taking a stand against Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp and now Oculus ?
I know that Notch wants to develop games with passionate people, but he has to understand that this acquisition was the best thing that could happen to both VR and Oculus.
Anyway, Notch has been infamously known for his quick rants (see the "youtuber he insulted" issue)
Like google? Or Microsoft?
Microsoft ? They already have a gaming branch so why not, but for the same reason as Google, people wouldn't have noticed it much.
But Facebook ? Everybody around me is going to talk about it, even non-gamers. You have no idea how huge this is for VR.
I was hoping for something more personal out of Oculus. Something I wouldn't have to think about sharing with my great aunts and the wider public via the NSA
But if you really desire more convincing, all of those companies have large existing business units devoted to selling consumer devices or licensing things to people selling consumer devices. Those business units have executives, budgets, reporting structures, etc. It is very unlikely any of those companies would buy Oculus to run it as an autonomous unit, like Facebook is saying they will do with Oculus for now.
Never say never. Especially with a company that likes to surprise...
"A logical element or segment of a company (such as accounting, production, marketing) representing a specific business function, and a definite place on the organizational chart, under the domain of a manager. Also called department, division, or a functional area."
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/business-unit.h...
It's a term that seems so totally generic that I feel like you have to work really, really hard to find an organization at scales far, far below where Apple operates to find a company that wouldn't fit that description (Valve?)
But that misses the point -- the point is that Apple has SOME existing organizational structure around "selling consumer electronics," and that an Apple-purchased Occulus would likely fall into that structure. I don't think there's any evidence of a company that Apple bought and let run on its own for an extended period of time, is there?
I have generally seen definitions of functional units being responsible for a function, without reference to profit or loss. Business units generally refer to a notionally divisible unit from which income, expenses, and thus profits can be measured. By this definition, Apple has only one business unit, the entire enterprise.
Again, this doesn't detract from your point, it amplifies it! Apple really would never preserve a purchased business and leave it independent. It doesn't even have business units, the structure that might, if you're naive, allow for such a thing!
An interesting discussion of Apple's functional structure:
http://stratechery.com/2013/the-uncanny-valley-of-a-function...
As sad as it sounds, thats what makes business in America
Let's wait a while before making such bold statements, shall we? It may have been the best thing that could happen to Instagram, but decent technology (good enough to attract John Carmack) might have had a brighter future without a new owner with possibly different interests.
Why couldn't Oculus have been it's own company?
Facebook made it without a partner.
The two really don't have anything to do with each other. There's no rule saying that if someone comes out winning in business deal, then everyone comes out winning in that business deal.