It'd be great to have a trilateral collaboration between Valve, Google, and HTC on that. Google would have the mobile platform stake, Valve the high end stake, and HTC the hardware stake.
However, they bought an RF lab from HTC, so it's probably a mobile product, not the VR product.
The notion of such a collaboration sounds interesting. For most industries, it would healthier for consumers in the long run if the major stakeholders competed, rather than collaborated, at this early stage. But in the short term, it means framework fragmentation, publishing pains for indie app developers as the big guns vie for exclusive contracts. Not to mention potentially delaying technological progress in the space, what with all the R&D occurring within isolated silos keeping their trade secrets close to the vest.
> For most industries, it would healthier for consumers in the long run if the major stakeholders competed, rather than collaborated, at this early stage.
For what it's worth, I figure they have lots of competition in terms of Samsung, Oculus, and Microsoft.
Yup, that's what it seems like. Which means I was probably wrong. I believed, when announced, that they were interested in the VR hardware department.
Well, more like I hoped it would be the goal. I'd love good AR, which I see as being similar enough to VR. I also want it tied to some sort of big data along with ease of discoverability.
I'd like to be riding down the road, see a bridge, be able to identify the bridge, be able to see when it was constructed, be able to see the plans and capacity limits, see who did the construction, see if there were accidents during construction, and things like that. I'd like the same for buildings, airplanes, cars, etc...
So, Google married with VR would be a potential start to something I'd really like to see. Alas, I was wrong. I'm a bit disappointed, but not really surprised.
My storage solution is Blue-ray discs + External HDD + AWS Glacier. Once I use the RAW files, I rarely need them, that's why I store them in Blue-ray discs as a backup.
They mention it's meant to be low level so people using React, Glitter etc would use the same API and maybe only have to dive into it for additional performance gains
This is a product for tracking everything you do, and tries to accomplish that by pulling data from other services that track everything you do.
Is Facebook uniquely untrustworthy in this category? Is there anything about Gyroscope that makes it uniquely trustworthy, if only they gathered your data directly?
It isn't about being untrustworthy: I don't use Facebook, I use many other things but not Facebook. If he has the code to handle Facebook logins, he has the code to handle Google logins as well.
The main issue I have with Facebook is that their goal is diametrically opposed to the concept of the Internet that I would subscribe to. They are actively working toward attaining a monopoly for online social activity. In a sense, they want to become the "social wrapper" for everything that is done on the Internet.
I completely deleted my Facebook account a few weeks ago and quickly am realizing how far-reaching their monopoly already is.
This point alone - which doesn't even include the many, many privacy issues FB has - is enough for me to say I will not use a service that requires a FB login.
Let's not just assume the parent of your comment thinks Facebook is untrustworthy; how about if someone (like me, for example) just doesn't have a Facebook account?
I would like to use it but not reveal who I am. I think this is more than fair enough reason, and probably the direction these guys should move towards.
IIRC the friends list is in the default app permissions, and calling the graph API only returns the friends on your list who also gave the same permission to the app.
I don't like Facebook but I have an account because my mom and wife do too. So I choose not to connect my account with anything. Am I an unacceptable weirdo?
Even if I am in a tiny minority, I don't have a Facebook account and I would prefer to continue not having one
(motive: snobbism, more than privacy concerns).
So if a service is only available through a FB login I decline to use the service.
Common plight these days. I've considered making throwaway facebook profiles for these sorts of things before, but there's got to be a better solution.
Why wouldn't you make a throwaway Facebook profile? My Facebook account was initially created as my legitimate account, but now I treat it as essentially a throwaway. It makes logging in to most random little sites extremely handy, and I see no measurable downside.
If you want to remain any kind of anonymous, it means logging into each facebook login-enabled site with a new, fresh fb account. Using one trash account might stop them from linking things to your 'real identity' (such as fb perceives it), but it still lets them link all of your activities together and build a profile. Persona linking from there isn't hard, based on usernames or email addresses used (see pipl and similar for examples of casual, publicly available version of these tools). But even if there's no persona/pseudonym linking algo going on, you're still being 'tracked'. It's not fully anonymous.
