Why do you think Facebook bought Oculus to buy the future?

Facebook's 10 years are no surprise.

A year ago I thought that line and other IM apps were better than Facebook. and predicted the failure of Facebook home, because Zuckerberg and his company did not understand the true meaning of mobile interconnection.

But the change in Facebook's identity as a mobile ad giant has changed me a lot. While I am puzzled by Facebook's attempt to buy Snapchat at a high-priced price, Facebook still believes that it has a bright prospect in mobile. And for Facebook to buy WhatsApp, I think it's a big step in integrating its mobile social products.

This week, Facebook's acquisition of Oculus, a virtual reality company (400 million dollars in cash, plus about $1.6 billion worth of 23.1 million Facebook shares), left me scratching my head about Facebook's strategy.

For Facebook's current share price, the acquisition is reasonable. With Facebook's market valued at around $156 billion trillion, its fast-growing annual revenue is unlikely to be achieved by moving from a computer to a mobile business.

If Facebook's stock is expected to fall in the future, a big takeover with shares is the right decision. Although Zuckerberg holds only 28% of Facebook's shares, he has a 100% control over Facebook.

Thus, it would be wise to buy call options ahead of time on the next possible business operating platform. Fred Wilson ' s is saying:

"In the past 7 years, it is well known that the mobile sector will be the next big platform." So after everything has been moved? This is also the reason that many tech crocodiles are looking for the next platform extravagantly, who do not want to miss the opportunity to fallout after the heavy sums now. ”

Zuckerberg has also made similar comments:

"Our goal is to make the world more open and interconnected," he said. In the past few years, mobile apps have allowed us to enjoy sharing and being intimately connected. While the mobile landscape is still promising, we now have to start looking for and thinking about what the next platform will be to bring a more interesting user experience. ”

Here are two questions:

If acquiring WhatsApp is the first step in the field of IM application, this first step is obviously not good. In HTC, the mobile-era killer app, I barely mentioned WhatsApp. The reason is that, compared with line and micro-letter, WhatsApp is too uncompetitive. If Zuckerberg thinks that WhatsApp's income will be in the mobile arena once and for all, especially in Asian markets, he's a big mistake.

Another problem is that no matter how incredibly Oculus technology is, I can't believe in virtual reality, which brings the next general-purpose computing platform.

Perhaps my most pertinent comment is from an article on the Apple digital hub. Apple has the iphone as its core user experience, and the rumored smart watch iwatch as an extension of its user experience, perhaps with a richer hub in the future.

Without saying exactly how Apple does it, does Zuckerberg want people to put Oculus's virtual reality helmet at home a bigger challenge than Apple's rumored smart watch (or ring)? The reason why Mobile is the hottest platform in comparison with PC is that it can be carried by people. The virtual reality of the helmet will be brought about by the convenience of technology into a deliberate behavior.

For me, the power of technology lies in a more convenient life. If you compare a computer to a bicycle that can be run in your mind, the purpose of this transport is to make it easier and faster for humans to do what they want to do. That's what the iphone and other smartphones are all about. The computer is not the destination, but can be with us at any time, ready to navigate, find a restaurant, or use Flappy Bird to kill time tools. In other words, the great thing about moving as a platform is not that people need to use computers more, but that computers can accompany us to more places.

What I've seen is that Oculus's technology will be just the opposite of a possible future platform. In reality, people are fleeing the computer-dominated life as much as possible and spending more time in daily activities. And Oculus advocated is a more comprehensive, thorough, can exposure to the virtual world. Just imagine, after a day in front of the computer, how many people would like to go back home and continue to the screen? Game fans will be interested, Zuckerberg might appreciate it, but what about ordinary people?

For most people, computers are tools, not endpoints. Computers help us write novels, play music, communicate, Taobao, and even hook up. If a computer is compared to a bicycle, most people do not ride for a ride, but to arrive at point B from point A. Replacing bicycles with massage chairs is of little significance.

Zuckerberg's greatest advantage is that he is willing to adapt, adjust and change. But I was disappointed by the takeover. It seems that Facebook's core idea in the Mobile world is not based on the "smart phone is the best bike", and thus misses the essence of technology.