Meta Accounts: A New Login for VR
oculus.com
oculus.com
Great. where can I not signup.
Meta has no scruples. They'll try to track everything I do. I will not give them any more of my information if I can help it.
Is there a VR headset out there with inside-out tracking that isn't made by a scummy advertising company?
“We do not have an adequate level of control and explainability over how our systems use data,” Facebook engineers say in leaked document.
If that is the case, does it matter whether you have a separate account or not?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/akvmke/facebook-doesnt-know-...
Your activities and interests on your meta accounts will all be part of the same profile meta keeps on grin your Facebook activity, internet browsing, and anything else they can attach or infer a tracking identity from.
Their "privacy" controls are outward facing - e.g., how your meta account is related to your Facebook profile outside meta, not inside.
This really doesn't seem to be getting to the meat of the matter.
Your neighbor and family may not know that "John Smith" on Facebook is "mariofan#1" playing VR games and "naughty69" doing VR porn, but meta sure will.
Oh who are we kidding. We just can’t trust Meta/FB.
The day Meta bought Oculus they killed the platform for privacy-conscious webizens. I say this as someone who would love to try the Soda Island VR experiences and often lament the acquisition.
They are okay with this, because that a VERY small portion of the population.
Most people couldn't care less about what a company does with their data as long as they provide a good product.
Amongst "normal" people Facebook is simply not a dealbreaker. My real concern with VR adoption is much more that my family simply does not see it as interesting.
I think if privacy laws were to be made that restrict what data the Oculus can snoop, Meta wouldn't raise the price to compensate. They would sell or shelve the entire Oculus brand and endeavor.
VR has little value to Meta other than a way to sneak cameras and microphones into your home. If you've seen what the Kinect could do a decade ago with IR cameras, the Oculus has those. The Kinect could monitor your heart rate in real time and track multiple bodies.
Nobody will be thinking about the Oculus when they pass the laws, but they may be thinking about Echos and Nest cams and pass laws to restrict audio and video snooping. So Oculus is along for the ride even at its current level of irrelevance.
- why would anyone trust Meta/FB on anything they say or trust them with your data
- FB became popular because it was easy to use, it was just about uploading and commenting on photos. I don't see any of my family members buying a VR device and connect in metaverse ... there is no way ..
- I don't think people will ever use VR devices for the sole purpose of having meeting, video works just fine
The metaverse does not make sense, what it makes sense is AR, and Apple will be the one dominating the space.
Because people don't care about what is done with their data, because it doesn't affect them. This is why FB is still the most used social media site in the world despite all the negativity. People just want a good product and that's what FB gives. That why Instagram and WhatsApp are also extremely popular despite being owned by FB. People just don't give a fuck. Google is still by far the most popular search engine despite many people trying to create search engine that don't track you. All of them failed to take any market share from Google because Google gives people a good product compared to the rest and that's all what people care about.
People just want a good product, they don't care how you do it.
In 10 years from now people will be more privacy aware. See how much impact has had the “ask app not to track”. Things will only get worse for companies like FB.
Unless they find a better way to monetize their users, things will only get worse for companies like FB/Meta.
No metaverse will save them.
VR's not gonna be mainstream until after AR is. When decent and non-hideous AR glasses can double as VR devices , that is when it might take off, as a secondary use for those. The current bulky power-sucking ones that look dorky, block your sight, and require a whole lot of open space if you want to use them for much—those are never gonna be mainstream.
You should probably ask the ~4B people that use their services.
Clearly the FB brand is damaged beyond any hope, and this whole metaverse is just a desperate attempt to stay relevant for the next decade. But it is a very long shot.
Had an extensive conversation with my SO this past weekend about the use of VR tech in education. This was spurred by meeting an individual who was promoting VR for k-12 (I’m in USA) education and that “in 5-10 years kids will all go to school virtually with VR”.
Idk the whole thought of VR as a replacement for the “education system” gives me chills. I acknowledge the use of VR tech can be correctly implemented as a “tool” but IMO not a sole replacement for “real world” things.
VR to me just seems like tech searching for a use case rather than actually solving a problem - I personally argue this to be similar to crypto currencies.
Yes, tech in desperate need of a purpose. Today there is none.
Also, most of my family members have a pretty basic usage of smart phones.
But hey, I know nothing, this is just my opinion. Who knows, people are unpredictable.
VR will work for the next generation when children grow up on VR playgrounds because parents can pretend that they don't watch tv all day.
