Palmer Luckey Will Leave Oculus On March 31

Status
Not open for further replies.

lahma

Reputable
Jan 21, 2015
24
0
4,510
0
What a terrible guy... having the audacity to privately support his political party and use a small portion of his wealth to oppose the the MSM's narrative and the opposing political party. At least the fact that he lost his position and was driven into exile proves that we are on the cusp of accomplishing a social culture in which freedom of speech is a thing of the past. Ah progress... can't you smell the sweet aroma of liberty in the air? Soon enough we will all have the privilege of thinking, acting, and speaking in one unified way. Then we will know we have truly attained a liberty loving democracy.
 

Dosflores

Reputable
Jul 8, 2014
147
0
4,710
6
I really hope this decision has more to do with the lawsuit than the scandal. It isn't surprising from a corporate perspective, anyway. Palmer did a great job, but he's not deemed to be necessary anymore. Even if he was to blame for the lawsuit, I think that the decisions that resulted in the lawsuit were necessary in order for Oculus to become what it is today.
 

chicofehr

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2012
538
0
18,990
2
He started the VR revolution. He did more then most people ever will. The whole meme thing doesn't bother me. A little humor in an election is always a good thing in my opinion. I wonder what he will do now. Retire or start another startup?
 

shrapnel_indie

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2010
2,152
10
20,465
277




Agreed... He donated under HIS name, not the company's...... So what if it conflicted with FB and MSM "liberal/progressive" views..... Ah... but it did, and certain people didn't like it...(no doubt, including Zuckerberg)... and to try to save Oculus' life, quietly forced him to resign after a suitable cool-down period.
 

dstarr3

Honorable
Mar 18, 2014
1,527
0
11,960
52
I really doubt this has anything to do with the "scandal." He handled it exactly the way you're supposed to: Recede into the shadows and carry on business as normal. Because, personal politics aside, he did business well. And the world at large has certainly forgotten about the "scandal" long ago anyway.
 

old_newbie

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2009
87
0
18,630
0
Wow. This reads like an obituary. While it must be sad/frustrating to have the fruit of your labor of blood, sweat, and tears move on without you, we mustn't forget that the man is (still) an innovator.

I think "The sole initiator of the VR industrial revolution" is a great resume bullet to take forward to the next company.
 

dougsnash

Commendable
Dec 13, 2016
2
0
1,510
0
Actually, I am surprised Palmer lasted as long as he did after he sold Oculus to Facebook. Generally, when a company founder sells his company to a big conglomerate, that founder fades to the background and eventually leaves. This is more Facebook absorbing Oculus into the Zuckerburg empire than it is Palmer retreating with his tail between his legs.

I wish Palmer the best of luck with his future endeavors. Maybe he can take a page from Elon Musk's playbook and start into another innovative field, using his Facebook wealth to further change the technological world.
 

Pompompaihn

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2010
69
1
18,635
0
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of the free market....doubly so once you've sold your company and no longer control your own destiny. Constitution just says the government won't arrest you for it, doesn't mean you won't lose millions of dollars for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.

But like many, this in the cards. Zuckerburg doesn't buy your company so that you can remain the face of your enterprise. I'm sure his time there was just to ensure any intellectual property disputes were hammered out and he could be let go on his way. The fact that he got involved in politics just sealed the deal.
 

turkey3_scratch

Polypheme
Ambassador


And people also deserve the freedom to fire someone because of their free speech they chose to make. Are you implying we should make it so somebody should not be able to lose his position because of his political affiliations? If that is the case than the freedom of causing someone to lose their position is lost and instead we are catering to everybody's pleasant little political beliefs. Firing him (or whatever really happened) is just as much free speech.
 

computerguy72

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2011
188
0
18,690
1
It's the lawsuit business that probably was the last straw. I think the scandal probably precluded the ability of FB or OVR to circle the wagons in his defense as well. Those two events combined to create a situation that would stay negative long before it became positive again. No doubt Palmer will move on to invent great new things.
 

lahma

Reputable
Jan 21, 2015
24
0
4,510
0
I don't disagree with the opinions stated concerning free speech giving companies the right to fire employees for what they say in private, BUT... when is the last time you saw a high profile individual like this get relieved from his position for saying something too far left or liberal? When is the last time you saw a high profile person like this relieved from his position for agreeing with the MSM? In our current culture, this is almost ENTIRELY a one way street. That is what I have a problem with.
 

RonRaxXx

Reputable
Feb 10, 2015
38
0
4,560
5
@Lahma,

Tomi Lahren just got fired from the Blaze for deviating from their typical far-right viewpoints. Fox News let go of a couple anchors during the election for not backing Trump fervently enough. It happens all the time on both sides. Just because you are only triggered enough to remember certain instances doesn't mean it's a one-way street. Snowflake.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador
I'm not saying I agree with the outcome, but being the public face of such a high profile company means your personal conduct matters. For one thing, it's a standard expectation that corporate officers conduct themselves in a way that avoids even the appearance of impropriety. They're also expected to avoid putting themselves in compromising situations, where they could be blackmailed. And negative publicity is another given.

Certainly, everyone can probably think of political or social views that a company like FB/Oculus would legitimately not want associated with it. If you look at some of the specific allegations against Nimble, then it definitely shows questionable judgement that he would get involved with them, especially in such a divisive election.

Like it or not, companies have a right to fire employees for almost any reason. It's well within FB's right to cut off someone who recklessly brought negative attention to their valuable brand, and jeopardized the company with his actions that lead to the Zenimax lawsuit. Maybe if Hillary had won and Zenimax had lost, he could have been rehabilitated, but this is hardly the most tragic or undeserved thing to have befallen an entrepreneur.

Even after the judgement against him, he's still been very well compensated. That money does come with strings attached. Everyone in such a role would know this.

Finally, he's still a young guy. Most people can overcome such setbacks. He could go on to found more companies or make other sorts of contributions. Perhaps something even bigger and better.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador
You misunderstand the point. The issues are the negative attention and the Zenimax case. We don't know how much either one weighed, but you do yourself a disservice by looking at this as left vs. right.

I actually think the Zenimax case had a lot more to do with it. That's a lot of money (and what happened to the injunction?), even for FB. And though I disagree with the judgement and the specifics of that case, it's clear that Palmer made some obvious and avoidable mistakes.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador
So, you wouldn't have sold it to FB and wouldn't have to worry about being fired. But you probably wouldn't yet have launched a product (due to no $2 B investment), wouldn't have $Millions in the bank, and might be facing bankruptcy (like most other VR companies). Tough choices.

Even if they had gotten a product to market by now, there's no telling how much impact FB's investment had. Just comparing DK2 vs. Rift, it's clear they came a long way.

Finally, since Palmer almost certainly didn't own a controlling stake in the company, he probably couldn't have prevented the sale if he'd wanted to. That's what happens when you have investors, but he couldn't have made Oculus what it is without them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY