The ban isn't about the sale of oculus quest. It's about all oculus devices.
Facebook said all oculus devices would need a facebook account. I know this statement is overly broad and not (exactly) true but this is the nightmare scenario oculus users are dreading.
Facebook said there were caveats and exceptions. For example, if you bought it before date x then you don't need to create a facebook account, etc... The german privacy commission isn't convinced facebook would/could separate the purely oculus created facebook accounts from their normal accounts.
Now it becomes a coupling issue. Apparently it's illegal in Germany and I know this is illegal in Belgium. And if I took a guess it would be illegal in most countries in the EU.
It violates GDPR, so it's illegal in the EU in general (plus UK & Switzerland). The relevant parts are Article 7 Paragraph 4, and Recital 43. In short, consent isn't valid if it's a condition for an unrelated contract.
EDIT: Maybe this wasn't clear, but I was replying specifically to this part in the parent comment: "violates GDPR, so it's illegal in the EU in general (plus UK & Switzerland)" as GDPR never specifically applied in Switzerland.
I'm not sure it applies to Switzerland. GDPR at least doesn't seem to apply to Swiss companies catering to Swiss residents [1], so I'm not sure it would apply to Facebook/Oculus here. Also, if we're going for completeness EU/EEA is included as far as I know, not just EU.
It is, however, member of EFTA, the Single Market Agreement, Schengen, and the European Conference for the Protection of Spotted Eels (but not the Customs Union, nor EEA). It also has a host of individual agreements to participate in Bologna and the like.
As a result, any given EU regulation, especially of the economy, is more likely than not to also apply to Switzerland.
Through GDPR applies to any company selling to the EU, the fact that you can easily travel to Switzerland to buy a product due to more or less open borders and import it to the EU can matter in some cases. So to be "safe" I wouldn't be surprised if they would need to put geo-fencing in to be on the safe site.
Due to Facebook repeatedly intentionally breaching or trying to undermine EU (and member states) laws and regulations (because the penalties are lower then their profit) there isn't really much (any?) good-will left with the local and EU law keepers (except in Ireland, because money) .
So there is a good chance law keepers won't give FB any flex when FB is trying to sell a physical product,
a think for which there are much more regulations then for FB itself (like health&safety, proper advertisement etc.). For example they will very likely need to put a clear readable "requires internet","requires a FB account" to be used note on their boxes (and internet sale descriptions). Because a large degree of the usability is restricted without a FB account. Which is something I believe FB doesn't like at all ;=)
This is a bit late. For most people this is a footnote, but for you it actually matters.
The UK passed (implemented?) GDPR as a law while it was in the EU, and will retain that law after it leaves the EU. However, its interpretation of GDPR will be allowed to diverge. For one thing, the court case "Schrems II" is from an EU case post-Brexit, so it is not binding on the UK's interpretation of GDPR. This is going to be a pain point for the UK as it attempts to maintain data flows with the EU.
I overstated and got confused about Switzerland's relationship to GDPR. I for some reason thought they signed a treaty with the EU had materially similar terms as GDPR. It seems what's actually in effect is an Adequacy Decision, where the EU recognizes Switzerland's data protection laws as being "good enough" that all data transfers to Switzerland don't need extra protections.
Part of my confusion is that Switzerland also recognizes the US Privacy Shield framework, along with the EU and UK. So there's EU-Privacy Shield (dead), UK-Privacy Shield, Swiss-Privacy Shield, EU-GDPR, and UK-GDPR. I had thought there was also Swiss-GDPR, but there is not.
Wasn't there also the think that the German Monopoly commission allowed the merge (in the German marked) only under certain conditions/guarantees Facebook had to gave which the change to require Facebook for anything close to full usage of an Oculus VR headset violates?
It's also not the first time that Facebook told (legally binding) the monopoly one thing and then did another thing being like "Uh we give a shit about German and Eu law the penalties are to small".
Then there is GDPR.
So I wouldn't be surprised if it's partially because they have problems with putting up a "user contract" which isn't blown up directly into their face. Which allows them to (try to) wriggle out of constraints.
Honestly while some EU countries still back FB (because profit) in many countries FB has lost all/most patience and goodwill from the law keepers.
Also fun side note as far as I know FB also promised the founder of Oculus that they would not do exactly that (require a FB account for social features). Sure it's not legally binding but just another of a very large pill of anecdotes about how FB can not be trusted at all and given Marks role in it you can pretty much extend that to him to, which IMHO isn't surprising if you look into the (early) history of FB...
I don't think it's a matter of penalties being light really, if the EU hits too hard it'll just turn into a trade dispute. I think the much more likely attitude is "what are they going to do, build something better?" which isn't really an unfair mindset given germany, and more broadly Europe's, dismal history with competing at this kind of stuff.
I was kind of tempted to buy an Oculus headset because a friend of mine had good things to say about it. But the coupling requirement has made buying it impossible, as I don't have, never had, and will never have a Facebook account. One less gadget to worry about.
Presumably not, because "I don't have, never had, and will never have a Facebook account" covers all things which need a Facebook account, which you know those things do or you wouldn't be mentioning them trying to "gotcha". And if you know it, someone who opposes Facebook that strongly surely also knows it.
WhatsApp doesn't actually require a facebook account, just a phone number. Or at least it used to be that way?
Personally I (unfortunately) do use WhatsApp while avoiding all other Facebook products. At least WhatsApp doesn't try to manipulate you and has some form of e2e encryption.