You don't need a phone anymore. An LTE watch and a VR headset are enough for your online activities because the majority of time is spent in VR. If you have to decide between a cheap phone and a cheap VR set or a good VR set because you already have the watch, you will choose the VR set. You won't chose the expensive phone alone, because you need a VR set to interact with your friends.
Once the market accepts VR, regular flats become too expensive and everybody will live in small, windowless apartment that are only bearable when you spent all your time in VR. And since you spent all your time in VR, it's perfectly acceptable to rent a small, windowless apartment.
Take this cringey "demo" from meta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAL2JZxpoGY
It's not possible. It's just not possible with the tech we have or will have any time soon. Start with 35 seconds in. Person on the right is floating legs out. This is impossible. It's possible to render that, but it's impossible to feel like you're floating in that position. We can ignore the presumed motion sickness. The video heavily implies that is her reality. But it's not. We cannot achieve the kind of presence you see in this or other popular things like ready player one. What is she really doing in the real world. Sitting down? Standing up?
Mark says "Whoa, we're floating in space", which is, for the record, so incredibly unimpressive for a digital world but whatever. He is not floating. He will not feel like he's floating. He will need either shitty physics or stupid controllers to move around. Which is fine for a game, but it's not going to set up the scene they're showing here.
They're also nimbly dealing cards with their hands. Good luck building that network replicated physics engine and hand inputs.
Black girl does a backflip. Sure, we can do backflips in games. But she also clearly has a lot of fun doing it. This person really feels like they're doing a backflip. Impossible.
And lastly, looking at abstract shitty visuals is not that interesting!
People can't spend the majority of their time in VR if they're not at home. Everyone can always look at their phone they aren't immediately preoccupied.
My one counter point is from playing Ocarina of Time on my N64: when Link jumps off a high object, my body and brain also experience the sensation of “falling” or the “sensation of expecting the full force of gravity in air”. It’s weird to describe in words but maybe it translates. Im curious to what objects/entities our minds can ascribe a “physical self” to, particularly in VR space.
Im aware of fields of study that encapsulate “phantom limb” type stuff and have experienced the sensation second hand (no pun intended my mom was an amputee). But am very curious how our brains process VR - yet I’ve never worn a headset and have very little desire to do so..
The landing animations you might see in some games don't work in VR. It's very awkward.
>People can't spend the majority of their time in VR if they're not at home.
Why would people leave home? With VR, there is no need for transport or additional real estate. The market will make sure that the average person won't be able to afford leaving their home.
Poor people tend to handle last mile in person service jobs. That's not going anywhere.
> Cartoons don't look real and yet they are a useful medium. VR doesn't have to be real. VR just has to be better than regular phones.
Meta is selling it as something that feels real. They're not selling it as better phones. And you're claiming its going to comprise 100% of people's lives such that they never go outside anymore. Nonsense.
Right. But what are they going to do when they return from work?
>Meta is selling it as something that feels real. They're not selling it as better phones.
Right now, they target early adopters. That doesn't say much about how VR will be used. Compared to mobile phones, this is the time when people had phones in their car to show off. There is no network effect yet where you have to be in VR because your friends are in VR. The VR iphone hasn't been invented yet.
However, the network effect will come soon. Whoever owns the VR space first has a huge moat. Nobody wants to be Google or MS trying to close the gap to Apple. Thus all the big players will very very aggressively push their hardware into the market once it has all the features for mass adoption.
>And you're claiming its going to comprise 100% of people's lives such that they never go outside anymore. Nonsense.
Then I made my point too strong. Some people will go outside, especially those who have access to nice 'outsides'. But if you don't have a garden, and you live in an area without a park, and you don't have money to spend time in a bar, what are you going to do if you have access to technology that gives you the illusion of a garden, a park and money to spend on luxury items?
Urban density will increase because that's what drives innovation. But that will make living condition for the masses worse. The way out is VR.
I was also at a party a few months ago that the topic of the metaverse came up and someone was talking about how it was the next big thing but had never used an Oculus. Then the host mentioned how they have an Oculus if anyone wanted to try it. You know how many people tried it that day even though most had never tried VR? ZERO. No one wanted to bother with this headset. Even the guy who was going on and on about how it was the future wasn't interested in actually trying the very product he was talking about.
It is only interesting in conversation as the next big thing in the abstract.
Edit: yeah you’ve described it quite well in saying it’s only interesting to talk about
For those not in the know, Valve is coming out with a successor to the Index headset called Valve Deckard. They'll probably announce it later this year. From the leaked information, it looks like an absolute beast of a headset.
