At Oculus Connect keynote, original co-founders absent onstage

As Facebook execs took to the stage during the opening keynote for the company’s VR-focused Oculus Connect 5 conference, one thing was clearly missing, the founding team that had built the virtual reality startup Facebook bought for $2 billion in 2014. None of the five original OculusVR co-founders took to the stage at the company’s […]

As Facebook execs took to the stage during the opening keynote for the company’s VR-focused Oculus Connect 5 conference, one thing was clearly missing, the founding team that had built the virtual reality startup Facebook bought for $2 billion in 2014.

None of the five original OculusVR co-founders took to the stage at the company’s big keynote, while Facebook executives including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, long-time VP of Ads Andrew Bosworth — now VP of VR/AR — and Hugo Barra, Facebook’s VP of VR, delivered the bulk of major announcements.

VP of VR/AR Andrew Bosworth

The absence of OculusVR co-founders onstage at Facebook’s biggest VR event of the year comes as a flurry of news circulates surrounding the former leaders of high-profile Facebook acquisitions. Earlier this week, Instagram’s co-founders Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger announced they were unexpectedly leaving the company. Today, we heard more WhatsApp founder Brian Acton who left Facebook earlier this year and walked away from $850 million after growing dissatisfied with the direction of the company he originally built.

From 2014

Oculus has had a more turbulent time at Facebook than other acquisitions, the company was at the center of a $3 billion lawsuit last year with ZeniMax Media over the founding of the company and the theft of intellectual property. Ultimately, Facebook was made to pay up $250 million.

Founder Palmer Luckey also proved to be quite the headache for Facebook’s public communications after his donation to an anti-Clinton group during the 2016 election led a firestorm of negative press. Luckey left Facebook last year. While the company’s other co-founders held onto leadership roles following the acquisition, a big shakeup at the end of 2016 downgraded the roles of then-CEO Brendan Iribe and then-VP of Product Nate Mitchell, with Xiaomi’s Barra coming onboard later to lead Oculus as Facebook’s VP of VR reporting directly to Zuckerberg.

The OculusVR co-founders have been taking more of a backseat role in the past couple of years at events as well. While Iribe and Luckey held a major presence during the keynotes at early conferences, last year, only Mitchell took to the stage. This year there were plenty of callbacks to Connect keynotes of the past with early employees like Chief Scientist Michael Antonov speaking about the future of the VR platform, but ultimately none of the startup’s original leadership were present onstage during the nearly 2-hour presentation.

As Facebook continues to shift its high-profile acquisitions away from autonomy and further under its core leadership umbrella, the future of founding leaders driving the public vision of the companies they originally built seems even more uncertain.

more Oculus Connect 5 coverage

FCC cracks the whip on 5G deployment against protests of local governments

The FCC is pushing for speedy deployment of 5G networks nationwide with an order adopted today that streamlines what it perceives as a patchwork of obstacles, needless costs, and contradictory regulations at the state level. But local governments say the federal agency is taking things too far.

The FCC is pushing for speedy deployment of 5G networks nationwide with an order adopted today that streamlines what it perceives as a patchwork of obstacles, needless costs, and contradictory regulations at the state level. But local governments say the federal agency is taking things too far.

5G networks will consist of thousands of wireless installations, smaller and more numerous than cell towers. This means that wireless companies can’t use existing facilities, for all of it at least, and will have to apply for access to lots of new buildings, utility poles, and so on. It’s a lot of red tape, which of course impedes deployment.

To address this, the agency this morning voted 3 to 1 along party lines to adopt the order (PDF) entitled “Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment.” What it essentially does is exert FCC authority over state wireless regulators and subject them to a set of new rules superseding their own.

First the order aims to literally speed up deployment by standardizing new, shorter “shot clocks” for local governments to respond to applications. They’ll have 90 days for new locations and 60 days for existing ones — consistent with many existing municipal timeframes but now to be enforced as a wider standard. This could be good, as the longer time limits were designed for consideration of larger, more expensive equipment.