It does try to manipulate you. It has dark patterns such as nagging for phonebook access, and if you grant and then revoke such access, it hides all your contact names (showing number only) until you re-enable phonebook access. They also store your phonebook contents remotely so they can nag non-users to join and reveal you have become a user to anyone in your phonebook. It's not facebook-level or linkedin-level evil but it's definitely manipulative and nasty. The safe way to use it is on a separate device with no contacts.
No “gotcha”: Both of those things have separate user databases, and can be used without Facebook. Many people who vehemently renounce FB accounts use one or both of them, myself included.
I recently deleted my IG (February) due to censorship issues, but still have a WhatsApp account on a burner device for talking to the few people I haven’t been able to get to switch to Signal.
What is the point in vehemently renouncing a Facebook account, but not renouncing giving your data, contact details, phone number, call history, data stream, to Facebook through WhatsApp?
It isn't the username and password which is the objectionable thing about Facebook.
They can tell your contacts by seeing who you contact, and when you contact them, how often, how quickly they respond, how long the connection goes on, whether it's a lot or little data, voice or text, large or small data. They probably get a better view of your actual contacts than your address book ever has, they're just missing "dentist near my old home" and "aunt I never talk to".
Yeah, I created an account a few years ago, since a few of my friends relied on Messenger / FB Events to coordinate plans. I used anti-tracking plugins, on mobile I used an unofficial F-Droid client for Messenger, desktop only used the mbasic.facebook.com
It was probably two months before my account was flagged for "suspicious activity" and asked that I submit a photo of a government-issued ID, which I never obliged.
You’re lucky. I made it 30 minutes after changing all the privacy settings and not providing a phone number then signing in on my phone browser. I accidentally sent in my profile pic for the “suspicious activity” verifier which is totally on me. Instantly got my account disabled and have been unsuccessful at recovering it since June 2019 despite several attempts at sending in my ID as they requested.
However, now the create a new account page says there’s an existing disabled account with this email address, but the account support portal says one doesn’t exist! Top notch engineering. Luckily I have my IG account for Messenger login, but I can’t use it for desktop sign-on’s which is pretty dumb.
My group of friends has an in-joke about an imaginary friend of ours that we blame whenever small inconveniences happen. ("I didn't eat the the last slice of pizza! Marcelo did it!")
We made a Facebook account for Marcelo a few years back as a joke. One day a couple years in, we could no longer log into his account without proving his identity. We probably tripped some internal flags because it was being logged into by several IPs that also had their own Facebook accounts is my guess, that or someone not in on the joke reported Marcelo. Either way, Marcelo can't use Facebook anymore... A small inconvenience in our case, but this is definitely something that can and does happen to fake accounts.
Annoyingly, someone/somebot made a full mirror of my Facebook account one day and sent me a friend request as well as several of my friends and family. I reported it and eventually got back a response that the account was not in violation of any rules. That was years ago and I had forgotten about it until just now. Just checked today and it seems it's actually gone, but it was very creepy at the time.
The problem with creating a Facebook account is that you have to agree to their ToS & privacy policy and thus give them legal permission ("consent" in GDPR terms) to stalk you in every way possible and they are very good at that (in fact they already have a "shadow profile" on you, but as long as you haven't agreed to the terms they are doing so in breach of the law).
If you really want to use a throwaway account and have a chance to escape their surveillance engine, use it on a separate machine, VPN'd to a separate network (where none of your real traffic ends up) and do not do anything on that machine that can be correlated to your real activity (no playing with friends for example).
I guess the funny thing about this EU law is, does Facebook know any less about you when you don’t sign into Oculus with your Facebook account? They are the same company.
Oculus is a subsidiary of Facebook, they're not the same company. Facebook cannot legally use Oculus userdata in Facebook products, at least in the EU that is.
Facebook could not legally use phone numbers provided by users for two-factor verification either. They still did it and suffered near-zero consequences.
Currently there is no reason to believe that Facebook should be trusted for anything (based on their past actions) or that the current regulatory environment (both US and EU) is effective at discouraging and punishing violations.
> They still did it and suffered near-zero consequences.
Wasn't this part of the settlement with the FTC for about 5 billion dollars? I'll agree with you it evidently is not enough to really deter Facebook but I wouldn'T call it nothing, that was one of the largest fines ever handed out.
Same in Europe, Google has taken significant fines. Those companies are not untouchable any more. And yeah I don't trust facebook that much either but I don't think they'll blatantly ignore the law intentionally.
Well once you log into it with you FB account you also might have signed a (likely illegal) TOS/AGB which allows them just that under some esoteric reason like giving you the more person specific advertisement you want by including all you Oculus interactions.
Also don't forget that there is quite a social factor to VR and they are pretty much going in the "single player only usage without FB account direction".
Don't they require a cell phone? I got rid of Facebook years ago, but they have my phone number tied to that old account.
I was going to get a Quest for Star Wars Squadrons until this came out. I don't care how much more the Vive is or how many features it's behind. Not worth reactivating FB for it.
They legally require you to give them honest/correct personal information.
Practically maybe.
But there is all the pairing with phone etc. requirement.
There are also all the information they likely will collect about usage patters, interactions and your PC. So if you don't also use a isolated throwaway PC/console account and don't use social features you can be sure they will be able to somewhat link your information anyway.
It not just about forcing increased FB marked share.
It's also about an additional source of information they can link and combine.
