be some years from now but there are already huge investments in software platform and social features. There are only two relevant competitors: FB with cheap and excellent consumer headset you can buy today, and Apple working on next big thing in shroud of mystery. FB vision is obvious. They want to collect more of your data and also control what you constantly see in AR. Part of this is forcing you to use the FB account that was verified to belong to you, forcing you to give up on your privacy right from start. This translates to enormous amount of marketing money, but also to shaping opinions and controlling emotions. Next generation will likely have eye tracking which will make privacy invasion so much worse, as our eye movement is mostly subconscious and reveals our interests and affinities.
Many of us are sceptical of our smartphones working against us, tracking location and actions. Imagine a device mere centimetres from your brain doing the same, but having also access to eye movements and maybe EEG readings. If FB manages to convince general population that lack of privacy is in best of their interest, we'll have some dire times ahead of us.
The VR is merely a playground for AR. A really tiny market that's brewing technology for the post-smartphone revolution. The AR hardware might be some years from now but there are already huge investments in software platform and social features. There are only two relevant competitors: FB with cheap and excellent consumer headset you can buy today, and Apple working on next big thing in shroud of mystery. FB vision is obvious. They want to collect more of your data and also control what you constantly see in AR. Part of this is forcing you to use the FB account that was verified to belong to you, forcing you to give up on your privacy right from start. This translates to enormous amount of marketing money, but also to shaping opinions and controlling emotions. Next generation will likely have eye tracking which will make privacy invasion so much worse, as our eye movement is mostly subconscious and reveals our interests and affinities.
Many of us are sceptical of our smartphones working against us, tracking location and actions. Imagine a device mere centimetres from your brain doing the same, but having also access to eye movements and maybe EEG readings. If FB manages to convince general population that lack of privacy is in best of their interest, we'll have some dire times ahead of us.
VR has been a nice toy but the acceptance and content was underwhelming. I own a quest 1 since I impulse bought it in retail. After finding out what it was I ordered a rift s which I use more frequently. The software package is actually decent, but the lock-in is repulsive.
With facebooks decision both devices will certainly be scraped soon.
I probably need to make sure my oculus account isn't automatically migrated...
To be honest I think the current VR trend died like the last ones, maybe it was a bit more successful. The devices and the experience are nice at first, but not suitable for prolonged use.
I think AR is a complete separate technology that has some overlapping problems, but are still too different to make a prediction.
I think VR would have been more successful if we had a common base for different devices. My believe in tech dystopia is severely dampened if it relies on VR.
With facebooks decision both devices will certainly be scraped soon.
I probably need to make sure my oculus account isn't automatically migrated...
To be honest I think the current VR trend died like the last ones, maybe it was a bit more successful. The devices and the experience are nice at first, but not suitable for prolonged use.
I think AR is a complete separate technology that has some overlapping problems, but are still too different to make a prediction.
I think VR would have been more successful if we had a common base for different devices. My believe in tech dystopia is severely dampened if it relies on VR.
The Facebook Reality Lab is on brink of consumer AR hardware. Q1 has functional "passthrough" mode with 3D content superimposed. Browsing internet with just hand tracking and the camera feed in background is decent AR experience already. Meanwhile FB is actively researching efficient text entry methods based on hand pinching and gestures [1].
I agree that this generation is not comfortable for prolonged use. FB has a prototype of AR sunglasses with monochromatic screens [2]. They've teamed up with Luxxotica to produce AR sunglasses for 2021 [3].
They have team of people wearing experimental AR headsets walking around public spaces, gathering data and working around legal issues [4]. It all seems to be building towards converging point of widespread AR availability that I would say is 2 to 5 years in future.
[1] https://uploadvr.com/frl-pinchtype-ar-vr-keyboard/ [2] https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-facebook-ultra-thin-vr-e... [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/zuckerberg-facebook-to-relea... [4] https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-project-aria-is-test-driv...
I agree that this generation is not comfortable for prolonged use. FB has a prototype of AR sunglasses with monochromatic screens [2]. They've teamed up with Luxxotica to produce AR sunglasses for 2021 [3].
