yaeger

That would be stupid of them as nowhere did it say that was even a possibility.

As the article says, everyone got what it said on the tin. After they received their shirts and the dev kit, the kickstarter campaign was done. Period.

The only people who like to make a stink now are people like this Notch fellow who throw a tantrum cause they don't like the business model of the company that acquired Oculus.

Completely ignoring the facts that as a tech company, facebook really does a lot of good things. Open Sourcing inhouse technology. Backer of the open hardware project to mention two examples.

They all be better served to stay quite until it becomes evident that facebook backtracked from their original statements and starts to call the shot at Oculus. But that is of course not how angry, emotional people act. On the internet or in real life.

I for one would have pre ordered the DK2 last week if I had the money and I would pre order it today. And I look forward to call a lot of people out on their hypocrisy once the final product launches and I notice people who swore they were boycotting this and who swore they were so done with Oculus suddenly raving about how great this thing is.

>It's just the anti-corporate parade of users on HN who aren't used to paying for software.

Close. We aren't used to keep paying for software with no end in sight. Don't know about you but I subscribe to things I know I will be using regularly. Like daily. Guess were office software falls? Not under the daily usage at home.

Am I supposed to start writing word docs each week and mail them to my family just so I don't feel ripped of cause I am continuously paying for office?

Just wait until the next Windows costs 100 bucks a year. Cause that is where this is headed and apparently people don't seem to have any problem overpaying Microsoft for software.

>couldn't find a flaw in either of them.

I have. It's just a viewer for office formats.

If that subscription model takes be ready for Windows 9 to come as an Ad Supported Free Version and a paid version that costs 100 bucks a year cause you were so onboard with continuously paying for office for years on end.

>On the other hand, Kickstarter is a platform where people invest in future of some geeks.

And because of that it should be a rule that no other investors or partnerships should be possible once you go to kickstarter?

What about the past two rounds of investments Oculus went through? Did all backers threw fits like this? How many other entities have given money to Oculus and have a say in how things should be run at the office?

They never threw fits cause they a) didn't know who invested and was now calling the shots or b) didn't care enough to find out.

Only thing different is that is is well publicized that fb and oculus are now in business together. Had they done this quietly, nobody would have freaked out like this. Is it really too much to ask to put the freaking out on hold until there is actual evidence that things are being run into the ground? fb does not have a track record of acquiring and then fucking up the acquired tech. Examples are still instagram and whatsapp. They are also part of an open hardware initiative and they make contributions to open source. As far as a software company goes, they do things right.

So long as they keep their promise to let oculus work independently nothing changes other than oculus now has one big money source instead of many many smaller ones that all want a say how to do things. Unless the last two rounds of investments were all angel investors and not venture capitalists, I'd say a single silent money giver is better than many small noisy ones.

Bringing Google into this makes your comment especially funny.

I would hit anybody over the head who would dare to say "Yeah, I hate Oculus now. If only they had gone with Google instead of Facebook"

Really the pot calling the kettle black, here. And make no mistake, any of the other companies you mentioned should have resulted in just the same kind of backlash. Not a single one of them cares about you or your privacy. They are all out to collect as much information as possible. It is high time people realized this.

No he doesn't. He oversimplifies things.

You know what the money during the kickstarter campaign was for? The first DevKit! They raised money for the dev kit and guess what? The people you chipped in got their dev kits.

As far as I can see, people got exactly out of the kickstarter campaign what they wanted. They helped to start the business of Oculus and in return even got the DevKit to experience the first results on the road to VR.

I hardly think just cause you started your business with a kickstarter campaign and gave the backers what you set out to give them should exempt you from ever getting acquired by another company somewhere down the road. If that were true, why go on kickstarter at all? That would basically mean you will always stay a small time player. If you can survive at all because you will have to do it all by yourself. Next thing you know, kickstarter backers demand that you also don't accept other investors money because then, these investors would also have a say how to do things.

> the way people work, talk and play

Um, that is also what Facebook did. Maybe not for work but definitely for communication and play.

And if you read the announcement you would know where FB wants to go with VR. Since neither WhatsApp nor Instagram require you to log in with your FB account, I doubt the first thing you'd see after putting on the Rift would be a FB login page.

You are basically everything that is wrong with consumers, today.

A kneejerk reaction to something you cannot possibly see the end results of.

And to even support Sonys dumbed down version of VR that has to run on this mid spec'ed PC they call the PS4 is downright stupid.

When it becomes clear that Oculus does not work independently under the FB roof, then you can start your whining. Not now. Not just based on the fact you don't like the company that is now housing Oculus.

Tell me, do you also not like Nestle? I bet you do. Do you also stop doing business with every company that sits under the Nestle roof? No? huh. Must be Facebook exclusive, then. Great hypocrisy was had by all.

To the rest of us, we will wait and see how Oculus will continue to operate until we throw a fit.

In closing, you said you wanted Oculus to get big. Every thought that they want that as well and the best way to get big is to be partnered up with a big company that has reach and contacts and funds? I know, right? Weird thought. Why did I never thought of that, you ask yourself.

Agreed. It was the same with Angry Birds. Original idea/gameplay? Nope. But, they put some serious thought into that project and it payed off. I have seen the predecessors of this game idea and they were not that polished. And they even went and took a whole different set of characters compared to the original Castle Crushers. They didn't just also make a game where you would throw different sized boulders at a castle.

I mean, does anybody remember battle chess? Did people say "yeah, nice little rip off. Chess has been around for so long. How about something original? Just adding the Battle animation is not really innovative, is it?"

I have no problem with ideas of games being used to make their own implementation. As long as it is not a 1:1 copy simply to try and dupe people into buying your thinking they would be buying the original.

Having a single point of failure? I dunno.

I already have mini hear attacks if I misplaced my phone because of all the data on it. My mails, my password manager etc. I really don't know if I would add my keys and my money to this. If lost, you literally are left with nothing.

I haven't checked on Android as a platform in quite a long time but it is amazing to see that things still are exactly where they were when I last checked.

Android == Google == Free Software

That still seems to be the basic idea many users have. It was always weird to see a platform with such high market share compared to iOS can not even get close to what iOS rakes in as revenue and mobile traffic.

If one looks at the numbers it's staggering that a platform with so many active devices cannot even get close to the mobile traffic that iOS generates. And no, I do not think that Android users just use apps and that's why you don't see regular mobile traffic from them. iOS also has apps and personally, I use mostly apps and don't surf that much using the browser.

Still, even back when I last checked people where projecting this to be a temporary thing and things would soon change to reflect Androids market share in the mobile revenue and mobile internet traffic statistics. Apparently, that does not seem to be the case. The Google == Free mentality seems to be too ingrained in people's minds. And I guess the recent privacy issues don't help there. "If they all gonna get my personal infos, then I surely won't pay for the app" seems to be the rational.

And why shouldn't it? It was long since established that if something is free, you are not the customer, you are the product. And if every other app seems to try and collect your info, of course you want the app to be free.

>It's just as valid to say "People buy up consoles because they want to just be able to play some damn games without worrying about hardware upgrades and framerates and heat dissipation.

Except that it is not. HW upgrades have not been an issue for a loooong time. Example, I still run a non i3/5/7 intel CPU and a mid range nvidia and have no problem getting a gaming experience that is at the very least on par with consoles. And if we look at the FPS I get, it is far superior.

If you check now just how many generation of iX CPUs there are and I am still running something from before that, you know that upgrades are not that vital anymore. And I just mention the CPU as it is still the biggest cost factor in a PC. Along with the GPU which I also stated is years old and was mid range when I bought it to begin with.

And I could just enjoy games with that PC if the games I get wouldn't be horribly ported messes of what often looks like copy/paste from the console codebase.

If only the developers would finally employ two separate teams for their games. One camp can focus on the consoles all they want. I don't give a damn. As long as there is one separate team solely focusing on the PC version. This whole thing would go away. No more PC/Console wars. No more animosity or the repeated question "why can't we all just get along?". We could get along if one platform would finally stop getting the short end of the stick. And in the past, that platform was always the PC. Which, incidentally should answer just why PC gamers have such a low opinion of console gamers. It is the direct result of console gamers flooding the market and shoving so much money down the developers throats that they can't help but go where the money is. And just go there period.

Just look at the "new" consoles. Spec based a mid range PC from a couple of years ago. But in comparison so much "advanced" when looking at the old consoles. And now what? Suddenly 60fps is "soo awesome". 1080p FTW etc pp. Before? Couldn't care less when PC gamers were telling them how great it is. And the fact this was possible for the last decade. "Not needed", you'd hear. "I don't care", you'd hear. But throw them this past decade tech in console form and they cheer. Not realizing that this is it for them for the next ten years.

Bohemia gets it. No console version of Arma3. Could focus solely on their PC version and it is great. No tradeoffs. No cutting corners by just taking the dumbed down assets instead of working on PC specific ones that highlight its capabilities.

Yes, or, they are afraid that history will repeat itself yet again.

-Consoles make inferior version of something that can be done so much better on PC. -People buy up the inferior version one cause they apparently have no problem with being stuck for a decade on hardware/games that will never change. -Developers make so much money from that bargain basement segment that they only care about the console version and if they feel like it, port it over to PC as is. Without any refinement whatsoever.

