I know HN much desires to pile on the FB hate, but look. I read this subreddit daily and most people who have posted about a banned account have been able to get Oculus support to reinstate them after a few calls. These posts do not really come up that often for the number of people buying these things. There are other VR headset options if you don't like FB as a company and want a more open platform.
The issue is people bought it under the assumption they wouldn't need an account, then they forced an account. It's hard to see it as anything but criminal behavior
even if needing an account were acceptable, shutting down the account or preventing a device owner from using their device at all should be considered a warranty issue.
This is a half-truth. The Oculus 2 clearly states that it requires a FB account. It's printed in big words right on the box. Previous headsets will not require an account for awhile still. Though it is crappy they will eventually be required to have an account, the tech will be fairly obsolete by then anyway. Most modern consumer tech products do not exist separate from the company and are not "Buy it for life." There are other products from other companies for enthusiasts.
> Most modern consumer tech products do not exist separate from the company and are not "Buy it for life."
Oh? What products would those be? Glancing around, I've got mice, trackballs, keyboards, laptops, desktops, assorted Android phones and tablets, routers, switches, bluetooth speakers and headphones, some lights, a Nintendo Switch, and a Chromecast. Of those, only the Chromecast would be affected if the manufacturer disappeared tomorrow. The desktop is from 2011, and the laptops span ~5-10 years old, not one running the original OS (and many with hardware upgrades). The phones did require bootloader unlocking (kudos to Motorola for making this painless) and aftermarket ROMs to stay up to date, but even without that they'd work without needing any company help. Likewise I'll concede that some routers/switches are a pain (I was grumpy at the hoops I had to jump through to switch my Edgerouter to OpenWRT) but it's fine and again even the default options didn't require an online account or any service from the manufacturer. I don't think this is a foregone conclusion at all.
The real issue is thinking that is ok. Ownership has been degraded and devalued. There needs to be a new term that defines this new type of relationship between customers and corporations. And it should be illegal to call it ownership anymore on the basis of false advertising.
I think the term would be "as a service." And I am actually ok with that. There are lots of things I buy that are like that. You don't always need something physical and lasting to show for a purchase. I understand the Oculus business model and went in understanding it. I'm putting in an up-front cost and then future payments for content and I don't own the headset or the content in any kind of traditional sense. The closest analogue in this case is a digital vacation. I will have experiences and memories to show for it and a souvenir once the headset no longer has any functional value.
I am totally ok with it being regulated what could be called ownership. I think the crappiest thing about FB is that a whole lot of early adopters thought they were becoming owners and only later realized that they were renters. Legal action seems possible over this. I went in with clear expectations so I do not have the same complaint. I also recognize this is still an early product category and that I take certain consumer risks to experience the future today.
There would still be things to establish with regards to this new type of relationship.
Who is responsible for repairs? How about recycling? How about insurance? How about upgrades?
If as a customer I am no longer an owner of the device, I believe some of these should no longer be my responsability.
> Most modern consumer tech products do not exist separate from the company and are not "Buy it for life."
Adding a FB account dependency renders the device useless after the fact, for some owners. This seems like a violation of First Sale doctrine, and hopefully gets smacked down in court rather than accepted as a dystopian new reality.
Let's cool it with the hyperbole. Facebook is doing nothing but abiding by the terms that the buyer agreed to. You (and everyone else) can "punish" them by simply not buying their junk.