They have team of people wearing experimental AR headsets walking around public spaces, gathering data and working around legal issues [4]. It all seems to be building towards converging point of widespread AR availability that I would say is 2 to 5 years in future.
[1] https://uploadvr.com/frl-pinchtype-ar-vr-keyboard/ [2] https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-facebook-ultra-thin-vr-e... [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/zuckerberg-facebook-to-relea... [4] https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-project-aria-is-test-driv...
The problem with antitrust enforcement w/ Big Tech will be users actually want vertical integration in a lot of contexts. And this vertical integration aligns consumers with the large tech companies in a way that hasn't been true with previous antitrust cases.
Yes we could have more open standards, but the cartesian product of every integration eventually doesn't scale. What Microsoft did with Windows in this regard in the PC ecosystem is actually quite phenomenal
But I know my Airpods will integrate seamlessly with my iPhone, which integrates seamlessly with my Apple Watch, etc in a way that's clearly very intentional, works, and saves endless headaches. I also know that there's entire companies going out of business because a company like Apple will gobble up prominent accessory markets.
Yes we could have more open standards, but the cartesian product of every integration eventually doesn't scale. What Microsoft did with Windows in this regard in the PC ecosystem is actually quite phenomenal
But I know my Airpods will integrate seamlessly with my iPhone, which integrates seamlessly with my Apple Watch, etc in a way that's clearly very intentional, works, and saves endless headaches. I also know that there's entire companies going out of business because a company like Apple will gobble up prominent accessory markets.
I think you're conflating "able to do" vertical integration with "must do" there, fwiw.
If you want to use the apple watch you must have an iphone, which somehow seems worse: https://www.imore.com/can-you-use-your-apple-watch-your-andr...
It doesn't seem worse to me. Apple is free to make and sell accessories for its own hardware products. It would be a problem if Apple sold its smart watch while also breaking iPhone's compatibility with third party smart watches.
It's also a problem that Apple sells its own phones while breaking the Apple Watch's compatibility with other phones.
They never did that. “Breaking” implies it was ever there to begin with.
The result is exactly the same.
Whether it is or not, it’s fundamentally useful to use accurate language or people will dismiss your underlying point because of the dishonest premise.
It's fundamentally useless to nitpick like that and accuse someone of dishonesty for glancing over irrelevant details.
Critically, if I want to use a smartwatch with an iPhone, I’m not limited to the Apple Watch.
But the analogy here is that if you buy Apple Watch, it is reasonable that it is tied tk iPhone.
just like you are buying oculus quest knowing that it is tied to FB
just like you are buying oculus quest knowing that it is tied to FB
I don't own any Apple products personally but I would say that the difference is that an Apple Watch is specifically sold as an accessory to your iPhone. You wouldn't, for example, buy an X-Box controller and expect it to work with a Playstation.
On the other hand, the Oculus is not an accessory to Facebook it is a platform for playing games.
People had no problem with tying their Oculus to an account, to manage their purchases, etc.., but people do have a problem with being forced to have it tied to a social media account.
I would say the difference here is that when we create a social media account we know, to a degree, that we are making a Faustian pact to have our data harvested in exchange for free services. But the Oculus is actually purchased with real money so we don't expect to have our privacy violated so the company can make even more money off us by harvesting our personal data.
On the other hand, the Oculus is not an accessory to Facebook it is a platform for playing games.
People had no problem with tying their Oculus to an account, to manage their purchases, etc.., but people do have a problem with being forced to have it tied to a social media account.
I would say the difference here is that when we create a social media account we know, to a degree, that we are making a Faustian pact to have our data harvested in exchange for free services. But the Oculus is actually purchased with real money so we don't expect to have our privacy violated so the company can make even more money off us by harvesting our personal data.
There are legitimate and practical reasons for tying an Apple Watch (hardware) to an iPhone (hardware).
You can also use both without an Apple account.
As an analogy, this is like Geico insurance requiring you to sign up for a United MileagePlus account because Berkshire Hathway owns both (hypothetically).
