They make it up by taking a 30% cut on any games you purchase through their store (which is the only place you can buy games for it), similar to consoles. This is much more money than user data is worth. (Not that they won't use/sell that data, too, but let's not confuse ourselves about how much it's worth.)

Facebook doesn't sell user data. Advertisers have access to targeting that occurs in a black box to them

If you want to get down to a nit picky level like that then, sure. And to be fair, maybe it should be explicitly stated. However, Facebook sells access to the data it collects. It may not be access to the raw data that a phrase like 'selling the data' makes it sound. However, it is making money from the knowledge it has about people (can't even say its users anymore). Either way, the ad buyer (end user) gets access to that data even if it is a black box API style system.

No, advertisers do not "get access" to that data.

They get the ability to target ads against people who match some characteristics. Facebook's business is literally built on advertisers inability to access that data. If they had access, advertisers would advertise elsewhere and Facebook wouldn't get a cut.

Which is in itself a huge problem in democratic societies as demonstrated e.g. by Cambridge analytica. I think the potential harm that this business model produces and the power it gives the companies who deploy them, is something our formerly nice working systems didn't really price in when the seperation of powers was invented.

So while protection of privacy is always also the right of one individual, I think it is crucial to realize that this kind of power over "the masses" isn't something any free society could afford in the long term on a systemic level. If we look at a democracy with it's separation of powers, it's institutions etc as a delicately balanced electronic circuit — which has the ability to self correct — players like Facebook are like the introduction of new feedback paths that work better for people who don't mind to sell their soul when abusing them. Of course such new connections will have an effect on the whole system, but the crucial point is, that nobody really considered what this effect might be and whether what we have and like in democracy can actually survive this.

You cannot have free elections if the people voting in it are put into their own matrix-esque simulation of reality. How could we ever find agreeable consent if our realities have no common overlap by design?

I think a lot of people in tech sphere don't really want to see this as they are profiting from this. It makes us powerful wizards who see more and understand more than others.

CA actually did get access to user data because they abused a loophole in the Facebook app API that let them grab all the details of not only people who used the app, but also every single one of their friends. They were also using data given to researchers by Facebook as part of a collaboration.

There isn't a loophole with the graph, it was designed for this and was used notably by Zygna and later the Obama campaign. When the campaign hoovered up everything in 2011/2012 and set off alarms, FB saw what they were doing and didn't hinder it. Instead they reached out them, stating that they're on the same side. Hopefully these links aren't mangled.

Here's the media championing it:

"How a dream team of engineers from Facebook, Twitter, and Google built the software that drove Barack Obama's reelection"

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-...

"How President Obama’s campaign used big data to rally individual voters."

https://www.technologyreview.com/2012/12/19/114510/how-obama...

"Obama, Facebook and the power of friendship: the 2012 data election"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-...

"the firm never tried to stop them when they realized what was doing, and even told them they'd made a special exception for them"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campa...

"Why are politicians now freaking out about a feature that has been publicly documented since its inception and that was discontinued three years ago?"

https://reason.com/2018/03/23/cambridge-analytics-dust-up-re...

This is the biggest misunderstanding about Facebook in the general population. It is not nitpick, but an extremely important nuance in how they work.

Not spreading the boogeyman of 'they sell your data' will improve discourse on how to actually change things.

This is true of Google as well (Chrome, Android, Maps, etc).

buying peoples data would be a big deal, that's why its not a nit picky detail. I also don't agree with facebook having all of my data in the first place but they don't just tar up my entire life and hand it to someone.

Not on purpose, anyways. In the past they were too lax about letting third-party apps get your data, hence the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

(ab)Used by Zynga earlier to great success with Farmville and Mafia Wars.

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-zyngas-depend...

I agree. I am a little a shocked how many games and VR experiences that I have bought for the Quest. The only other person I know who has one is my stepson (who did a “hard insist” that I buy one, and that was great advice) and he also buys a lot of games for his.

I worked on VR over 30 years ago. I am so happy to finally see great consumer VR gear.

EXCEPT for the privacy bull (pretty angry about that), that's actually not a terrible deal for consumers.

were talking about cameras that are actively scanning your room, you do realize this thing is painting a detailed 3d picture of your house right?

how much do you think FB would care about that, even if that data was actually uploaded (which it isn't because it would be extremely expensive for everyone involved).

C'mon, I get the hate but this is worst than tinfoil hat conspiracies.

You could try find various objects in the room on device and send a list of identifiers. The XR platform seems quite capable of that.

>They make it up by taking a 30% cut on any games you purchase through their store (which is the only place you can buy games for it)

Most of my games are bought on Steam, not on the Oculus store.

With the Quest, you have to buy through their store (unless you're using Link to connect to a PC.)

You can also use things like ALVR or Virtual Desktop to stream Steam VR titles to the Quest. But yes, that still requires a VR capable PC and stable wireless connection.

yeah, the Oculus store is more expensive than the Steam store for the same titles.