When did that ever happen before you ask? With games in general, of course.

Most recent example: DICE developed a shield as DLC for Battlefield 4. Should have been shield in one hand, pistol in the other. But!, since that would take ONE MEGABYTE OF ADDITIONAL RAM it was scrapped cause the dumb kiddie consoles can't handle that "enormous" additional load. Instead you only get the shield which is now held "in both hands"!

No problem right? Just gimp the console version and do it right on PC. Wrong. DICE is hell bend on keeping the tradition of giving the PC gamers the finger alive and just shells out this crutch on all systems.

Yeah, if these console people really have to enter the VR business, I already know how that will turn out for the one system that is best equipped to do gaming. And that is very very badly. Unless Oculous also enters the game development in a big way and more developers with the correct focus like Bohemia Interactive come forth, PC will get hosed again.

Prime Examples for developers with the wrong focus would be again, DICE and of course Rockstar who have nor problem putting GTAIV on sale on Steam now, even though who knows what will happen once the gfwl servers are shut down. And of course, nobody needs to talk about GTAV on PC. They made enough money with the cheap console version. Why should they even do a poor port to PC? Let alone maybe take some pride in their work and do things right and make the PC version really push the envelope.

I think this whole thing could have been prevented if only the tracking systems could not have been turned off manually.

Why is that even possible? An oversight? If you think about just how many liberties we passengers had to give up after 9/11 worldwide, why was this still there? We can't take any liquids on board anymore but if the pilot wants, he can make the plane disappear at will? Yeah, the liquid thing was really the only security risk here...

Imho, tracking of planes should never be able to be turned off. Why should it? Could there ever be a situation were it would be vital to have these systems not running?

Does Microsoft know just how quickly the average user closes a popup that they didn't expect?

When you provide support for an average user and they want to demonstrate you what problem they have, you almost have to wrestle the mouse away from them so you can at least read the various messages that popup before that user is able to close them.

He can't. There were more than one "How to" on MS homepage as to how to work around an issue until a fix was ready.

Even for trivial stuff. Why? Cause in a a giant corporation, even a hotfix takes ages to get through all QA.

Interestingly enough, I just checked a system with Snow Leopard using Safari and Firefox and it seems that both do not have this vulnerability.

I can't say when this was introduced, but if it is in Mavericks, it must have gotten there sometime between Lion and Mountain Lion.

That's what I don't get. If nothing will change for the users, then why did Facebook acquire them? Why did they bother? Just so that they can run statistics and include WhatsApps numbers in there as well because they now belong to the same organisation?

German company, operations worldwide.

Language is English. English docs, English presentations.

Meetings are done in German unless a non-German sits in. Then, it is done in English.

I can't even begin to explain how awkward it is to see source code once in a great while where the dev used German words as variable names. Good luck trying to get a colleague to understand what'S going on if he doesn't speak German.

In short, you write in English so the lion share of the world can read it. And if people really have a question, they should be able to express that in English. What good does it to post that question in a language that can only be read by a fraction of the developer community?

And with that in mind, I also expect others, like Chinese devs to hand over source code with English variable and class names. Otherwise, again, who do they expect would be able to work with the code if the naming of things don't make sense?

I bet you a majority of the customers don't even see those walls and yet still get to enjoy the positives that come from that approach. Yeah, why would a business continue to operate that way? Let's just make everything open as fuck and stand back to watch what happens.

And I have no idea why people still flock to Google and their Android clusterfuck. So there. Different strokes.

"Tiles"?!

I guess they didn't notice how "well" Microsoft does with Tiles on the desktop where even the most die hard Win8 apologist says "When you use start8, it's not so bad as you never have to see them."

And if they are talking about that dumb grid when opening a blank tab, that was the first thing I deactivated when it was introduced. When I open a new tab, I have a site in mind I wish to open. I do not need to see my top most visited sites in a grid. That's what the pull down list of the address bar is there for. And neither do I need to see ads in that grid.

Want one example? Fine. It's Fuck Ugly. There. There's your reason.

You said yourself you are fickle about your UI of choice. And yet you can't see how many people would be just like you but unlike you they can't stand Win8 UI? It's just like a car, the design matters about as much as the performance of the vehicle. Sure, some people look at cars as tools and don't care what they look like as long as they have 4 wheels and can get them from a to b.

But for many people, the car they buy has to have a great design. It is about as much about lifestyle as function. And the same goes for a desktop OS.