You can also use both without an Apple account.
As an analogy, this is like Geico insurance requiring you to sign up for a United MileagePlus account because Berkshire Hathway owns both (hypothetically).
Critically, as an Apple Watch owner, if I want to buy a different phone I will lose access to my watch. Which is the situation I’m actually in right now. I hope it’s clear why this is anticompetitive.
The watch has been a disappointment anyway, so once this phone craps out they are both gone.
The watch has been a disappointment anyway, so once this phone craps out they are both gone.
Vertical integration already existed before they decided to force people to log in. You could already log in using your Facebook account. I just don't want to be forced to do so.
Don't buy one?
I bought one before facebook made the announcement. But thanks for the flippant comment.
So a facebook account isn't required
For now
https://twitter.com/oculus/status/1295769342034849792 https://www.oculus.com/blog/a-single-way-to-log-into-oculus-...
> After January 1, 2023, we will end support for Oculus accounts. If you choose not to merge your accounts at that time, you can continue using your device, but full functionality will require a Facebook account. We will take steps to allow you to keep using content you have purchased, though we expect some games and apps may no longer work. This could be because they include features that require a Facebook account or because a developer has chosen to no longer support the app or game you purchased.
There is a two year grace period, after which everyone will be required to use a facebook account or have the hardware they own retroactively handicapped.
https://twitter.com/oculus/status/1295769342034849792 https://www.oculus.com/blog/a-single-way-to-log-into-oculus-...
> After January 1, 2023, we will end support for Oculus accounts. If you choose not to merge your accounts at that time, you can continue using your device, but full functionality will require a Facebook account. We will take steps to allow you to keep using content you have purchased, though we expect some games and apps may no longer work. This could be because they include features that require a Facebook account or because a developer has chosen to no longer support the app or game you purchased.
There is a two year grace period, after which everyone will be required to use a facebook account or have the hardware they own retroactively handicapped.
Are you going to keep making uninformed comments? They are going to eventually force owners of oculus devices purchased before this policy to log in.
They are retroactively forcing people to do so.
I worked at a company many years ago and one of my coworkers used to work at microsoft.
we were talking about some technical thing and I said - Yeah, microsoft broke <some feature> but they don't know what every company is doing and you get a young programmer in there and he just has to get somethign done...
My friend said - don't be naive. microsoft has meetings... How can we own this? and they devise strategies.
I think the strategy is seamless integration for us AND screwed up standards that make it hard for others to seamlessly integrate. Maybe it's a proprietary standard, maybe it's a "security" certificate, maybe it's a "quality gate", maybe it's dark patterns, maybe it's a hard login requirement (that's harder with GDPR).
You should read the halloween documents.
The end result is -- you the customer will get fewer, more expensive, less private choices in the end.
we were talking about some technical thing and I said - Yeah, microsoft broke <some feature> but they don't know what every company is doing and you get a young programmer in there and he just has to get somethign done...
My friend said - don't be naive. microsoft has meetings... How can we own this? and they devise strategies.
I think the strategy is seamless integration for us AND screwed up standards that make it hard for others to seamlessly integrate. Maybe it's a proprietary standard, maybe it's a "security" certificate, maybe it's a "quality gate", maybe it's dark patterns, maybe it's a hard login requirement (that's harder with GDPR).
You should read the halloween documents.
The end result is -- you the customer will get fewer, more expensive, less private choices in the end.
How do you have any clue what users want? How are you confident that what you value is what others value? I suspect most people are informed what they want via commercials and would probably be open to other ways of integrating electronics and services than the ones beneficial to the few players we all know and use.
Let's just be glad Facebook didn't buy NVIDIA or something. Imagine having to have a social media account in order to get display drivers working so you can see your screen. This is absolutely bonkers and should not be acceptable.
All they had to do was grandfather in existing accounts and most of this would not be happening. Not that I am suggesting that would not be evil, but honestly, I do not understand why they did not just say, "if you bought your headset under our original terms and conditions, you can use it forever that way".