Really though? Facebook makes money by displaying targeted ads to users. What data from the Quest is being used to target ads? I’m not familiar with anything related to this in Facebook’s product for ad buyers, and can’t think of anything particularly useful that they could be doing.

You could think of Oculus as an effort to increase the amount of user attention inventory Facebook has in supply to rent out to advertisers. Also, they are positioning themselves as an intermediary for transactions in the future VR economy by being platform owner (a la Apple owning the App Store). My guess is the long-term plan is to make money here by displaying ads in VR and by getting a cut of goods and services sold though VR (see: Ready Player One).

What is it with HN and trying to read between the lines so hard? There's literally an Oculus Store app store for quest games. Probably they are just making money on game sales, like every other game console has for 35 years.

I do worry that Facebook will figure they might as well double dip on sales and advertising; future headsets are probably going to have eye tracking (ostensibly for foveated rendering and better avatars), and combining in-world advertising with exact data on how long people looked at them is a pretty compelling sell for what is fundamentally an advertising company.

They spent like 15 minutes of the presentation talking about how ethical they're going to be (re: AR glasses) and how trust has to be earned, but their ethics track record isn't exactly stellar.

It's Facebook version of doublespeak.

I’m skeptical the Facebook would bother to invest so many billions into VR just for the chance of being part of the competitive game console market. It makes sense to think about how it fits into the long-term strategy for their main cash cow, ads. If there’s a future where internet/app usage hours shift toward VR, Facebook doesn’t want to be left in the dust like Myspace when users switch to a new social network. Even if they can keep users on a Facebook-owned VR app, they don’t want to wind up paying a 30% tax to some platform owner.

> being part of the competitive game console market

You mean being part of the many billion dollar game industry by controlling the highest growth sector in that industry with vendor lock in and rent seeking for any game sold in that new market?

Yeah...who would want that...

Sure, but that would also apply to other companies who could have bought Oculus. I think the way it fits into Facebook’s overall company strategy explains why they would bid the most.

Hmm, who would have bid more? Google has its own tech and doesn't like making content. Apple doesn't like making content and only recently got into original video content. Microsoft has its own tech.

I don't _think_ Facebook had a lot of computer vision expertise at the time and it makes sense they'd want to buy into that.

Amazon was a choice I guess?

Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple all have launched gaming platforms, to varying degrees of success. I think any of them could have bought Oculus. While they all also have some degree of AR and/or VR tech, none of them have an Oculus-like product.

They could have but again, why? Each of those companies already have bigger hardware and software platforms and none of them are really behind Oculus in computer vision, so what would Oculus give those other companies?

Google (with Lenovo and the Mirage Solo) and Microsoft (with Hololens) had stand alone headsets before the Quest.

not to mention that VR is a completely new type of media, so not just games but virtual environmental presence which is gonna be a big deal in a world where carbon footprint and pandemics will make things like traveling for a festival become more expensive or impossible.

Again, why would FB want be the company that does that?

My guess: The simple answer is they want to be the VR platform of the future so they can show ads on it, however that may look. Selling ads in VR apps/games/homescreen is obvious - selling AR ads is probably on the horizon (so, if you look at your fridge in the Oculus Quest 5 AR you'll see an ad asking you to upgrade to the latest Samsung Fridge).

I kind of doubt we have anything to worry about now, but there is a terrifying future on the horizon where everything you look at, everything you do, is measured and any value is extracted and sent to ~~our new overlords~~ FB.

I think they were sad they missed the boat on mobile and wanted to get in early on VR in case it gets big. Although a massive investment, for Facebook it was not that big a deal.

Zuckerbery has talked about the strategy here for ages. It's not about VR, it's about AR. The tech to build realtime, always on AR is just a more advanced VR tech.

AR will be all about the ads as facebook can serve them everywhere you go. That's where they will make $100BN in ad revenue.

I wonder what adblockers will look like in this dystopian hellscape you describe.

Adblockers will require you to "jailbreak" your device and their installation/use will be against numerous terms of service agreements. Maybe they won't be illegal though, who knows

There could be some kind of lawsuit or legislation mandating that AR or VR platform owners provide access to third-party software (like how Microsoft was forced to offer other browsers back in the day).

A firewall with deep packet inspection and a shared database among people who block ads would be easier.

take your glasses off

Because they need their own platform.

They are currently piggybacking on top of either android or ios. Which means they are at the whim of other powers.

With a platform they are much more in control, and able to tap into a much bigger revenue stream.

I hope that the platform as a whole don't start stuffing ads everywhere, but I'd be shocked if there weren't some monitization plan for Facebook Horizon

If it were truly just about the games, they would let you keep using Oculus login. Why else would they force you to use a Facebook login? If they only cared about store profits, logins wouldn't be required at all.

no idea if this is the reason but they are being pretty forward about banning malicious users (cheaters, creeps) and you can't do that effectively if you just ban the throwaway user.