(Due to GDPR they are quite restrict about what data Oculus can share with the rest of FB.)
Yes, this was why I bought one, before the coupling requirement.
My brother got one and loved it, he raved about how fun VR was. I had considered it for a while, but I wasn't ready to commit $1000-$2000 for a capable gaming rig + however much the VR headset was going to cost just to try it out.
Oculus Quest was the perfect way to try out VR for me, a couple hundred dollars for a pretty good VR headset. No need to have sensors on polls or anything. Super lightweight way to dip a toe into VR and see if the medium was a compelling experience for me.
I remember researching if I had to login with facebook and found that you could just make an Oculus account with an email address. Got it, enjoyed it, still enjoy it.
The decision to couple the Oculus Quest and your facebook account puts a seriously sour taste in my mouth though. I think that when that deadline comes up, I'll probably just sell it and buy something that doesn't have that requirement, it will likely be time for an upgrade anyways.
The Index does, but there are a number of options that are not Oculus and provide the standalone experience. My point was really: there are other options that are at least as good, so you don't need to ditch the idea of getting VR.
Vive Focus and Pico Neo G2 are both standalone, 6-DOF, and still in production (unlike the Lenovo Mirage Solo, which was the first standalone 6-DOF). Hardware is nearly identical to the Quest (they all run Android on a Snapdragon 835). Software experience is quite different, though.
I'd be curious about what you mean by software experience. Presumably oculus home gets replaced, but is the performance of things like tracking noticably different?
Yeah, the home screen is "different" (though that's actually probably where they are the most alike). It's stuff like the boundary setup experience is very different. Their respective SDKs are incompatible with each other, so the available software library is very limited on the Focus and Neo. But they are also mostly "stock" Android devices (other than the VR related APIs), so as a developer there are no artificial barriers like on the Oculus platform.
Tracking-wise, there isn't a lot of difference. Certainly not enough to warrant giving all your data to Facebook.
I haven't tried the Pico but the Vive Focus is not anywhere close to the experience of the Quest, especially when it comes to tracking.
The Quest stands out because the tracking is as accurate and consistent as on desktop class VR headsets. The software and user experience is a clear notch above any other standalone headset.
Yes, the Quest is better, that can't be denied, but I don't think it's head-and-shoulders better. I think we need to be a little more forgiving of the minor flaws of the other headsets on the market (like the Vive Focus) specifically because we need to not allow Facebook to realize their plans of dominating VR [0].
I do think it's a level above the competition, thanks to their multi-year head start on the hardware-software integration (a la Apple) and their focus on VR comfort/quality. A year after it's launched, there's still no real competitor on the mass market side, just a few enterprise attempts (aka we haven't spent enough to get enough high-quality 3rd party content).
I think it might already be too late in terms of dominating.
I find there's some VERY good virtual reality YouTube channels. I find ThrillSeeker's weekly 10 minute "Tuesday Newsday" roundup [1] to be the most time efficient way to keep up with VR. In the past I used to regularly watch videos by Tyriel Wood [2], MRTV [3] and VirtualRealityOasis [4] which also often have high quality content and analysis but which focus on different things.
On Reddit, there has been some coverage of those headsets in the past, eg [4], [5] and [6], but it's easy to miss. I still find headset analysis from VR YouTuber the best.
Also not all tracking is equivalent. Some headsets released by companies are truly atrocious.
I wouldn't say they are "truly atrocious". That makes them sound unusable. They're "slightly less good" than the Quest. They're very usable. They're not the best, but they get the job done.
On the other hand, I have had some headsets that were "truly atrocious". The Meta 2 was one. Never before or since have I had an AR headset give me simsickness. The PiMax 5K, with its nasty distortion at any view angle beyond the ~100° average of every other headset and its sole raison d'être, plus red image static, plus janky sidecar driver program. The Pico Neo 1, where the facial interface cut painfully into the bridge of my nose (I have it on good authority that the 2 corrects this issue for Western markets).
I was super disappointed when Google canned Daydream. I thought the Lenovo Mirage Solo was way ahead of the market.
The Vive Focus's controllers are a little flaky, but not unusable.
The original HoloLens was way too heavy, way to narrow of FoV, way underpowered, but hand tracking and built-in voice recognition, and MR desktop metaphor was quite something. I have yet to get hands on the 2, so I'm eager to get one. There's a quality of life experience with the software and the development lifecycle that is really, really missing from every other platform.
My point is that we should legitimately ignore the terrible headsets, but try to be a little more forgiving of the flaws of other the "not best-of-the-best" headsets. We absolutely need market competition in headsets. We must not allow Facebook to dominate VR. That is their end-goal, after all, and it would certainly be to the detriment of us all.
You can just buy the Vive Focus. I have the one with the eye tracking built in. There are a lot of games in the app store, so it's not clear that is "only" enterprise. Yes, they don't go out of their way to market it as a consumer device, but there isn't anything functional to prevent it.
In general though, I agree. There needs to be more 6-dof standalone headsets. I'd love to have a standalone WindowsMR headset. Something like HoloLens with lenses and OLED displays instead of the waveguides.
The Quest is pretty good, but it's not all that great to think that Facebook is an unbeatable juggernaut. Hell, all of the standalones (3-dof or 6) are still only running the Snapdragon 835 Mobile (not much more than clones of Qualcomm's first VR headset reference design), where the 855 and 865 have tracking on-chip. The 835 is not actually all that great for VR (it's what's running in my now-ancient Pixel 2), it's just the only SoC that hardware vendors have put the effort into. Hell, Qualcomm has two SoCs specifically for XR that nobody is using.