(I thought they also launched then cancelled another hardware product, but I don't remember details and can't find anything, so my memory may be playing tricks on me? Maybe I subconsciously mixed up the Nvidia Shield and Valve?)
The Deckard seems to be standalone too. That's excellent. In practice, being standalone was a killer feature. You can just grab and use it like a phone, instead of having to boot a PC, mess around with cables, make sure the lighthouses are powered up, inevitably spend the first 15 minutes debugging the setup... (and of course having to own a gaming PC in the first place was also a significant hurdle).
There was Steam Link, another little hardware experiment that boiled down to an ARM chip in a black box that streamed games from your PC. I heard great stuff from the people who used them (Ethernet is a must-have, obviously), and they were priced really competitively iirc ($25 or something?). In any case, the product never really saw mainstream success and ended up going the way of the Steam Controller, getting excess stock sold-off at $5/piece just to get the units out of their warehouse.
Nowadays, much as you've highlighted, Valve takes a lot of caution with their product releases. Back in the Steam Machine/Controller/Link era, I think Valve forgot that they aren't a lifestyle company and ultimately make highly-desirable niche products. With the Valve Index and Steam Deck, though, I think Valve is finally settling into a groove. Part of that groove is probably not mass-producing products that don't even have pre-orders open yet, the Index and Deck are pretty good examples of learning that lesson.
You're right I don't _need_ to sign in, but I wish I could chat/ compete with friends. I can even receive friend requests, but I can't accept them.
It's not a huge deal, but the FOMO push to sign into FB is a bummer each time I use it.
And they need to penetrate into this market because that's where the money is, not in subsidized headset retail.
Now whether someone will buy this "no need for Facebook anymore but not really" shtick is another story.
I think the real reason for requiring Facebook accounts was just padding user numbers and events for a quarterly report (likely for somebody's bonus to land).
[1] https://medium.com/@SpiderOak/facebook-shadow-profiles-a-pro...
After a certain amount of fingerprinting, absolutely. It's not as if they are solely relying on user-submitted information such as a handle to make that link. And if no link can be made right this second, they can just continue to collect data under "InteretDude420" until they reach a certain amount of confidence to link it to a real identity.
And, even if they get it wrong some % of the time, who would ever notice or find out? Eventually they just get more data and increase the confidence rating for the correlation.
It is surprising how little information (even "anonymized information") is needed to de-anonymize someone. Plenty of papers on the subject if you are curious.
For many targeted / personalized ads purposes you don't really care about the real name. You mostly care about linking hardware / software identifiers (IDFA etc.) to some kind of profile that you attached information to (Likes technology, fashion, classical music,...).
If you make 100 separate accounts and open a VR arcade you are probably just filtered out as an anomaly. It's not about having a 100% coverage, it's about having good enough coverage of most users. Just like filter out bot or ad blocker users as there's still enough regular people.
There are plenty of studies (example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10933-3/) that show you need only limited amounts of data to be able to deanonymize people.
Matching all that data to the real information you just ran through paypal or other merchant (some merchants sell this data directly) is something an intern can do on their first day.
I thought they denied maintaining shadow profiles though? There seems to be some people at FB who actually care about getting this stuff right and doing the right thing but economic forces at this point appear to be pushing most of the company in a very different direction.
If you opened that arcade, they'd probably recognize that through a couple hundred different datapoints and use that to further analyze user behavior (For example: Which FB/Instagram users went to your arcade, stayed for a significant amount of time, then left. Of those, which don't already own a Quest -- market to them).
https://www.howtogeek.com/768652/what-are-facebook-shadow-pr...
It gets populated with data uploaded by other people, JavaScript widgets on random web pages that you visit, etc.
The point of them buying Oculus is because MZ thinks that VR might be the future, and he wants to own that space (Lest Facebook fade into irrelevance as a one-trick pony).
I'm of the opinion that the data they could slurp up from mining your VR usage is of limited use, because it won't meaningfully improve ad targeting. And if it doesn't improve ad targeting, there's no reason for advertisers to pay FB more.
Facebook is going to get lots more data than they get from you on desktop and mobile.
“…one of the things I’m really excited about for future versions is getting eye tracking and face tracking in.” — Mark Zuckerberg
But the actual endgame is that Meta has been building a portfolio of patents that leverage eye and face tracking to better target you with ads and other content.
“The next patent really gets into it…It’s called ‘Techniques for emotion detection and content delivery’. This one is a straight up flowchart for capturing the user’s image via the camera to track your emotions when viewing different types of content. [Meta] could tie your emotional states when checking out videos, ads or baby pictures and serve up content in the future just by reading your initial state of emotion.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/curtissilver/2017/06/08/how-fac...