On the other hand, some cities argue, it’s just not enough time — especially considering the increased volume they’ll be expected to process.

Cathy Murillo, Mayor of Santa Barbara, writes in a submitted comment:

The proposed ‘shot clocks’ would unfairly and unreasonably reduce the time needed for proper application review in regard to safety, aesthetics, and other considerations. By cutting short the necessary review period, the proposals effectively shift oversight authority from the community and our elected officials to for-profit corporations for wireless equipment installations that can have significant health, safety, and aesthetic impacts when those companies have little, if any, interest to respect these concerns.

Next, and even less popular, is the FCC’s take on fees for applications and right-of-way paperwork. These fees currently vary widely, because as you might guess it is far more complicated and expensive — often by an order of magnitude or more — to approve and process an application for (not to mention install and maintain) an antenna on 5th Avenue in Manhattan than it is in outer Queens. These are, to a certain extent anyway, natural cost differences.

The order limits these fees to “a reasonable approximation of their costs for processing,” which the FCC estimated at about $500 for one application for up to five installations or facilities, $100 for additional facilities, and $270 per facility per year all inclusive.

For some places, to be sure, that may be perfectly reasonable. But as Catherine Pugh, Mayor of Baltimore, put it in a letter to the FCC protesting the proposed rules, it sure isn’t for her city.

An annual fee of $270 per attachment, as established in the above document, is unconscionable when the facility may yeild profits, in some cases, many times that much in a given month. The public has invested and installed these assets [i.e. utility poles and other public infrastructure], not the industry. The industry does not own these assets; the public does. Under these circumstances, it is entirely reasonable that the public should be able to charge what it believes to be a fair price.

There’s no doubt that excessive fees can curtail deployment and it would be praiseworthy of the FCC to tackle that. But the governments they are hemming in don’t seem to appreciate being told what is reasonable and what isn’t.

“It comes down to this: three unelected officials on this dais are telling state and local leaders all across the country what they can and cannot do in their own backyards,” said FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel in a statement presented at the vote. “This is extraordinary federal overreach.”

New York City’s commissioner of information technology told Bloomberg that his office is “shocked” by the order, calling it “an unnecessary and unauthorized gift to the telecommunications industry and its lobbyists.”

The new rules may undermine deployment deals that already exist or are under development. After all, if you were a wireless company, would you still commit to paying $2,000 per facility when the feds just gave you a coupon for 80 percent off? And if you were a city looking at a budget shortfall of millions because of this, wouldn’t you look for a way around it?

Chairman Ajit Pai argued in a statement that “When you raise the cost of deploying wireless infrastructure, it is those who live in areas where the investment case is the most marginal—rural areas or lower-income urban areas—who are most at risk of losing out.”

But the basic market economics of this don’t seem to work out. Big cities cost more and are more profitable; rural areas cost less and are less profitable. Under the new rules, big cities and rural areas will cost the same, but the former will be even more profitable. Where would you focus your investments?

The FCC also unwisely attempts to take on the aesthetic considerations of installations. Cities have their own requirements for wireless infrastructure, such as how it’s painted, where it can be located, what size it can be when in this or that location. But the FCC seems (as it does so often these days) to want to accommodate the needs of wireless providers rather than the public.

Wireless companies complain that the rules are overly restrictive or subjective, and differ too greatly from one place to another. Municipalities contend that the restrictions are justified and, at any rate, their prerogative to design and enforce.

“Given these differing perspectives and the significant impact of aesthetic requirements on the ability to deploy infrastructure and provide service, we provide guidance on whether and in what circumstances aesthetic requirements violate the [Communications] Act,” the FCC’s order reads. In other words, wireless industry gripes about having to paint their antennas or not hang giant microwave arrays in parks are being federally codified.

“We conclude that aesthetics requirements are not preempted if they are (1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) published in advance,” the order continues. Does that sound kind of vague to you? Whether an city’s aesthetic requirement is “reasonable” is hardly the jurisdiction of a communications regulator.