EDIT: correction, the HoloLens 2 is running on the 850 Compute Platform, which is mostly the same as the 845 mobile.
Not a big deal until they notice and ban your account, or randomly decide to require more info like you phone number or drivers license. Then who knows if your purcashed hardware or games are even usable anymore.
People don't seem to realize how much things have changed on this front. Facebook now uses a whole lot of techniques to monitor new accounts, important aspects of which are that you post things, add realistic (and connected) friends, etc. If your new account does not do those things it will be locked and you will be asked to provide government ID to prove it is really you.
So far I haven't been asked for ID on any account, since my fake account is quite well connected with other (fake) accounts.
On certain pertinent internet forums you will find threads regularly where people are connecting with other's made-up accounts.
They're pretty much indistinguishable from real accounts, so unless Facebook starts implementing an ID requirement for all accounts, they'll never be able to stop this.
And even then determined people could be sending in fake IDs.
My recommendation for creating a fake account is, once you have seeded it with a few friends, just add most people facebook recommends you. Plenty of real people (the 900 friends facebook addicts) do this as well.
Currently there is a rumor of a new Quest being released at Facebook Connect September 16.
Walmart and Target also might have "leaked" and confirmed the price of the new base 64GB version to be only $299 which makes things interesting.
And they haven't really only stopped "selling" them in Germany. They are out of stock almost everywhere, Walmart, B&H, abt and more.
Renders of the new "Quest" were also leaked by a twitter account with a great track record when it comes to leaks, the user h0x0d who's account has been closed by twitter :-)
I had almost given up ever using FB last year, perhaps logged in briefly once a month.
The pan I bought an Oculus Quest (best toy ever!) and I started uploading videos to FB so I could watch them on my Quest, started buying Quest VR experiences, etc.
After the purchase, I am logging into FB once a week.
It should be considered illegal product bundling for Oculus to require a Facebook account. Facebook has an extreme monopoly on social media and should be shattered into a dozen companies.
This is a GDPR issue not an anti-trust one. Also it should apply not just to Germany. Effectively buying the product cannot be tied to given consent for an unrelated service.
Well, there's any kind of person anywhere, anyway.
I think it's not wrong to be pre-emptively wary of that (and prepare arguments for it), considering the way F.U.D. about "cookie banners" [1] got many people worked up against a supposedly useless and clueless law that (again, supposedly) "forces" sites to show such banners -- because their desire to track, which is the first link in this causal chain, is being ignored or assumed as given and benign.
[1] banners sites put up because they would prefer to track everyone on the first visit, rather than having an opt-in link somewhere in the footer for example.
That's sort of reminiscent of the British alt-right's idea that the German car industry would be running to Merkel demanding her to pressure the EU into giving them a sweetheart deal.
As it turns out (or, more accurately: as people with a clue foretold from the beginning), this overestimated the willing ness of car executives to prioritise shareholder value at the expense of all else, the car industry's lobbying power, and Merkel's power in the EU.
Here, I'd similarly predict that Facebook is going to end up with most of the blame. People aren't entirely clueless, GDPR has quite a bit of support, and Facebook is only slightly above soggy bread in popularity.
But, in any case, a few thousand gamers, many of them under 18, in one country, wouldn't be able to get a law change. The EU also doesn't usually make small adjustments by passing new legislation as many other parliaments do. Instead, they do one huge thing like GDPR every decade or so (per sector).
I've been on the fence about buying one and was leaning against it because of this kind of stuff. In the few weeks since I started following it this kind of stuff has already started coming up. No thanks. FB loses a customer again.
The ban isn't about the sale of oculus quest. It's about all oculus devices.
Facebook said all oculus devices would need a facebook account. I know this statement is overly broad and not (exactly) true but this is the nightmare scenario oculus users are dreading.
Facebook said there were caveats and exceptions. For example, if you bought it before date x then you don't need to create a facebook account, etc... The german privacy commission isn't convinced facebook would/could separate the purely oculus created facebook accounts from their normal accounts.
Now it becomes a coupling issue. Apparently it's illegal in Germany and I know this is illegal in Belgium. And if I took a guess it would be illegal in most countries in the EU.
It violates GDPR, so it's illegal in the EU in general (plus UK & Switzerland). The relevant parts are Article 7 Paragraph 4, and Recital 43. In short, consent isn't valid if it's a condition for an unrelated contract.
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/
https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/
EDIT: Maybe this wasn't clear, but I was replying specifically to this part in the parent comment: "violates GDPR, so it's illegal in the EU in general (plus UK & Switzerland)" as GDPR never specifically applied in Switzerland.
I'm not sure it applies to Switzerland. GDPR at least doesn't seem to apply to Swiss companies catering to Swiss residents [1], so I'm not sure it would apply to Facebook/Oculus here. Also, if we're going for completeness EU/EEA is included as far as I know, not just EU.
[1] https://www.pwc.ch/en/insights/tax/gdpr-swiss-based-companie...
switzerland is not in EU
Yes, I live in Switzerland and am well aware. I was replying to the parent comment.
It is, however, member of EFTA, the Single Market Agreement, Schengen, and the European Conference for the Protection of Spotted Eels (but not the Customs Union, nor EEA). It also has a host of individual agreements to participate in Bologna and the like.
