Requiring Facebook Account May Be Anti-Competitive

[Nunyabinez]

Here is the report on the hearings that Apple, Google, Facebook and others participated in this year.
https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/investigation_of_competition_in_digital_markets_majority_s...
It appears that they are suggesting the same thing as Germany and possibly the rest of the EU are claiming. Mainly that they are using their dominant position to force people to sign up for an unrelated service in order to use a product.

So for those who have been distraught about the Facebook account linking there may still be hope.

Here is what Upload VR said:

"A report and recommendations prepared by a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on antitrust law suggests Facebook may be anticompetitive with its Oculus Quest 2 account requirement. The report suggests that Congress should clarify that “conditioning access to a product or service in which a firm has market power to the use of a separate product or service is anticompetitive.”"

[OmegaM4N]

I know the EU are about to smack FB, google, amazon and Apple all down on both privacy and tax loopholes, but i had  idea they were also under attack from within their home market.....going to be interesting to watch.

[Anonymous]

It's hardly anti-competitive. What do these people expect Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Sony to do? Give customers the choice of whether to open and link accounts to other platform holders and other social media companies?

So you buy a NextBox and get given the choice whether you want to open a Microsoft or Sony account to link to your hardware? ???

Or you buy a Facebook headset and you're given the choice to open and link a Facebook account or a Twitter account? Or an Apple account? ???

It's not unreasonable for a company that manufactures hardware to insist on a customer creating an account for their hardware.

[Anonymous]

snowdog said:

It's not unreasonable for a company that manufactures hardware to insist on a customer creating an account for their hardware.

One already exists, remember? It's called an oculus account. (for the hardware)

Again, I say, "if" people want to use the social features of facebook, then they should be able to OPTIONALLY link a facebook account.
It's such a simple solution that would NOT impact on the people who are desperately wanting to give facebook everything they can, whilst trying to convince others that they should too.

[Nunyabinez]

snowdog said:

It's hardly anti-competitive. What do these people expect Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Sony to do? Give customers the choice of whether to open and link accounts to other platform holders and other social media companies?
It's not unreasonable for a company that manufactures hardware to insist on a customer creating an account for their hardware.

I agree that for example, when Apple requires you to have an Apple ID to use the store to make apps available to you it is no big deal. But if Apple wouldn't allow you to use your phone unless you signed up for Apple Music, it would be anti-competitive. I have no trouble with an Oculus account, but attaching all the Facebook stuff that has nothing to do with playing VR is an issue.

[kojack]

Maybe one day VR will catch up with almost EVERY OTHER PERIPHERAL and not need an account to just work. Stores? Ok. But the headset should still be able to run free VR stuff without any login.

[Double_Shot]

 I don't understand the persistent defense of FB by some people.  Do they have stock in the company??

[DaAuron]

snowdog said:

It's hardly anti-competitive. What do these people expect Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Sony to do? Give customers the choice of whether to open and link accounts to other platform holders and other social media companies?

Uh, a few things that are quite literally antitrust laws: Tying the Sale of Two Products and Predatory or Below-Cost Pricing under FTC's Single Firm Conduct guidelines for Antitrust laws.

I'd directly link them but the forum isn't letting me post with links right now.

Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc do not require an account to use the device. You don't for example even need a Microsoft account to use Windows. You don't need an Apple ID to use a Macbook. You don't need a Google account to use an Android phone. You don't need a Sony account to play on a Playstation 4.. etc. You might need one to use their stores, but with consoles many games come out to multiple systems, so you at least have a CHOICE between multiple systems. That is quickly no longer becoming the case with the Oculus situation.

And $299 for headset that is half or below as much as the competition, as a standalone device? I can assure you they are NOT breaking even or profiting off the hardware, they are selling below cost. That's a violation of the Predatory or Below-Cost Pricing section of antitrust law that shuts out competitors and plants a monopoly way ahead of any potential competition.

