Hacker News Reader

Comment by loeg | Hacker News Reader

No, this would be an Oculus-specific account. There are enough legitimate criticisms of Facebook that we don't have to go around inventing false ones.

Edited to cite the announcement transcript[1]:

> And as we’ve focused more on work, and frankly, as we’ve heard your feedback more broadly, we’re on making it so you can log into Quest with an account other than your personal Facebook account.

> ... I know this is a big deal for a lot of people. Not everyone wants their social media profile linked to all these other experiences.

[1]: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/meta-facebook-connect-2...

View on HN

Why the fuck do I need to log into my monitor?! it's bad enough the driver demands a running application which tries to sell me shit and pushes me into a place I don't want to be at all. It's literally hijacking my computer.

You log into an ipad. What's the difference?

I do not own an iPad. Also... do you really have to? I haven't used an iOS in a little bit now.

Apple is hardly the model for technology we should be using these days. Their walled garden has rotten fruit and it doesn't even get you drunk, you simply fall ill.

You have to if you want to install any software. Even free apps from the app store. No side loading allowed.

A massive network of cross-site tracking and a terrible track record for protecting personal information.

I don't own an iPad, but I flashed my tablet with an Android Open Source Project ROM so that I have the option to not send data to anybody I don't want to.

Is Facebook planning to let us do this? Or are they just changing the brand logo on the login page for their required login?

I use a pin code or thumbprint to unlock my iPad and login to Apples store

I can root it and install alternative store

What alternative software can I run on Occulus?

That and all the extra engineering for managing users for business reasons not technical wastes real resources to prop up a technology company that isn’t interested in novel discovery, but servicing contemporary business obligations

If they’re so smart and capable of pulling useful metadata off unstructured data, why do they need me to maintain a specific profile?

Really kind of feels like they rely on having concrete data and the meta part is marketing

You realize iOS roots are developed by third-party geeks and void your warranty (unless that changed in the years since I've interacted with iOS, but I'd be shocked)? Maybe we should indeed force hardware manufacturers to offer a rooting/open OS option by default, but it's a weird criticism when you start off the comment by licking Apple's boot. Further, Facebook actually does offer to open up your deprecated Oculus Go headset now that they are done with the 2 years of guaranteed support to its devs. As such, people can keep tinkering and keeping it up to date (Carmack's opening remarks yesterday address this) with the help of Facebook. That puts them quite objectively ahead of Apple in this regard, the company which was fined in court [1] for draining older iPhone's batteries and slowing them down thru software updates.

Guaranteed all these people in this thread wouldn't be losing their shit over a hardware account if it wasn't from Facebook's holdco. Forcing a Facebook account was creepy, a dedicated Oculus (well, Meta) account is normal and defensible.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/19/tech/apple-battery-settlement...

> I can root it and install alternative store

Well if you can root an Oculus you can do whatever you want there as well. That's the whole point of... root.

I mean, thats a complete lie. Got anything else?

Oh? The overwhelming majority of people don't log into Apple accounts when setting up their ipads?

Do better.

Heya, I noticed that, in responding, you switched your premise from, "You log into an ipad", to, 'The overwhelming majority of people log into their apple accounts when setting up their ipads'.

Since this is disingenuous on your part, telling the person you responded to, to "do better" seems hypocritical.

I wonder who you think I meant by "you"? Did you assume I specifically know the parent in person and how they use their ipad at home? If so, and I can only assume you did otherwise your comment would be nonsense, I can see how that would be confusing and seem disingenuous to you.

If you're suggesting that by "you", you meant "The overwhelming majority of people who set up ipads", that doesn't sound like a very credible retroactive explanation.

Like, it's confusing for sure, but not on the part of the reader. It doesn't even make sense. Most people don't even _have_ ipads.

And even if they did, you're basically saying, "this small subset of self-selecting people who are okay with their tablet requiring a login to work, are okay with their devices requiring a login to work", which isn't very convincing to others, either.

And even if _that_ made sense, 'these other people are okay with it' is probably one of the weakest possible arguments in favor of /anything/.

> this small subset of self-selecting people who are okay with their tablet requiring a login to work, are okay with their devices requiring a login to work

I'll go ahead and assume English isn't your first language. I was saying the vast majority of people who own ipads are fine with needing to login to an account to get the most out of it. Doesn't seem like a particularly controversial statement.

Now go ahead and find some way in which the above sentence is technically incorrect, but you're starting to look silly.

How does the statement "the vast majority of people who own ipads are fine with needing to log into their device" convince those who do not, and are not?

You can just click the skip button and use an iOS device without any account. Whether or not people want to do this is an entirely different conversation but Apple does not require it.

You do better and stop moving the goalposts and lying.

The Oculus isn’t just a monitor, it’s a complete computer system with its own OS. If you just want a VR headset that is purely a monitor, buy one of those.

And an app store. It obviously needs some kind of login.

I can use an Android or iOS devices without logging into their respective app stores easily, hopefully they allow similar on Oculus.

What would you do with it? Side load apps? The games in the app store are presumably the reason 99% of people buy it.

On android - yes.

Specifically I would sideload fdroid, and then install (free) apps from there since it doesn't need a login.

Or maybe I'd (say, on windows) "sideload" steam, and install apps from there instead of from Oculus.

The idea that the only place I can get apps from is the "official" appstore is ridiculous.