As a result, any given EU regulation, especially of the economy, is more likely than not to also apply to Switzerland.
Well maybe they have similar regulations.
So well it's a bit strange.
Through GDPR applies to any company selling to the EU, the fact that you can easily travel to Switzerland to buy a product due to more or less open borders and import it to the EU can matter in some cases. So to be "safe" I wouldn't be surprised if they would need to put geo-fencing in to be on the safe site.
Due to Facebook repeatedly intentionally breaching or trying to undermine EU (and member states) laws and regulations (because the penalties are lower then their profit) there isn't really much (any?) good-will left with the local and EU law keepers (except in Ireland, because money) .
So there is a good chance law keepers won't give FB any flex when FB is trying to sell a physical product, a think for which there are much more regulations then for FB itself (like health&safety, proper advertisement etc.). For example they will very likely need to put a clear readable "requires internet","requires a FB account" to be used note on their boxes (and internet sale descriptions). Because a large degree of the usability is restricted without a FB account. Which is something I believe FB doesn't like at all ;=)
This is a bit late. For most people this is a footnote, but for you it actually matters.
The UK passed (implemented?) GDPR as a law while it was in the EU, and will retain that law after it leaves the EU. However, its interpretation of GDPR will be allowed to diverge. For one thing, the court case "Schrems II" is from an EU case post-Brexit, so it is not binding on the UK's interpretation of GDPR. This is going to be a pain point for the UK as it attempts to maintain data flows with the EU.
I overstated and got confused about Switzerland's relationship to GDPR. I for some reason thought they signed a treaty with the EU had materially similar terms as GDPR. It seems what's actually in effect is an Adequacy Decision, where the EU recognizes Switzerland's data protection laws as being "good enough" that all data transfers to Switzerland don't need extra protections.
Part of my confusion is that Switzerland also recognizes the US Privacy Shield framework, along with the EU and UK. So there's EU-Privacy Shield (dead), UK-Privacy Shield, Swiss-Privacy Shield, EU-GDPR, and UK-GDPR. I had thought there was also Swiss-GDPR, but there is not.
Wasn't there also the think that the German Monopoly commission allowed the merge (in the German marked) only under certain conditions/guarantees Facebook had to gave which the change to require Facebook for anything close to full usage of an Oculus VR headset violates?
It's also not the first time that Facebook told (legally binding) the monopoly one thing and then did another thing being like "Uh we give a shit about German and Eu law the penalties are to small".
Then there is GDPR.
So I wouldn't be surprised if it's partially because they have problems with putting up a "user contract" which isn't blown up directly into their face. Which allows them to (try to) wriggle out of constraints.
Honestly while some EU countries still back FB (because profit) in many countries FB has lost all/most patience and goodwill from the law keepers.
Also fun side note as far as I know FB also promised the founder of Oculus that they would not do exactly that (require a FB account for social features). Sure it's not legally binding but just another of a very large pill of anecdotes about how FB can not be trusted at all and given Marks role in it you can pretty much extend that to him to, which IMHO isn't surprising if you look into the (early) history of FB...
EDIT: Formulation/Spelling.
I don't think it's a matter of penalties being light really, if the EU hits too hard it'll just turn into a trade dispute. I think the much more likely attitude is "what are they going to do, build something better?" which isn't really an unfair mindset given germany, and more broadly Europe's, dismal history with competing at this kind of stuff.
> For example, if you bought it before date x then you don't need to create a facebook account, etc...
They let you use the device, but you cannot accept friend invites, even from other people "grandfathered" in
A little frustrating to say the least.
I was kind of tempted to buy an Oculus headset because a friend of mine had good things to say about it. But the coupling requirement has made buying it impossible, as I don't have, never had, and will never have a Facebook account. One less gadget to worry about.
Do you use Instagram or WhatsApp?
Presumably not, because "I don't have, never had, and will never have a Facebook account" covers all things which need a Facebook account, which you know those things do or you wouldn't be mentioning them trying to "gotcha". And if you know it, someone who opposes Facebook that strongly surely also knows it.
WhatsApp doesn't actually require a facebook account, just a phone number. Or at least it used to be that way?
Personally I (unfortunately) do use WhatsApp while avoiding all other Facebook products. At least WhatsApp doesn't try to manipulate you and has some form of e2e encryption.
It does try to manipulate you. It has dark patterns such as nagging for phonebook access, and if you grant and then revoke such access, it hides all your contact names (showing number only) until you re-enable phonebook access. They also store your phonebook contents remotely so they can nag non-users to join and reveal you have become a user to anyone in your phonebook. It's not facebook-level or linkedin-level evil but it's definitely manipulative and nasty. The safe way to use it is on a separate device with no contacts.
No “gotcha”: Both of those things have separate user databases, and can be used without Facebook. Many people who vehemently renounce FB accounts use one or both of them, myself included.
I recently deleted my IG (February) due to censorship issues, but still have a WhatsApp account on a burner device for talking to the few people I haven’t been able to get to switch to Signal.
What is the point in vehemently renouncing a Facebook account, but not renouncing giving your data, contact details, phone number, call history, data stream, to Facebook through WhatsApp?
It isn't the username and password which is the objectionable thing about Facebook.
You can use WhatsApp without uploading an address book.
They can tell your contacts by seeing who you contact, and when you contact them, how often, how quickly they respond, how long the connection goes on, whether it's a lot or little data, voice or text, large or small data. They probably get a better view of your actual contacts than your address book ever has, they're just missing "dentist near my old home" and "aunt I never talk to".