That would be the minimum but why should I create a Facebook account to use new Oculus VR headsets? You can use the device without installing any social applications. Nothing mandates anything more than a basic Oculus account.
I was very excited about the Oculus Quest, was considering buying it and suddenly the Oculus Quest 2 came up. Then I dug deeper and I saw I needed a facebook account (which I don't have nor want).
So because I don't have a FB account Oculus/Facebook has lost hundreds of dollars for me. How does that even make sense?
So because I don't have a FB account Oculus/Facebook has lost hundreds of dollars for me. How does that even make sense?
To facebook? They don't care about those few hundred of dollars from you, they want to advertise to you. So either you get a FB account and they can, or you don't - and they hope that sooner or later you will succumb.
Because you don't want a FB account, you missed out on an incredible VR experience. How does that even make sense?
It is fun but not worth integrating Facebook into your life. Better use the alternatives. Sadly I own 2 devices from oculus. Will use them until they don't work anymore and then they are headed to scrap. Would have a bad conscience selling the devices and maybe that doesn't even work.
I'm also looking forward to alternatives. Pico VR seems to be the only standalone headset? Don't worry about selling them, there were no reported problems with switching Quest/Rift to a different account.
I still expect existing devices will continue to work with Oculus account. The FB account will be required for slew of upcoming social features, like using same avatar across different games, group of people moving between games, the Horizon and other social content... If they make existing HW unusable without switching to FB account, they would face class-action lawsuit and media backlash. I think they want to self-regulate as much as possible so they'll try to avoid those pesky court rulings.
As for your original question, FB doesn't care about few hundered dollars across few tens of thousand users that are reluctant to switch to FB accounts. They are playing the long game of becoming the only relevant player in VR/AR market.
I still expect existing devices will continue to work with Oculus account. The FB account will be required for slew of upcoming social features, like using same avatar across different games, group of people moving between games, the Horizon and other social content... If they make existing HW unusable without switching to FB account, they would face class-action lawsuit and media backlash. I think they want to self-regulate as much as possible so they'll try to avoid those pesky court rulings.
As for your original question, FB doesn't care about few hundered dollars across few tens of thousand users that are reluctant to switch to FB accounts. They are playing the long game of becoming the only relevant player in VR/AR market.
They need users more than users need them.
That's how it makes sense.
That's how it makes sense.
I pre ordered one then realized the fb login requirement and cancelled it. Wonder how many are in the same boat.
I'm in the market for a VR headset and Oculus tech seems to be the best right now but because of this I'll be waiting for whatever upgrades other companies release next year.
It is by no stretch "the best" in a technical sense. Its just the cheapest, mainly because you do not pay all the price up front. You ARE the product! The hardware of standalone VR is so limited that you are better off going with PCVR for at least 5 years.
Same here, I was really excited for this. But the FB requirement is stupid, now I’ll wait for other players to catch up.
I'm sure there are a bunch in the same boat. I owned Oculus' DK1 and DK2, but when I thought through what FB owning Oculus meant, I cancelled my original Rift preorder and bought a Vive instead.
More recently, my resolve against letting FB get their data proboscis into my life was weakening with the Quest 2 launch. Fortunately, they came up with that forceful reminder of why I made that decision in the first place.
More recently, my resolve against letting FB get their data proboscis into my life was weakening with the Quest 2 launch. Fortunately, they came up with that forceful reminder of why I made that decision in the first place.
I know what you mean. I have no problem owning and using a Facebook account, but that's my choice and I choose what to share. I don't know about you but when I first heard that Facebook had acquired Oculus my first thought was something along the lines of "Oh FFS".
In my opinion, if I pay money for a product I don't expect to have my privacy violated so I can be further monetised. The point of a Facebook account is I have made a deal that I will allow information about my use of the product to be used as payment for the product. That is not the case for something I have already paid for.
In my opinion, if I pay money for a product I don't expect to have my privacy violated so I can be further monetised. The point of a Facebook account is I have made a deal that I will allow information about my use of the product to be used as payment for the product. That is not the case for something I have already paid for.
