Think of it as similar to the scaling challenges of MMORPGs. Only much worse.
Think of it as similar to the scaling challenges of MMORPGs. Only much worse.
EDIT: By "giant MMO" I mean "metaverse from Snowcrash," not "video game."
I don't know exactly what Oculus's plan was but it'd be foolish to ignore this obvious application, and that certainly seems to be where Mark Zuckerberg sees the value in it, if we are to take his speech on the conference call at face value.
Zuck probably has some tricks up his sleeve to accomplish this goal. And he's been able to learn from G+ about how not to go about it.
Whether the Metaverse is cool will make or break its popularity. It's what made Facebook's.
The coming years are going to be pretty interesting.
Since when was OculusVR supposed to build the metaverse? I thought they only wanted to build the tools to access it.
Facebook-type users are a decade or more away from VR. They don't "do" fiddly interfaces and rough edges. Even if the hardware was there, the usability isn't.
In both cases there are potentially large payoffs in the long term. But they're extremely high price tags for decade-plus plays in which the acquired company has little to no particular proprietary technological edge.
Now, that old LAMP Apache+mpm_worker setup, that one was bad.
They have a lot of XP in building real physical shit these days.
Scaling traffic is a non-issue for them.
Also worth noting, the head of OCP left Facebook today. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2111680/open-compute-project-...
My point is that they are not strangers to manufacturing tech...
Facebook phone, anyone?
There's a world of difference between a potential item, like the FB phone and an actual, demonstrated item, like the Oculus Rift, so they might get some points there.
But their record ATM is non-existent, AFAIK.