Can you not just make a throw away account?
Facebook will typically lock such accounts until you give him pictures of yourself in your house with your driver's license.
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted, they actually lock people out asking for an government ID[0] (AFAIK not necessarily yourself in the photo).
I also know someone who wanted to change their last name (their current one is already fake) and the system didn't let them without sending an ID.
[0] https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=1016165...
Yeah, I created an account a few years ago, since a few of my friends relied on Messenger / FB Events to coordinate plans. I used anti-tracking plugins, on mobile I used an unofficial F-Droid client for Messenger, desktop only used the mbasic.facebook.com
It was probably two months before my account was flagged for "suspicious activity" and asked that I submit a photo of a government-issued ID, which I never obliged.
You’re lucky. I made it 30 minutes after changing all the privacy settings and not providing a phone number then signing in on my phone browser. I accidentally sent in my profile pic for the “suspicious activity” verifier which is totally on me. Instantly got my account disabled and have been unsuccessful at recovering it since June 2019 despite several attempts at sending in my ID as they requested.
However, now the create a new account page says there’s an existing disabled account with this email address, but the account support portal says one doesn’t exist! Top notch engineering. Luckily I have my IG account for Messenger login, but I can’t use it for desktop sign-on’s which is pretty dumb.
My group of friends has an in-joke about an imaginary friend of ours that we blame whenever small inconveniences happen. ("I didn't eat the the last slice of pizza! Marcelo did it!")
We made a Facebook account for Marcelo a few years back as a joke. One day a couple years in, we could no longer log into his account without proving his identity. We probably tripped some internal flags because it was being logged into by several IPs that also had their own Facebook accounts is my guess, that or someone not in on the joke reported Marcelo. Either way, Marcelo can't use Facebook anymore... A small inconvenience in our case, but this is definitely something that can and does happen to fake accounts.
Annoyingly, someone/somebot made a full mirror of my Facebook account one day and sent me a friend request as well as several of my friends and family. I reported it and eventually got back a response that the account was not in violation of any rules. That was years ago and I had forgotten about it until just now. Just checked today and it seems it's actually gone, but it was very creepy at the time.
I've seen them ask for the person to be in the photo with the license.
The problem with creating a Facebook account is that you have to agree to their ToS & privacy policy and thus give them legal permission ("consent" in GDPR terms) to stalk you in every way possible and they are very good at that (in fact they already have a "shadow profile" on you, but as long as you haven't agreed to the terms they are doing so in breach of the law).
If you really want to use a throwaway account and have a chance to escape their surveillance engine, use it on a separate machine, VPN'd to a separate network (where none of your real traffic ends up) and do not do anything on that machine that can be correlated to your real activity (no playing with friends for example).
imagine actually worrying about this
This is what I did as I had deleted my Facebook account years ago. I haven't run into any issues so far and it's been working with my Oculus.
I guess the funny thing about this EU law is, does Facebook know any less about you when you don’t sign into Oculus with your Facebook account? They are the same company.
Oculus is a subsidiary of Facebook, they're not the same company. Facebook cannot legally use Oculus userdata in Facebook products, at least in the EU that is.
Facebook could not legally use phone numbers provided by users for two-factor verification either. They still did it and suffered near-zero consequences.
Currently there is no reason to believe that Facebook should be trusted for anything (based on their past actions) or that the current regulatory environment (both US and EU) is effective at discouraging and punishing violations.
> They still did it and suffered near-zero consequences.
Wasn't this part of the settlement with the FTC for about 5 billion dollars? I'll agree with you it evidently is not enough to really deter Facebook but I wouldn'T call it nothing, that was one of the largest fines ever handed out.
Same in Europe, Google has taken significant fines. Those companies are not untouchable any more. And yeah I don't trust facebook that much either but I don't think they'll blatantly ignore the law intentionally.
Well once you log into it with you FB account you also might have signed a (likely illegal) TOS/AGB which allows them just that under some esoteric reason like giving you the more person specific advertisement you want by including all you Oculus interactions.
Also don't forget that there is quite a social factor to VR and they are pretty much going in the "single player only usage without FB account direction".
Don't they require a cell phone? I got rid of Facebook years ago, but they have my phone number tied to that old account.
I was going to get a Quest for Star Wars Squadrons until this came out. I don't care how much more the Vive is or how many features it's behind. Not worth reactivating FB for it.
Leagally no.
They legally require you to give them honest/correct personal information.
Practically maybe.
But there is all the pairing with phone etc. requirement.
There are also all the information they likely will collect about usage patters, interactions and your PC. So if you don't also use a isolated throwaway PC/console account and don't use social features you can be sure they will be able to somewhat link your information anyway.
It not just about forcing increased FB marked share.
It's also about an additional source of information they can link and combine.
(Due to GDPR they are quite restrict about what data Oculus can share with the rest of FB.)
You could get a Valve Index instead. That's not tied to anything IIRC and is at least as good as the latest oculus headset.
That needs a powerful gaming PC though.
The whole reason the Oculus Quest is so popular is because it is a standalone device.
Yes, this was why I bought one, before the coupling requirement.
My brother got one and loved it, he raved about how fun VR was. I had considered it for a while, but I wasn't ready to commit $1000-$2000 for a capable gaming rig + however much the VR headset was going to cost just to try it out.