This wouldn't change if it were a store account instead of a device account. Most people use google's play store but this doesn't mean every android device needs a mandatory google account.

Also MacOS and Windows have “App Stores” that you certainly don’t need to be logged into.

The MacOS "App Store" (as in the thing they call the app store, rather than all the other ways you can pay for and install apps) does require you to login. Worse, they block updating the non-os software that came with your computer with logging into that app store.

I agree with OP for regular wired Oculus devices. They are essentially monitors, and I wouldn't expect to have to have an account in order to use a dumb peripheral. For the Quest, you're right, it's more like a computer system with OS, apps, etc. I'd still rather be able to use it without an account, and only create an account if I wanted to interact with online services like apps and games.

Still! why must I log in to simply download an app!? Perhaps publishing an app is a more sensitive matter, then maybe it's worth validating things strictly behind closed doors... but to simply download and use software on a device I own, I can't fathom how we've slipped so far.

> Still! why must I log in to simply download an app!?

You have to pay them, they have to remember you paid them.

Why the fuck do I need to log into my monitor?

Because you bought a system that only has apps from your monitor's app store available, and that means you have to prove who you are to use them.

It's no different to phones, consoles, etc.

> It's no different to phones, consoles, etc.

You can use a Nintendo Switch or an Android phone without an online account.

Not really. Nintendo eShop and Google Play Service will dark pattern you towards having an account in cases where they don't outright require it like DLC expansions to the "physical" cartridge you "bought".

You can't install apps through "normal user" means on the Android phones I've had unless you add an account.

De facto, that means you need an account.

Yes, I know you can try to find copies of your banking apps on apkmirror and sideload, but... no. (Also, wouldn't that mean that you have to manually confirm every single app update, so a 10-minute button pushing session every week?)

You can use via Link with a PC or side load apps, so Oculus apps aren't needed. Since when is it ok that I need an third party account to access my computer?

False, I purchased a VR headset to use with Steam VR (mostly), but I fully expected it to work in a standard way, with understanding to the variations in the handheld controllers.

> Because you bought a system that only has apps from your monitor's app store available, and that means you have to prove who you are to use them.

Blatantly false. You can either play Oculus games (must, if you are playing without PC; basically the app store) or you can connect to PC and play any SteamVR games just like you would with any other headset (supported officially).

So with Quest 2, I get to play both the Oculus-only standalone games made for the headset specifically, as well as any SteamVR games that my friends with other VR headsets might want to play together.

That's silly, you don't.

An oculus is not a monitor, it's an entire game console that includes a screen. Are you this incredulous about having to log in to an iPad or a Switch?

Yes.

Yes, there was a time when we didn't need accounts for every piece of hardware we use.

It is a fact of life that companies will impose more and more profit-maximizing inconveniences upon the customer as long as the customer is willing to accept them. It only stops when enough customers push back.

This is the iPhone-ized future we signed up for!

Does Meta provide a guarantee that data won’t be unified between Facebook and Oculus accounts ever? If not, what is the value of this distinction beyond PR?

Oculus no longer exists. It's Meta, which is The Facebook company.

And just to add a bit more color, Oculus-the-subsidiary became Oculus-the-brand in Sep 2018.

> No, this would be an Oculus-specific account.

Hmm, the statements you posted don’t quite say that.

I guess it’s still possible that users could be required to register a “meta” account which is separate to your personal Facebook account, although you can sign into your personal Facebook account with your meta account via single sign on. I think this would technically meet their wording while also not fulfilling the spirit of what everyone wants.

For instance, you can have a Google account that isn’t linked to your personal Gmail account, because not everyone wants their search history linked to their email - just change Google to Meta, Gmail to Facebook and search history to social media.

> No, this would be an Oculus-specific account.

This is not stated anywhere. I don't see why Facebook couldn't create a Meta SSO that you can use for Facebook and/or Oculus and call it "job done". For them it's a win/win. Most people would choose to "migrate" their Facebook login to Meta. Those annoyed by this could just create a Meta account. Notably there's no mention of whether you'll need to use your real name for logging into Oculus as you do with Facebook. My bet is: probably.

Would Facebook be physically prevented from ever accessing or linking to data on the Metafacebookulus account, ad vice versa?

If not, sounds like a Facebook account by another name.

It's literally the same company, why would it be prevented?

Exactly, so an "Oculus-specific account" would not actually be an account specific to Oculus, it would be a differently-branded Facebook account, too

Because of the security and risk implication of not preventing it. Goldman Sachs is both an investment bank and an asset management firm, literally the same company. However, they have clear protocols in place to separate the two sides because otherwise the opportunities for impropriety are too high. I could see a similar argument for separating Facebook and Oculus accounts.

Sure, but Goldman Sachs business model isn't aggregating and selling data. Facebook's is.

The fact that the two components of an analogy are not the same thing is the point of the analogy. If they were the same thing, the analogy would be useless.

In this specific analogy, the point is, despite having different business models, society benefits from either conglomerate separating their respective two aforementioned business units.

No, their businesses are managing money and taking companies public. They're overall revenue would benefit from aligning those businesses, but they aren't allowed to. They are kept separate because of the risks of having them together. The Facebook scenario is a different (but comparable) situation.

That's FB's claim at the moment and after so many tricks and lies by FB I'm pessimistic. Their contract excuse to circumvent the GDPR does not make them credible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com