Not sure why I can’t reply to the sibling comment here but I still cannot trust Meta/MZ for anything - even if the stated goal of eye tracking is to “improve the platform” “They trust me - dumb fucks” Mark Zuckerberg
“They trust me - dumb fucks” Mark Zuckerberg
Edit: can reply as previously desired and edited to reflect that
Then they stopped supporting desktop head mounted displays for the most part and switched to building face mounted VR computers that happened to have an initially janky, and always higher latency, passthrough mode to support acting as a display for a real computer.
What? There used to be a bunch of different VR platforms, and only recently has the industry settled on a single open standard, OpenXR[1], and Facebook was (or at least claims to be[2]) one of the major contributors to that open standard.
There are a lot of things you can criticize Meta for doing with Oculus, but opposing open standards isn't one of them.
For the first point, I'll give you that they prefer playing on their own platform. But they haven't "broken" anything. While yes you do need a software layer, e.g. Revive, you can still play steam games on oculus and oculus games on an index. And you have no idea whether that would have happened anyway as one of these companies got bigger.
Google used to say "do no evil" and now they don't, and they didn't get acquired before they changed. These things just happen.
With respect, did you ever use a Vive or a Rift CV1? They absolutely had much worst interoperability prior to FB. The launch of CV2 gated it behind the Oculus store, making it impossible to use Steam with the CV2 before overwhelming negative feedback changed it.
They're not trying to make money from the hardware just like most gaming console companies don't make money from the hardware initially. Meta is trying to dominate the VR app market and make money from the Oculus Store. They'll probably take a similar approach to the App Store and Play Store.
So, not that targeted advertising is so great, but it's looking like pretty much any hardware device from big tech companies in the future is going to work this way. I don't think Facebook is any different from the others any more.
But they also leak personal data. A lot.
At this point, I'm willing to believe that the other adtech-corporations are more likely to be interested and capable in maintaining your data out of the prying eyes (of competing adtech-corporations).
Some examples please. In recent memory I can only think of examples where services violated TOS (which I'm not sure how FB could prevent) or got authorization from the end user (as in the Cambridge Analytica case).
Any examples of them leaking data as a result of their own processes?
“We do not have an adequate level of control and explainability over how our systems use data,” Facebook engineers say in leaked document.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/akvmke/facebook-doesnt-know-...
By putting out relatively cheap VR headsets and requiring a meta (Facebook) account to use it, they are getting young people signed up for meta. Those young people might not have signed up for Facebook/Meta otherwise. It's a sneaky way to reduce friction and maybe convert young people onto the social media platform.
It also reminds me of how google's social network automatically created profiles on their social media spot. That experiment failed. Will meta's growth play fail?
This is purely me trying to figure out the business angle.
Meta has a VR platform and needs some form of auth. Reusing their existing auth was the lowest friction approach both in development and user experience.
I doubt they care very much about recruiting into their platform through VR. Their main business goal with VR is to own the app marketplace through Oculus Store. So far, they are far ahead of anyone else in the space.
s/Facebook/Meta/g
After recent news I decided to give them another chance with a Quest 2, and because my Oculus dev account and the FB profile I closed in 2006 that I tried to merge it with didn't have matching info, I've been locked out. I'm hanging tight until this Meta thing goes into effect to switch, but if it's a hassle, I'll gladly spend up to $800 on a Deckard not to deal with Meta again.
What a film!
I do not appreciate this work of art being compared to Zucks wet dream tho!
You can put your Oculus VR headset, connect to the internet and have sex with anyone from the Facebook ofc if they are of legal age and they give you permission. ;)
That can be marketing pitch for Facebook's VR headset!
Don't see how this makes sense for VR, where you probably want to hang out with your friends and play games. Followers?
At last it becomes truly creepy and not just vaguely concerning.
You don't need to be in the street to be followed anymore, you can now stay at home for this.
(please don't take my comment seriously, I just wanted to share a though that was very entertaining to me)
Actually now I can imagine the VR version of Twitch. A bit creepier I think.
The Quest 2 is the only reasonably priced standalone headset.
I'll probably wait until the end of the year though, hopefully ANYONE else will release a solid standalone
Consider how many countries can't directly use Facebook, they had to use a VPN to first login Facebook, then the headsets, its ridiculous. Many novice users have even no idea what is a VPN, so they have to put away the headsets just bought from the online.