We already have Oculus accounts. If having a unified account was so important, why didn't Facebook make that change half a decade ago? The infrastructure is already here to have Oculus accounts, and is planned to still be used for several more years as a temporary grandfathered account, but now they're trying to force people to use another product (a Facebook account) as part of being able to use a hardware device. That's practically unheard of in modern markets and quite frankly unacceptable. Facebook is currently riding around 50% of PC VR market share, and nearly 100% of mobile standalone VR. That's essentially a monopoly, and they're using anti-competitive measures to ensure they stay that way.

That is literally the definition of anti-competitive. It can't be any more clear than that.

[Zenbane]

Double_Shot said:

 I don't understand the persistent defense of FB by some people.  Do they have stock in the company??

That would be like asking if those attacking FB have stock in a competitor.

Rather than trying to attack people, though, how about just addressing the issue?

Nunyabinez said:

Here is the report on the hearings that Apple, Google, Facebook and others participated in this year.
https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/investigation_of_competition_in_digital_markets_majority_s...

I started reading in to this today. I think that it would be beneficial for Facebook to keep an alternative method for account creation, but as the report suggests, in order to impose this upon Facebook... we would need to enforce this upon everyone: Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.

• Can I use an Apple Store without an Apple ID?
• Can I use Google Docs without a Google Account?

My personal and professional opinion, is that we need a firm across-the-board decision about business practices in the digital realm. Specifically addressing the management of Customer Information with computer-based products and services. It does no good to merely point at Facebook and say, "you = bad."

Facebook will be able to win in court until our laws address these practices at the highest level.

snowdog said:

It's hardly anti-competitive. What do these people expect Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Sony to do? Give customers the choice of whether to open and link accounts to other platform holders and other social media companies?

Completely agree here regarding the idea of "anti-competitive." When I was getting my minor in business, we had to read Sun Tzu's Art of War; and submit writings about how it can apply to business. When I read this part of the article, the Art of War is all I can think of as being executed damn nearly flawlessly,

“Facebook has also maintained and expanded its dominance through a series of acquisitions of companies it viewed as competitive threats, and selectively excluded competitors from using its platform to insulate itself from competitive pressure,” the report states. “Facebook has also maintained its monopoly through a series of anticompetitive business practices. The company used its data advantage to create superior market intelligence to identify nascent competitive threats and then acquire, copy, or kill these firms. Once dominant, Facebook selectively enforced its platform policies based on whether it perceived other companies as competitive threats. In doing so, it advantaged its own services while weakening other firms.”

^^
This entire piece is essentially trying to chastise Facebook for effectively applying Art of War concepts to defeat its enemies.

If business practices are supposed to change, then it needs to be enforced against all Industries and Organization's. None of that "picking and choosing" shinnanigans.

[Zenbane]

DaAuron said:
If having a unified account was so important, why didn't Facebook make that change half a decade ago? 

hmm, you mean when Facebook bought Oculus in 2014? it takes awhile to create a unified platform. And the truth is that, half a decade ago, Facebook didn't see a strategy that required a unified account. It might be the way the Market has dictated needs over the last half-decade that has caused Facebook to shift their strategies. This is quite common.

Facebook has clearly shifted away from PCVR over to Social VR, and Workplace VR. This is why standard Oculus Accounts may appear limiting, or problematic, to Facebook. Perhaps if Facebook was still only interested in VR Video games, then this wouldn't be happening. But the Market has proven that VR Video games yield a negative ROI. A fact that many companies and developers have faced over the last half-decade.

Not to say that what Facebook is doing is right vs wrong. It is what it is. And until the law changes to apply this type of rule to everyone, then organizations like Facebook will continue to go down this path.

DaAuron said:
Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc do not require an account to use the device. You don't for example even need a Microsoft account to use Windows. You don't need an Apple ID to use a Macbook. You don't need a Google account to use an Android phone. You don't need a Sony account to play on a Playstation 4.. etc. You might need one to use their stores

This is where the lines get blurry. Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and Google do lock users out of their "full services" unless you use one of their platform accounts. Based on the argument made in the official report, this is also anti-competitive to do. Just because these companies offer some options whereas Facebook doesn't, in way indicates that the other organization's are "more legal" than Facebook. All this does is blur the lines. And Facebook is being faulted for taking advantage of that.

The answer isn't to punish Facebook. The answer is to make the lines more clear.