If you enable wifi during Win10 installation (haven't tested otherwise), it requires you to provide a valid Microsoft account (Outlook, Skype, ...) to install Windows.
I don't see how this is different from OP.
Windows even tells you it supports local logins, but to put in a valid Skype account first or whatever so you can complete the installation before opting into a local logic.
I shouldn't need to give my Skype or Outlook credentials to install an OS.
I don't see how this is different from OP.
Windows even tells you it supports local logins, but to put in a valid Skype account first or whatever so you can complete the installation before opting into a local logic.
I shouldn't need to give my Skype or Outlook credentials to install an OS.
Really? I just clicked "skip".
I can confirm this, I recently (within the last month) had to reinstall Windows 10 and was forced to create an account.
But I was able to bypass by putting obviously fake credentials (like [email protected] or something similar) and only when it didn't work got the option to create a local account.
But I was able to bypass by putting obviously fake credentials (like [email protected] or something similar) and only when it didn't work got the option to create a local account.
Hilariously, if it's a work computer, and your employer uses office365 for email, etc, those accounts don't work.
Hmm, Xbox/Microsoft, Google/Android, even Apple/iOS... this will be interesting if courts actually back this up at all.
There is a fundamental difference which is that none of those auth methods require you to provide photos, government id, real names, real birthdays, etc. Facebook does. If they spun out their auth as a separate service and didn’t require handing over all your private information, things might be different.
But generally the tide is turning against vertical integration, as it should. Companies using their vast wealth from one industry to then provide free products in another (just until competitors go under) is far too common, as is chaining people to products because they have a product from another category.
But generally the tide is turning against vertical integration, as it should. Companies using their vast wealth from one industry to then provide free products in another (just until competitors go under) is far too common, as is chaining people to products because they have a product from another category.
Windows/Microsoft
Hahaha, it sure is. In the sense that a lot of ppl will not even consider picking up Oculus because of this requirement, which would make it the opposite of competitive — anticompetitive.
it's a joke
it's a joke
I think not forcing Facebook login will speed up adoption of VR and will benefit Facebook in the long run anyway.
Source: my brother in law this weekend was going to buy an Oculus Quest 2 after I showed him my Oculus Quest 1. But the Facebook login requirement gave him pause.
There’s a lot of intersection between early adopters and people consciously not on Facebook (maybe on other Facebook properties but not Facebook itself).
Source: my brother in law this weekend was going to buy an Oculus Quest 2 after I showed him my Oculus Quest 1. But the Facebook login requirement gave him pause.
There’s a lot of intersection between early adopters and people consciously not on Facebook (maybe on other Facebook properties but not Facebook itself).
The biggest reason imho is that the entire enterprise market is going to eschew these since they cannot ask their employees to log into personal Facebook accounts. Throwing out the whole enterprise business market for this is insanity in my view. Facebook has a real chance here to be the owner of the next, possibly last great computing platform - but not if they hobble themselves like that.
"the Oculus for Business platform uses a separate login process that will remain unchanged."
Will facebook censure my political speech on VR between now and the election?
I don't understand why Oculus, being owned by Facebook, should not be allowed to require a Facebook login. I don't like it much, but it is their company. They invested shitloads of money in it, too.
It's also not the only VR headset in town.
It's also not the only VR headset in town.
> It's also not the only VR headset in town.
It is the only standalone VR headset in town that’s 1) currently supported and 2) available/affordable for individuals.
It is the only standalone VR headset in town that’s 1) currently supported and 2) available/affordable for individuals.
Affordable because Facebook is subsidizing it with a shitload of money. I don't think that is a good case for demanding independence from Facebook.
Also, then don't go standalone. Yeah it's a nice feature. Facebook paid for it.
Also, then don't go standalone. Yeah it's a nice feature. Facebook paid for it.
How is this any different than the iPhone and Apple Id?
The Apple ID isn’t a separate business that you are being forced to use if you want to use your iPhone.
Imagine Apple owned Comcast and required you to have a Comcast account to use your iPhone. That’s what they’re mad about here.
