What I care about is advertising, and I don't trust Facebook to not advertise through this. It's how Facebook makes money. My picture of the Rift was as a (for lack of a better term) dumb device. I saw it as a peripheral. Now that they're owned by Facebook, I don't see it that way. No matter what they say, I don't believe that Facebook won't get their hooks into it somehow.
Agreed. Maybe it was inevitable that some larger tech company would get their hands on VR tech and build it into a broader monetized service, but Facebook is the large tech company I trust the least to accomplish this in a humane way. (Okay, maybe Yahoo would be worse.) Even if Facebook doesn't think they'll make money off this for ten years, they still plan on making money eventually, and so far Facebook's overall approach to monetization of their platform doesn't give me confidence in their ability to offer a straightforward value proposition to the end-user. Maybe it's just me being sentimental, but I'd have fewer reservations if we were talking about, say, Amazon -- at least they actually sell things to people, even if they're just as invasive on the back-end. But when you're talking about lesser evils, I guess that gets pretty subjective.
Maybe Facebook will find a new model moving forward, but so far their strengths as a company are in ads and data (and, in the short term, being able to throw money at stuff (case in point)). So it's a fair expectation that, whenever they do make money on VR, how they make money on it will reflect those strengths. And if we're taking it as a given that VR will require this kind of targeted advertisement and user data-mining to be profitable at a large scale, whether from Facebook or anyone else, then that's a big asterisk to tack on the end of the "VR revolution."
Though I still think non-gaming VR will be our generation's multimedia CD-ROM -- a cool tech demo, but something that most people won't ever bother using. So in the long run, who knows.