I heard many stories of this, now finally changed.
Good job Meta!
If I was starting with a new device with no prior purchases of entertainment content, then I would create an Oculus account.
For me, Oculus is the one really great thing about Meta/Facebook. It is my favorite toy.
It sucks because the Valve software just isn't anywhere close to being as good. And they haven't shown any meaningful signs of improvement in the last two years. I don't think they are ever going to get it like Oculus used to. I think they'll eventually decide VR is not worth it because of a lack of user engagement, when in reality the problem is that no one wants to constantly fight with Valve's obstinate software just to play VR games.
Do you use the Steam store? It's related "recommendation" queue? Is that not an example of Valve monetizing your data/gaming habits?
> After January 1, 2023, you’ll need to set up a Meta account to continue using your VR device. When you update your Oculus account to a Meta account, the Supplemental Meta Platforms Technologies Terms of Service and Supplemental Meta Platforms Technologies Privacy Policy will apply to you.
In fact, I'd trust them with my data more than a bank (competency is more important)
You can't install any apps on Apple mobile devices without an Apple ID.
And it will have no adult VR content.
With the new EU rules there would be nothing stopping anyone from viewing such stuff, because to my understanding those rules apply universally to the company, not just to individual products.
(As an aside, you should probably update your HN profile, it still reads "Now VP of AI at Facebook.")
This is one of those times where one is only "technically" correct thanks to weasel-y phrasing.
Thanks!
What are you worried about? That folks will walk this earth thinking you have to use a Meta account instead of a Facebook account to log into your VR app?
"Introducing Meta Accounts: A New Login for VR" is the actual title, and should be used instead of this one.
The title (currently "A Facebook account is no longer required to use Meta VR devices (oculus.com)" which is not the title of the article) is specifically written to get the attention of that Facebook-distrusting group and in that way is explicitly and I believe intentionally misleading.
Sure, require an account to do purchases through their online store, that makes sense. But why on earth do you need an account to use an unconnected piece of hardware? I don't need to log in to an account to use my monitor, mouse, keyboard, or joystick.
EDIT, answering my own question:
The only reason these accounts are required is that Facebook wants to pretend Oculus is not just the HMD but also the whole "ecosystem" including the store, their toxic social media properties, and their ridiculous metaverse. I don't buy into this fantasy of theirs, and will never buy another Oculus until they are treated as dumb displays.
But the bigger issue here is that this account is owned by the company formerly known as Facebook, and that company has given me absolutely zero reason to trust them with any data whatsoever. I don't mind having a Steam account, because Valve hasn't had scandal after scandal of them abusing user data in egregious ways.
Any real examples? Scandal after scandal implies there should be many, but in recent memory I can't think of FB directly abusing user data besides it being repeated as truth on HN.
This just seems like an excuse to rant about disliking Facebook.
I see what you did there.
A Facebook account is much more restrictive than say a Steam account. Facebook tries to get you to use your real name for example. Who in the world wants to use their real name playing a video game?
From the mail we received: you can continue using your Oculus account until January 1, 2023. After this date a Meta account will be required to *continue* using your Meta VR devices.
It's weird to me that I need to create a new account to continue using my device.
Can't you play games without the store? Like streaming games from your PC or side loading games. You shouldn't need an account if you're not going to use the store.
The question is, will a Meta account be different than an FB account? I would argue it has to be because its essentially a game/ media device and they will destroy their market if they try to keep up a policy of not letting people create fake accounts. No one wants to play video games with their real name and address. There had been a problem of Quest 2s getting bricked because kids were using them on a "fake" account. They need kids.
The problem isn’t that one needs an account.
> The question is, will a Meta account be different than an FB account?
This is a marketing rebrand of Facebook accounts. In the short term, Meta will position it as a separate identity system. In the long term, each person will have one Meta account for all Meta services.
> No one wants to play video games with their real name and address.
Meta may allow this, but in every case Meta will know who’s behind each Meta identity.
Maybe I'm not a master of the internet like yourself, but I'm able to use crazy technology like "oidc" and "delegation" to prevent the same entity who runs the carnival to also own my identity.
Historically this was the default on the web, it's a relatively recent phenomenon for sites like instagram/fb to require login to even read anything.
YouTube manages to deliver plenty of entertainment value without a login to this day, until you try to look at "mature content".
It won't convince everyone, but it will convince some.
1. react
2. pytorch
Arguably the two best technology frameworks to come out in the last decade.
So yes, of course I hate them. Weird that you don't.
They were such good people, why are they so hated everywhere?