Imagine Apple owned Comcast and required you to have a Comcast account to use your iPhone. That’s what they’re mad about here.
I think one of the key differentiators is that an Apple ID isn’t required to use an iPhone. There are other differences, but I believe this is the main relevant one.
> conditioning access to a product or service in which a firm has market power to the use of a separate product or service is anticompetitive
Is the house committee arguing Facebook is a monopoly in....VR? From the stats I found Oculus has a 20-30% share.
I don’t like the Facebook requirement for Oculus, but not everything I don’t lime constitutes a monopoly.
Other have commented that the house assumes what it sets out to prove. You’d first have to show market power to make this kind of analysis.
Is the house committee arguing Facebook is a monopoly in....VR? From the stats I found Oculus has a 20-30% share.
I don’t like the Facebook requirement for Oculus, but not everything I don’t lime constitutes a monopoly.
Other have commented that the house assumes what it sets out to prove. You’d first have to show market power to make this kind of analysis.
The complaint does not require a monopoly on either side. It formalizes the reason you don't like the FB login requirement.
It is abuse of market power on both sides of the FB/Oculus coin to enforce use of their ecosystem. The market power of FB is obvious, so even if they are using it only to drive a few more ppl to create FB accts by buying Oculus, it is an abuse. Doesn't require Oculus to have much power.
Considering FB & Zuckerberg's long history of abusing privacy, predating even Facebook back to Facemash (which scraped Harvard students' photos from an online directory and set students to rank for hotness), and then Zuck either saying "sorry" or attempting to rewrite history, it seems the House is on the right track here.
It is abuse of market power on both sides of the FB/Oculus coin to enforce use of their ecosystem. The market power of FB is obvious, so even if they are using it only to drive a few more ppl to create FB accts by buying Oculus, it is an abuse. Doesn't require Oculus to have much power.
Considering FB & Zuckerberg's long history of abusing privacy, predating even Facebook back to Facemash (which scraped Harvard students' photos from an online directory and set students to rank for hotness), and then Zuck either saying "sorry" or attempting to rewrite history, it seems the House is on the right track here.
That seems absurd! You can't use Alexa without Amazon, Chromecast without Google, iWatch without Apple. Why can't Facebook make a headset that requires Facebook?
Here is the analogy. A Google account is like a costco membership. You sign up for it but just the membership alone doesn't do much. To benefit you have to go to costco and explicitly choose which products you want to buy and use. If you want to use Google search you're not forced to use Google Docs.
A Facebook account is a product in its own right. It is essentially what would be sitting on costco's shelves. Imagine if you buy a console and then during account signup you were asked to buy a bag of doritos and enter the code inside the dorito bag. That's what Facebook is doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
A Facebook account is a product in its own right. It is essentially what would be sitting on costco's shelves. Imagine if you buy a console and then during account signup you were asked to buy a bag of doritos and enter the code inside the dorito bag. That's what Facebook is doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
> Is the house committee arguing Facebook is a monopoly
I believe the phrase right there in the quote you made is "Market power". Being a monopoly is not a requirement for antitrust violations.
I believe the phrase right there in the quote you made is "Market power". Being a monopoly is not a requirement for antitrust violations.
I’m not american, and mispoke. But if you switch out monopoly for market power, I’m not sure it changes the comment. It’s not obvious facebook has inordinate market power in vr.
Which standalone VR headset would you recommend, if one can‘t use a Facebook login?
I personaly use an HTC Vive and haven't had any trouble with it.
Having owned both the original Rift and a Rift-S, and having also tested the original Vive a few times, I wouldn't recommend any headset with such a low resolution.
The difference between 1st- and 2nd-gen headsets (Valve Index, Vive Pro, Rift S) feels like the difference between a 800x600 display and a 1080p display.
The difference between 1st- and 2nd-gen headsets (Valve Index, Vive Pro, Rift S) feels like the difference between a 800x600 display and a 1080p display.
"Standalone" is a nice feature but not a separate product category. Facebook rightly considers Sony, Microsoft, HTC as competing with Oculus.