For instance, Hudson, Ohio city manager Jane Howington writes in a comment on the order that the city has 40-foot limits on pole heights, to which the industry has already agreed, but which would be increased to 50 under the revisions proposed in the rule. Why should a federal authority be involved in something so clearly under local jurisdiction and expertise?

This isn’t just an annoyance. As with the net neutrality ruling, legal threats from states can present serious delays and costs.

“Every major state and municipal organization has expressed concern about how Washington is seeking to assert national control over local infrastructure choices and stripping local elected officials and the citizens they represent of a voice in the process,” said Rosenworcel. “I do not believe the law permits Washington to run roughshod over state and local authority like this and I worry the litigation that follows will only slow our 5G future.”

She also points out that the predicted cost savings of $2 billion — by telecoms, not the public — may be theorized to spur further wireless deployment, but there is no requirement for companies to use it for that, and in fact no company has said it will.

In other words, there’s every reason to believe that this order will sow discord among state and federal regulators, letting wireless companies save money and sticking cities with the bill. There’s certainly a need to harmonize regulations and incentivize wireless investment (especially outside city centers), but this doesn’t appear to be the way to go about it.

Star Wars: Vader Immortal is a virtual reality game coming in 2019

Few properties seem better suited to tap VR than Star Wars, if only because… you know, lightsabers. And Lucasfilm knows it. They’ve just announced Star Wars: Vader Immortal — a three part, at-home experience that’ll launch on Oculus’ just announced standalone Quest headset. Alas, there’s not much to go on besides the name, a quick […]

Few properties seem better suited to tap VR than Star Wars, if only because… you know, lightsabers.

And Lucasfilm knows it. They’ve just announced Star Wars: Vader Immortal — a three part, at-home experience that’ll launch on Oculus’ just announced standalone Quest headset.

Alas, there’s not much to go on besides the name, a quick teaser trailer, and that it’s launching sometime in 2019. Lucasfilm does note that it’ll be a “yet untold story” that’ll take place across three episodes, with the story writing lead by Dark Knight writer David S. Goyer.

This isn’t the first time the Lucasfilm/ILM teams have dabbled with VR. They released a short one-off experience called Trials of Tatooine for the HTC Vive two years ago, and they worked with The Void to build massive, full-building VR game called Secrets of the Empire that launched at Disneyland last year. But Trials was short and experimental, and Secrets requires you to be in a very specific place in the real world. This one sounds like it’ll be a bit more substantial, and intended for a wider audience.

(* tangent: for what it’s worth, Secrets of the Empire is one of the more mind-blowing VR experiences I’ve ever had. I left feeling that it was a bit pricey for the amount of time it lasted, but I’m still thinking about how damned cool it was nearly a year later.)

More on this as we hear about it.

Daily Deals: $200 off LG 4K monitor, $60 Logitech MX Master 2S mouse, and more

Looking for cool tech at great prices? Then you’ve come to the right place. iDB’s Daily Deals post is a roundup of what we believe are the best deals available on the internet today for consumer electronics, video games, media and more. So what are you waiting for? Get shopping!

Looking for cool tech at great prices? Then you’ve come to the right place. iDB’s Daily Deals post is a roundup of what we believe are the best deals available on the internet today for consumer electronics, video games, media and more. So what are you waiting for? Get shopping!... Read the rest of this post here


"Daily Deals: $200 off LG 4K monitor, $60 Logitech MX Master 2S mouse, and more" is an article by iDownloadBlog.com.
Make sure to follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

This app lets you quickly switch between Dark Mode and Light Mode on macOS

NightOwl lets you switch between Light Mode and Dark Mode on your Mac automatically. You can assign times or have it change at sunset/sunrise each day.

Dark Mode is one of the most publicized features of macOS Mojave. Unfortunately, it has a minor flaw that could make it unusable for some users. Thankfully, there’s a new third-party app, NightOwl, that removes this obstacle.... Read the rest of this post here


"This app lets you quickly switch between Dark Mode and Light Mode on macOS" is an article by iDownloadBlog.com.
Make sure to follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.