[whysonot]

> When Iribe said, Yeah, it’s pretty much just about gaming, at least for now, Zuckerberg seemed to lose interest. Facebook was not a video-game company and over the years had moved to make games a smaller part of what users saw when they logged on.

I've seen Mark's vision for Oculus described as the next step in connecting all of the people on the planet in a few pieces now. What interests me about this position is that it implies:

1) gaming and entertainment braodly are not the end game. Instead, the social interactions.

2) VR hardware will see broader consumer penetration in the population not yet reached by facebook than mobile phones

Not sure what I think yet.

[shostack]

My bet is FB's end game with VR only starts to be realized once hardware is much smaller, much cheaper, performs better, and is ubiquitous.

Imagine how kids are glued to their cell phones today. Not I true a slim, always on VR/augmented reality device that allows them to connect with their friends virtually. Add cameras and mics for shared experiences and streaming their lives and it is clear this is in its infancy.

"Rainbow's End" by Vernor Vinge starts to get into this a bit and provides great insight there. Functional "telepathy" seems almost reachable with how fast this has moved.

[deelowe]

I don't see it happening. There's no way people are going to be strapping things to their faces for social interaction.

[cpeterso]

I agree. Many people (30% apparently) prefer text messages over voice calls. I don't see 360° VR video being convenient or worth the bother for casual communication.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/22/tech/mobile/americans-prefer-t...

[oaktowner]

Hard to see how that broad penetration jibes with a $1500 price tag (if the story is correct).

[vernie]

The $1500 figure from the article seems to include the PC that drives the Oculus.