And I for one find the Metro Tile fest that is Windows 8 to be just that. Fuck Ugly. No other way to sugar coat it. And that isn't just the Metro side. Nope, also the desktop with its sharp 90 degree corners and flat 8 Bit color pallet window blinds looks horrible. Like a complete step backwards looking at how the desktop used to look under Win7. And on Win7 you could even change the themes if you wanted to something more to your liking. Good luck trying to do that on Win8.

So, add that to the fact that Win7 filled a need the consumers had and Win8 just filled a need that Microsoft had and you have ample reasons why Win8 is where it is today. Even if there are people like you who apparently can't imagine other people might have a different take on what a great UI should look like.

Also, "mobile" and "cloud first" is a sure fire way to continue with Windows decline with every new version they put out. If they really continue down that road, you can bet your behind that Win7 will put XP to shame regarding longevity. There is no need to "wait for Win9" if that is their way forward. Nothing needs to be "cloud first". Especially no Desktop OS. But MS currently still has problems acknowledging this fact. Unless the new CEO changes that, Win7 will stay put. Period. And a guy coming from Enterprise should know that. But since he also comes from "the cloud", it is about a 50:50 chance he'll actually do the right thing.

What I take away from this is that:

a) Two Factor should be mandatory and as soon as it is, any representative of the company MUST insist that a reset cannot be done over the phone. It should be highly suspicious if someone comes up and says "Hi, I lost my email account access AND my phone so could you please reset my password via phone now?"

b) If not Two Factor, the security questions should also be mandatory. No other "data" like past addresses or cc numbers should suffice to reset over the phone if the person doesn't know the answers to all security questions.

And, speaking of these questions, of course they should be stuff that you know and cannot be "guessed" by anyone who is able to read your facebook page or similar. Maybe even some non nonsensical thing like "Favorite Food" - "Horse Droppings". As long as you remember this, nobody should be able to "hack" that over the phone. Even if you go on and on on facebook about how you "could eat your way through a giant bowl of pasta you love it so much"

>If you're going that fast, you'll have to stop every 1-2h to refuel in just about any car

Yeah, no. No way in hell, actually. You think driving 150-200 for 2 hours would drain a 70-80 Liter gas tank? I drive 50 minutes to work each day going that fast, I have an 80 Liter tank and I have to stop for gas once every 5 business days. You can calculate yourself that this equals to a "little" more than 2 hours of net driving time.

I know this is older but just in case some one experienced the same thing, the above mentioned is true.

I experienced this on iTunes on my PC quite a while ago. And since then I have not made any purchases from the iOS device itself. I buy through the PC and then sync to my devices because of slow internet.

So now, basically when I tried to make an IAP, I got the same popup. I first thought it was the app that wanted to know my details but it really is Apple. I got this out of the way by purchasing a small, 99ct app directly from my Device. So I went into the AppStore, bought the app and the same popup came up. Since this was now in the official Apple Appstore app, I answered two of my questions, downloaded the app and now, this popup is gone and I can make IAP all I like.

What exactly does "unprotected" mean in this context? I mean ssh means secure shell, so shouldn't the ssh be secure from the start? Or, a better question, what would you need to do to secure your server and why aren't these steps "on" by default?

I mean, even any new WiFi router you set up comes with WPA enabled by default. Wasn't always this way. I still remember setting up routers where the password protection was an afterthought.

But ssh isn't really that new is it? Should these security measures be default at least by now?

That sounds right. Although since I haven't entered my security question directly in that app, I was not asked to update them from any other App.

It just felt weird that a non Apple app suddenly asked for these things. I do use Find my Friends semi regularly in which you also login with your appleid password but so far there was never a message saying I needed to enter my security questions... weird.

>In order to survive, the population has to create new hosts faster than they're being killed

I don't think that's true. Why do there need to be new connections for you to go through? What you just described is the equivalent of setting up your contacts list from scratch. Say on your phone. You get a new phone and now get to re-add all the people you know or knew. Because you want to stay in touch with them.

Once that is done, does that contact list of yours also "die out" because there is nothing new to add on a regular basis? I don't think so. You just finished building your initial contacts. And you know what happens then? You start to use it. On a regular basis. It is a tool you set up and once it is set up you use it. Simple as that. And that is the same way you can use Facebook. Once you added all the people you want to stay in contact with you can do just that.

It all boils down to how people actually use Facebook. Do they use it like a tool as I just described? Or do they merely play the game of "Who can collect the most "friends""?

I use it as a tool. I have my real friends on there. I don't have 300+ people on there just so when I post something I can marvel at the multitude of "likes" to get some kind of gratification through it. And as long as all those people continue to use Facebook I can continue to keep in touch with them this way. Even past 2017 or whatever date these people have calculated.