Standalone absolutely is a separate product cateogory. It's the difference between a computer monitor and an iPad: even though they both have screens, they are different in kind. They target different market segments, have completely different software ecosystems both for end-users and developers, orders of magnitude more R&D requirements, higher switching costs, etc.
It's the difference between a smart TV and a dumb TV. They have different guts but the market is the same.
Major titles like Beat Saber or Half Life Alyx can be played on either standalone or tethered headsets. Facebook offers both under the Oculus brand and positions them together: https://www.oculus.com/compare/
Major titles like Beat Saber or Half Life Alyx can be played on either standalone or tethered headsets. Facebook offers both under the Oculus brand and positions them together: https://www.oculus.com/compare/
Rift S is discontinued, their marketing materials notwitstanding. Half Life Alyx can only be played by a standalone headset if you let a computer run the all the graphics and game logic, similar to how an iPad can be used as a second monitor for Apple devices. It's really quite different from smart/dumb TV.
It's the same. The market is VR gaming. People who want to play VR games choose what headset to buy. Simple as that.
The TV/iPad comparison doesn't work. It's very common to have both a TV and an iPad, but I have yet to meet anyone who has both tethered and untethered VR headsets, and thinks of them as distinct.
The VR market is small and may differentiate in time, like how "mobile" has grown so it's common to have a phone and tablet and laptop. Bringing down the antitrust hammer today seems so premature.
The TV/iPad comparison doesn't work. It's very common to have both a TV and an iPad, but I have yet to meet anyone who has both tethered and untethered VR headsets, and thinks of them as distinct.
The VR market is small and may differentiate in time, like how "mobile" has grown so it's common to have a phone and tablet and laptop. Bringing down the antitrust hammer today seems so premature.
[deleted]
You can make a TV smart for $30. The difference between standalone and tethered headsets is a wide gulf.
But you bought "a TV". Likewise you buy "a VR headset."
TVs all have basically the same capabilities, or you can fix that for a very small amount of money.
VR Headsets don't share that quality, with wired vs. standalone.
An analogy would be having exactly one manufacturer that makes 3D TVs. They have market dominance there; it's not just "a TV".
VR Headsets don't share that quality, with wired vs. standalone.
An analogy would be having exactly one manufacturer that makes 3D TVs. They have market dominance there; it's not just "a TV".
It's the difference between buying a display and a portable VR console.
That's like saying laptops are not a separate product category from desktops... Whatever Sony, Microsoft or HTC are providing is just a display. Oculus Quest is a portable VR console.
I agree they could have formulated this in a better way.
But in the end, I believe this ruling is all about restricting data gathering from Big Tech as much as possible and I also believe that's a good thing.
But in the end, I believe this ruling is all about restricting data gathering from Big Tech as much as possible and I also believe that's a good thing.
[deleted]
Learn the difference between ‘monopoly’ and other aspects of the antitrust laws in general (like ‘tying’) perhaps, before commenting
For tying to matter, don’t you need some sort of market dominance? Facebook doesn’t have that in VR. I think you could switch market power for monopoly in my comment and it would have the same meaning: Oculus doesn’t dominate VR.
Your comment sounds smart but provides no information and isn’t obviously correct.
Your comment sounds smart but provides no information and isn’t obviously correct.
Interesting. I wonder what this means for requiring Login with Apple for things sold on the App Store.
[deleted]
As an Oculus Rift S user I disagree, Facebook (not longer a user for a long time) should be able to require FB login.
I would/will no longer buy an Oculus though.
I would/will no longer buy an Oculus though.
[deleted]
My love for Carmack is only over shadowed by my disdain for facebook.
