Falstaff
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,560
- 3,574
I've looked at this list, which acquisitions are you saying are confusing?I'm sure you can find a few head scratching purchases on this list:List of mergers and acquisitions by Facebook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The upside is that you control some of the best and most promising VR tech out there. You also stop Google, Apple, and anyone else from buying it.
but I agree with you, this is a very long term purchase. Unfortunately most people just see the immediate and think that Facebook will turn this solely into a wearable, VR Facebook device and fuck over all the promising development aspects of the tech. I don't think you can make that assumption right now.
Why did you post this shit video? Its almost as bad as facebook buying oculus.What sucks about it is the fact it was crowd sourced/Kickstarted and they turned around and sold it. Pigs just want to get fatter.
Anyway... for your entertainment.
I'm not saying any are confusing. You said that this might be the first head-scratching purchase they made. Out of 45 other purchases, I'm sure there are others that might be considered "head-scratching" and not all are perfectly clear and understandable. I have no idea what those might be and I don't really care to be honest. Most were made before they went public anyways.I've looked at this list, which acquisitions are you saying are confusing?
Then I maintain my position that this is a unique purchase for facebook in that it doesn't directly intersect the social circle.I'm not saying any are confusing. You said that this might be the first head-scratching purchase they made. Out of 45 other purchases, I'm sure there are others that might be considered "head-scratching" and not all are perfectly clear and understandable. I have no idea what those might be and I don't really care to be honest. Most were made before they went public anyways.
I'm not up to date on the JOBS act, but just a curious glance, kickstarter launched 3 years prior to that bill being signed into law. So exactly what did it do to enable "Taking peoples money". Did it up the amount or something?The article is really just lamenting the fact that the JOBS Act let Oculus take those people's money for zero equity. Before the JOBS Act, the investors would have received their fair cut of the $2 billion, not just a VR headset. This isn't a move in the right direction.
he's talking like he's an investor when in fact he is simply a hopeful consumer. It would be nice if you could buy a stake in a company on kickstarter but that's the role of VC and banks. Maybe the rules will change one day.
This is absolute bunk. Kickstarter and its like were in existence before the JOBS act - which hasn't yet even been implemented (the SEC is months late in rule-making, over which Rep. Jared Polis has sent a letter to its administrator - this is a matter of public record).
The person who wrote this article has absolutely NO IDEA what he's talking about. Kickstarters have *never* been about equity, and anyone who buys into a Kickstarter campaign knows that.
The purpose of investment regulations is to prevent unsophisticated investors from being scammed out of their money. In this case, Kickstarter funders are among the most aware - these people knew EXACTLY what they were doing.
Now, if you want to see sensible, net-worth-related limits on crowdfunding for equity, that makes a hell of a lot of sense to me - the emerging-companies-funding world is filled with sharks and it's incredibly complicated. There are many ways people can get scammed out of their money, this just isn't one.
Define failure. Crying in their anime pillow?Kickstarters are just setting themselves up for failure when they think they become an investor instead of a hopeful consumer.