Interesting. But don't you have to attach a credit card to buy and play the game? They can use that to identify repeat offenders and probably other things as well. Other platforms solved the issue without accessing my entire social graph.

Just make a separate/dummy Facebook account. That's what I use.

I agree that being a game platform would be enough to be profitable, though their biggest dream must be to be the ultimate gatekeeper/taxman to what goes into your eyes. Aside from injecting thoughts right into your brain, what is more important than a screen that blocks out everything else you see? (phone, laptop, and TV are worth zero when you're wearing goggles).

And the next thing you know firemen are running around burning books, like in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.

Also remember that Mark Zuckerberg himself demoed the Samsung Oculus headset to everyone. That was a really big deal at the time. It's possible that this is a pet project he's adopted and really wants to see succeed. However, practically, it's a great jumping off point for AR and we know that Apple is experimenting with Augmented reality headsets that are tied to your phone.

Facebook might just be trying to get ahead of the game, betting that the next step past phones is VR/AR.

You could imagine a future where VR/AR is the equivalent of Mac or Windows, iOS or Android. The platform is the asset

It's not just HN. I think it's pretty fair to be concerned about facebook's tracking, given the level they already go to on their site. I just spent $1000 on a Valve Index, since there is no way I am strapping 4 facebook linked cameras to my head.

do you work for FB?

within FB people 'assume good intention'.

outside FB not so much.

think about why

It's just run of the mill conspiracy theorists. I remove them from my feed and move on.

Data from a VR is extremely useful.

First it measures your fitness level. Those devices have high quality acceleration and gyroscope sensors. They could know your visual and acoustic acuity.

They measure what games you play, for how long, at what time.

With these data and processing done by AI created by engineers they can extract and know more about yourself than you do.

We know from Snowden that places like the NSA collect and save data expecting technological changes in 5-10 years in the future for processing that data. The technology for processing does not need to be ready yet.

This is extremely useful for Advertisers and secret services. This is not what you say you are, this is what you are.

Currently VR data is not very good for anything really yet, because we have no scalable way to understand it.

"raw" VR data is about 10 megabytes a second of black and white infrared video.

plus audio and position data of either controllers or hands.

After its been processed it can give you a sparse pointcloud of your living room (which is not overly bad) but thats not something thats done by facebook, yet. With a bit more work you could get a dense pointcloud.

Unlike AR which will need a bunch more processing on device to get position and geo data, VR is mostly just slam

That's a bit of a stretch. Facebook uses data to improve ad targetting on their own platforms. They're not selling your HR or fitness data to your insurance company or anything crazy like that.

Facebook generated $29 per user in the US last year. A small bit of extra info about people's gaming habits is not going to improve ad targetting enough to make up for a $100 gap in price.

They're not selling that data yet.

But it's clear from the reviews the $100 was mainly achieved by cost-cutting.

They may still lose some money on it but that's just an investment in becoming market leader in VR.

They may not be exposing the data they're collecting to ad buyers today, but it's a safe bet they're collecting it. You can extract a lot of signal on ad effectiveness based on what people look at via head pose, and once eye tracking is in - nominally for foveated rendering, of course - it will be even stronger.

Biometric data can and will be used to analyze and predict people's behavior in unprecedented ways.

You could advertise similar games based on what they're already playing.

You're thinking too small. By owning a Quest 2, you're signalling that you (or your parents) have disposable income they are willing to spend on electronic devices. Yes, it clearly shows you're a gamer. So if you're a gamer, you probably drink Mountain Dew and eat Doritos. Based on your FB profile, you probably like certain types of shoes. 75% of other people with matching criteria purchased something, so let's shove that in your face as well to see if we can't get it up to 80%. Oh, you play games between the hours of xxx, so you must be a teenager. Let's target ads to get your parents money.

That info seems like table stakes for Facebook. It doesn’t take the many billions invested in Oculus to find any of that out.

Sure if that was the only data point. however, this is just one more thing they will use to refine the data they are sucking in about you every second. At this point, why would they not do it? It's in their DNA.

What data? All the data!

What data? Movement range, size, speed,reaction time. With touch controllers you can even track the stress resistance, because people tend to tighten their grip if stressed. And there a lots of companies like Cambridge Analytica that can use that data to push their agenda even better. Easier game for people like the Koch brothers.

They'll make up the difference on the Oculus Store commission, just like Sony and Microsoft.

Quest 2 uses LCD screens instead of OLED, which probably accounts for some of the price drop.

What data would be so useful that they could improve ad targeting $100 per user?

as we know the oculus platform is a wash with adverts.

all the games we've bought produce accurate and targeted profile that allow facebook to recommend new games with a high degree of accuracy.