Just like facebook's Frankensteinian monstrous mish-mash of consumer/content/advertiser/publisher crowd-funding in its current state is a mish-mash that ends up meaning nothing in the end. You are not an equity partner, you really have no say in how decisions are made, you are not a lender, you are and are not a client (depending on whether they actually give you the damn 'thing' or not due to a host of reasons, going bust, running out of money, fraud, etc.)

I'm sorry, but where is the stupidity? Kickstarter is a specific tool available to founders/innovators/creatives that allows us to reach a community of supporters quickly and efficiently.

Like all tools, it has a specific way that it operates, and to keep such a new thing from spinning out of control, it is relatively simple and has few rules. Fortunately, we are all made aware of this going in. Backers generally pledge to receive a product. The creator benefits from early access to cash which allows them to build their product.

This is what happened with Oculus, and they have already delivered vouchers to all backers which they could have redeemed for the original developer version from last year, the current developer version coming in July, or the consumer version still definitely coming towards the end of this year.

I fail to see how Oculus gaining a parent company somehow "lays bare the sheer stupidity" of the system Kickstarter provides. People pledged for a high quality VR device, and Oculus promised to change the world. It seems these things will happen.

One of the most compelling opportunities provided by virtual reality is not just gaming, but it's capability to put us somewhere else, including in a virtual room with our loved ones. Virtual reality enables an interaction that humans have never before been able to experience - the ability to hang out in a virtual space with another person.

Facebook, whose primary goal has generally been to provide a platform for connecting humans to eachother, clearly sees the value in VR's ability to provide this new experience for us. As such, they've used their purchasing power to buy a stake in the VR game and help grow this new technology. Some day, we will be able to hang out with out loved ones, visit the doctor, or join a game with friends all in a shared virtual space.

This is a future made possible by the Kickstarter model, which enabled Oculus to get the start they needed to commercialize Virtual Reality.

Tell me again how that is stupid?

What strikes me as stupid is the huge number of people decrying this move as some kind of perversion of the original Kickstarter promise, or some kind of bait and switch. It seems to be the logical progression of a company creating a ground-breaking new human interface device. Should they stay independent indefinitely just because they were crowd funded? I don't see how that would make any sense, or why such a modification to the Kickstarter model would be any kind of improvement.

When you contribute -- note contribute, but invest -- to a Kickstarter campaign, you're buying into the perk you get and pretty much nothing else.

I can understand being upset that the company didn't do what you hoped, but considering it an investment is a bit of an overestimation.

Sure, you can hope that the recipient of your contribution will use it in the way you want, and will hold the same values and plan for the company that you do, but in reality, that's an entirely unreasonable expectation to have.

The thing is, though... I don't see this particular example as the Oculus founders acting in bad faith. They made a business decision that made sense for them and their product. Sure, they get a big payday, but I bet they also believe that this is the great (maybe even best) way to make their product successful. The fact that you or I or any of the contributors might disagree is, well, irrelevant.

Personally, I think a lot of people are making a big deal over something that... isn't. There's a lot of hate for Facebook around, some of it justified, some not. The knee-jerk reaction of a FB acquisition being bad is getting quite tiring to me. Why not wait and see how it goes? FB at least seems to have a better track record of successful acquisitions that don't destroy the acquiree than Google does.

Oculus benefited greatly from selling itself as the future of VR gaming. That was the image they cultivated, that is why their Kickstarter was so successful. That is why people contributed. The Facebook deal most likely means a big shift of focus to social VR. There's a big difference between hoping a company will share your personal values when it gets successful, and being sold a particular plan which is then abandoned in favour of a big payoff.

Me, I think Kickstarter is to fault for being sold as a tool for contributors. You go to kickstarter.com, it's like a shopping mall of the future. For what Kickstarter say they are, they should be a plugin that companies get to put on their website or something, not something that gets marketed to consumers.

Kickstarter is not investment. I've never invested money in a company, but I've invested labor in exchange for shares; I was, thus, a stakeholder, and had a say in a number of decisions the company made.

If I buy a product off a store, a pair of sneakers, and they turn out to be shitty and fall to pieces in a week, I'm entitled to my money back or a working pair of sneakers. However, when you fund through Kickstarter something that says "Oh Hai Future Shoes", you're not buying sneakers.

If I invest in a company and they turn out to be using child labor, I can try and wield whatever powers I have in my shares to stop that practice. I can also divest and shame. However, when you fund "Oh Hai Future Shoes" through Kickstarter, you're not investing. You're not buying a vision of the future of shoes. At best, you can expect your rewards (usually a prototype of said sneakers) to be delivered.

But if they sell out to Nike shortly thereafter? And you thought you had an emotional connection?

This is why I kind of fault Kickstarter. It's just too weird a model; it allows fine, smart people like yourself to make unwarranted leaps of logic so that money flows that otherwise might not happen are made common and large.

At its core, understood as FAQs explain -- but not as the website in general is structured -- Kickstarter is a tool for business. Why does it have a shopping mall-like website? Why isn't it just an extension of tip jar tools for webmasters?

(I'm reminded of the Alec Baldwin movie with Jack Lemmon where he's screaming through a pep talk -- "TO GET THEM TO SIGN ON THE LINE WHICH IS DOTTED!!". This is what Kickstarter does.)

Has this ever happened? I was under the impression that the funds raised through Kickstarter are spent on the kickstarted projects. If after spending the money, the project "fails", how can there be a refund?

Only if the projects backed aren't Free and Open-Source.

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?

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.

"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...

Never say never. Especially with a company that likes to surprise...

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.

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.