Oculus Quest was the perfect way to try out VR for me, a couple hundred dollars for a pretty good VR headset. No need to have sensors on polls or anything. Super lightweight way to dip a toe into VR and see if the medium was a compelling experience for me.
I remember researching if I had to login with facebook and found that you could just make an Oculus account with an email address. Got it, enjoyed it, still enjoy it.
The decision to couple the Oculus Quest and your facebook account puts a seriously sour taste in my mouth though. I think that when that deadline comes up, I'll probably just sell it and buy something that doesn't have that requirement, it will likely be time for an upgrade anyways.
The Index does, but there are a number of options that are not Oculus and provide the standalone experience. My point was really: there are other options that are at least as good, so you don't need to ditch the idea of getting VR.
The Quest is unfortunately still a bit unique as the only standalone 6DoF headset. Edit: not truly unique as pointed out.
The Index is more than double the cost for something that requires spending more money for a computer to run the whole setup.
...not that that's for nothing, the results are better than any of Oculus' products graphically. But it's a different product.
Vive Focus and Pico Neo G2 are both standalone, 6-DOF, and still in production (unlike the Lenovo Mirage Solo, which was the first standalone 6-DOF). Hardware is nearly identical to the Quest (they all run Android on a Snapdragon 835). Software experience is quite different, though.
I'd be curious about what you mean by software experience. Presumably oculus home gets replaced, but is the performance of things like tracking noticably different?
Yeah, the home screen is "different" (though that's actually probably where they are the most alike). It's stuff like the boundary setup experience is very different. Their respective SDKs are incompatible with each other, so the available software library is very limited on the Focus and Neo. But they are also mostly "stock" Android devices (other than the VR related APIs), so as a developer there are no artificial barriers like on the Oculus platform.
Tracking-wise, there isn't a lot of difference. Certainly not enough to warrant giving all your data to Facebook.
I haven't tried the Pico but the Vive Focus is not anywhere close to the experience of the Quest, especially when it comes to tracking.
The Quest stands out because the tracking is as accurate and consistent as on desktop class VR headsets. The software and user experience is a clear notch above any other standalone headset.
Yes, the Quest is better, that can't be denied, but I don't think it's head-and-shoulders better. I think we need to be a little more forgiving of the minor flaws of the other headsets on the market (like the Vive Focus) specifically because we need to not allow Facebook to realize their plans of dominating VR [0].
[0] https://www.scribd.com/document/399594551/2015-06-22-MARK-S-...
I do think it's a level above the competition, thanks to their multi-year head start on the hardware-software integration (a la Apple) and their focus on VR comfort/quality. A year after it's launched, there's still no real competitor on the mass market side, just a few enterprise attempts (aka we haven't spent enough to get enough high-quality 3rd party content).
I think it might already be too late in terms of dominating.
Wow I've never even heard of these, and I'm subbed to many virtual reality subreddits.
Edit: Upon further research, these are business/enterprise only, so they are not competitors to the Quest which is consumer first.
Reddit is a terrible place to learn anything about VR. Too many gamers.
I find there's some VERY good virtual reality YouTube channels. I find ThrillSeeker's weekly 10 minute "Tuesday Newsday" roundup [1] to be the most time efficient way to keep up with VR. In the past I used to regularly watch videos by Tyriel Wood [2], MRTV [3] and VirtualRealityOasis [4] which also often have high quality content and analysis but which focus on different things.
On Reddit, there has been some coverage of those headsets in the past, eg [4], [5] and [6], but it's easy to miss. I still find headset analysis from VR YouTuber the best.
Also not all tracking is equivalent. Some headsets released by companies are truly atrocious.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/c/ThrillSeekerVR/videos
[2] https://www.youtube.com/c/Tyrielwood/videos
[3] https://www.youtube.com/c/mixedrealityTV/videos
[4] https://www.youtube.com/c/VirtualRealityOasis/videos
[4] https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/7cs6jc/htc_vive_focus...
[5] https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/ektig3/first_new_vr...
[6] https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/hjymnn/pico...
I wouldn't say they are "truly atrocious". That makes them sound unusable. They're "slightly less good" than the Quest. They're very usable. They're not the best, but they get the job done.
On the other hand, I have had some headsets that were "truly atrocious". The Meta 2 was one. Never before or since have I had an AR headset give me simsickness. The PiMax 5K, with its nasty distortion at any view angle beyond the ~100° average of every other headset and its sole raison d'être, plus red image static, plus janky sidecar driver program. The Pico Neo 1, where the facial interface cut painfully into the bridge of my nose (I have it on good authority that the 2 corrects this issue for Western markets).
I was super disappointed when Google canned Daydream. I thought the Lenovo Mirage Solo was way ahead of the market.
The Vive Focus's controllers are a little flaky, but not unusable.
The original HoloLens was way too heavy, way to narrow of FoV, way underpowered, but hand tracking and built-in voice recognition, and MR desktop metaphor was quite something. I have yet to get hands on the 2, so I'm eager to get one. There's a quality of life experience with the software and the development lifecycle that is really, really missing from every other platform.
My point is that we should legitimately ignore the terrible headsets, but try to be a little more forgiving of the flaws of other the "not best-of-the-best" headsets. We absolutely need market competition in headsets. We must not allow Facebook to dominate VR. That is their end-goal, after all, and it would certainly be to the detriment of us all.
Yes, aren't they for the enterprise market? I don't think that they're as easy to buy as a consumer as other headsets.