Of course it is. And so is their purchase of Instagram, Whatsapp, Giphy, and the entire way they've cornered the market with abusive and coercive practices
"The House Antitrust Subcommittee determined Facebook wields monopoly powers in social network and has maintained its position by acquiring, copying or killing its competitors, according to a report released by the subcommittee on Tuesday. "
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/house-antitrust-committee-fa...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/house-antitrust-committee-fa...
annadane(1)
I'm way less concerned about those software platforms being with Facebook. there's plenty of room for competition. gdpr grants decent citizens rights to take their data away.
there is zero escape from this nightmare platform however. hardware we end up forever hard locked into.
there is zero escape from this nightmare platform however. hardware we end up forever hard locked into.
one place I am not sure how I feel is game consoles. microsoft & sony both require accounts to use the mandatory platforms their consoles come with. is this ok? how us this different from Facebook demanding users use the Facebook platform with the Facebook face console?
I think the difference is that the Microsoft and Sony accounts are only used for authentication/account purposes. Facebook accounts are for much more than ensuring you have access to a game or Office, etc. plus, as others have said — you can have different Microsoft/Sony accounts. So you can split your professional and personal lives. This isn’t possible with Facebook.
The Facebook/oculus situation would be like if Microsoft required you to use a LinkedIn account to play the newest version of Halo. That would be equally strange.
The Facebook/oculus situation would be like if Microsoft required you to use a LinkedIn account to play the newest version of Halo. That would be equally strange.
The problem is that Facebook isn't a platform, it is a product. They could have changed that but they didn't.
Are those online platforms now mandatory for consoles? They weren't a few years ago when last I had one.
GDPR might but if such a thing didn't exist Facebook absolutely would dominate the world, which is exactly what they want, sick fucks
While sign in with apple is totally fine. I hate Facebook like any normal person but this is ridiculous.
You can create a throwaway Apple account that has no connection to the rest of your life. You can't do that with Facebook.
Does the report say that? The article doesn't mention it and the report is 449 pages long, so I haven't read it.
I'm not a fan of Facebook, and I don't really have a lot of interest in VR. But I will opine that it's getting a little ridiculous how every other story these days seems to fall back to the argument that everything you don't like must be "anticompetitive".
You don't have to use Facebook. You don't have to use VR technology. These are all voluntary activities that people actively choose to engage in, and are not public utilities. Feel free to walk away from either or both.
It's as if people are complaining that because they bought tickets to their favorite live sports event, they were forced to pay to park their car there too. You don't have to do any of those things.
And aside from that, on the actual anticompetitive argument, does this prevent anyone from coming in to offer their own version of these technologies? Not to my outsider's view.
Just switch it off. Don't let it so dominate your life that you rely on it becoming a federal court case. It's all voluntary. The more we participate in things that others have the opportunity to exert control over, the more it materializes.
You don't have to use Facebook. You don't have to use VR technology. These are all voluntary activities that people actively choose to engage in, and are not public utilities. Feel free to walk away from either or both.
It's as if people are complaining that because they bought tickets to their favorite live sports event, they were forced to pay to park their car there too. You don't have to do any of those things.
And aside from that, on the actual anticompetitive argument, does this prevent anyone from coming in to offer their own version of these technologies? Not to my outsider's view.
Just switch it off. Don't let it so dominate your life that you rely on it becoming a federal court case. It's all voluntary. The more we participate in things that others have the opportunity to exert control over, the more it materializes.
> It's as if people are complaining that because they bought tickets to their favorite live sports event, they were forced to pay to park their car there too. You don't have to do any of those things.
A better example would be people bought tickets to their favorite live sports event, and then were forced to login to facebook before entry.
A better example would be people bought tickets to their favorite live sports event, and then were forced to login to facebook before entry.
> You don't have to use Facebook.
You don't understand what a social network is. It's a natural monopoly.
You don't understand what a social network is. It's a natural monopoly.
I agree with this. I shouldn’t have to have a social media account in order to use a product that isn’t directly related to social media.
Accounts like Microsoft aren’t the same as Facebook IMO because they tie products and services I’ve purchased to my account, which I believe is a reasonable and relevant use of an online account in this context. Facebook doesn’t do any of that, nor does it exist to manage purchases of products or services I’ve made. It exists to siphon personal data about me to serve me ads.
If we’re serious about things like privacy, then we have to be equally serious about corporate attempts to coerce consumers into handing over data to use completely unrelated products. This is absolutely anti-privacy and should be dealt with.