You can just buy the Vive Focus. I have the one with the eye tracking built in. There are a lot of games in the app store, so it's not clear that is "only" enterprise. Yes, they don't go out of their way to market it as a consumer device, but there isn't anything functional to prevent it.
In general though, I agree. There needs to be more 6-dof standalone headsets. I'd love to have a standalone WindowsMR headset. Something like HoloLens with lenses and OLED displays instead of the waveguides.
The Quest is pretty good, but it's not all that great to think that Facebook is an unbeatable juggernaut. Hell, all of the standalones (3-dof or 6) are still only running the Snapdragon 835 Mobile (not much more than clones of Qualcomm's first VR headset reference design), where the 855 and 865 have tracking on-chip. The 835 is not actually all that great for VR (it's what's running in my now-ancient Pixel 2), it's just the only SoC that hardware vendors have put the effort into. Hell, Qualcomm has two SoCs specifically for XR that nobody is using.
EDIT: correction, the HoloLens 2 is running on the 850 Compute Platform, which is mostly the same as the 845 mobile.
Apple will release a (portable) XR headset next year according to rumors.
I suggest getting a facebook account just for the Oculus quest, because it's bomb!
Just make a John Smith account with a throwaway protonmail account. Not a big deal.
Not a big deal until they notice and ban your account, or randomly decide to require more info like you phone number or drivers license. Then who knows if your purcashed hardware or games are even usable anymore.
People don't seem to realize how much things have changed on this front. Facebook now uses a whole lot of techniques to monitor new accounts, important aspects of which are that you post things, add realistic (and connected) friends, etc. If your new account does not do those things it will be locked and you will be asked to provide government ID to prove it is really you.
Frankly, why not just use a different social network? Like google+ or myspace. (I kid, I kid)
On a serious note, I see an opening for a new social network.
That will work with Oculus? Doubtful
So far I haven't been asked for ID on any account, since my fake account is quite well connected with other (fake) accounts.
On certain pertinent internet forums you will find threads regularly where people are connecting with other's made-up accounts.
They're pretty much indistinguishable from real accounts, so unless Facebook starts implementing an ID requirement for all accounts, they'll never be able to stop this.
And even then determined people could be sending in fake IDs.
My recommendation for creating a fake account is, once you have seeded it with a few friends, just add most people facebook recommends you. Plenty of real people (the 900 friends facebook addicts) do this as well.
Tried, they ask for phone verification
Currently there is a rumor of a new Quest being released at Facebook Connect September 16.
Walmart and Target also might have "leaked" and confirmed the price of the new base 64GB version to be only $299 which makes things interesting.
And they haven't really only stopped "selling" them in Germany. They are out of stock almost everywhere, Walmart, B&H, abt and more.
Renders of the new "Quest" were also leaked by a twitter account with a great track record when it comes to leaks, the user h0x0d who's account has been closed by twitter :-)
I wonder how similar it's going to be to the Snapdragon XR2 reference design.
I'm guessing it's also going to have the forced Facebook login so a no-go.
The charge against coupling is valid.
I had almost given up ever using FB last year, perhaps logged in briefly once a month.
The pan I bought an Oculus Quest (best toy ever!) and I started uploading videos to FB so I could watch them on my Quest, started buying Quest VR experiences, etc.
After the purchase, I am logging into FB once a week.
It should be considered illegal product bundling for Oculus to require a Facebook account. Facebook has an extreme monopoly on social media and should be shattered into a dozen companies.
Ah, good, the EU is serious about enforcing antitrust tying rules.
This is a GDPR issue not an anti-trust one. Also it should apply not just to Germany. Effectively buying the product cannot be tied to given consent for an unrelated service.
I like the way they suspended sales only in Germany just to get good boy points from the German authorities.
A more cynical view would be that it is to foster resentment from potential buyers against the regulatory authorities, "see what they made us do"
You think we are bootlickers like that, in Germany? You are mistaken.
Well, there's any kind of person anywhere, anyway.
I think it's not wrong to be pre-emptively wary of that (and prepare arguments for it), considering the way F.U.D. about "cookie banners" [1] got many people worked up against a supposedly useless and clueless law that (again, supposedly) "forces" sites to show such banners -- because their desire to track, which is the first link in this causal chain, is being ignored or assumed as given and benign.
[1] banners sites put up because they would prefer to track everyone on the first visit, rather than having an opt-in link somewhere in the footer for example.
That's sort of reminiscent of the British alt-right's idea that the German car industry would be running to Merkel demanding her to pressure the EU into giving them a sweetheart deal.
As it turns out (or, more accurately: as people with a clue foretold from the beginning), this overestimated the willing ness of car executives to prioritise shareholder value at the expense of all else, the car industry's lobbying power, and Merkel's power in the EU.
Here, I'd similarly predict that Facebook is going to end up with most of the blame. People aren't entirely clueless, GDPR has quite a bit of support, and Facebook is only slightly above soggy bread in popularity.
But, in any case, a few thousand gamers, many of them under 18, in one country, wouldn't be able to get a law change. The EU also doesn't usually make small adjustments by passing new legislation as many other parliaments do. Instead, they do one huge thing like GDPR every decade or so (per sector).
I've been on the fence about buying one and was leaning against it because of this kind of stuff. In the few weeks since I started following it this kind of stuff has already started coming up. No thanks. FB loses a customer again.
I sure wish the US had rules around coupling.
I wish this concept went further, too. Hardware products like this should have to demonstrate a good reason to eschew a no-login option.