Google would buy Oculus to integrate it with existing product lines, either Android or wearables. Microsoft would buy it for the Xbox. Apple would buy it to make it part of the iOS line. Facebook by far seems like the weirdest of the possible major buyers, because they have by far the fewest obvious complements to Oculus, but by the same token, that makes them the most likely company to be buying Oculus to expand into an entirely new space, in other words to let Oculus set their strategy rather than their strategy dictate the future of Oculus. It's a double-edged sword.
Yeah, Facebook is one of the few major tech companies who can buy Oculus and let them operate independently, since they don't have a stake in anything much related to gaming or VR. This means they are one of the companies least likely to screw with the Oculus vision, and I see that as a very good thing for virtual reality.
Eh, there's nothing inherent in the metaverse concept that means it must exist in an FB-style walled garden. Even if it starts out there, if it turns out to be of benefit to humans, eventually the walls will get routed around. FB know this, and intend to recoup their investment in the medium term.
The social network hasn't been routed around yet. And yet there's still something hollow about having everything you do shared with everyone you know that leads people to give their most bland, crowd pleasing personality to the crowd.
I was hoping for something more personal out of Oculus. Something I wouldn't have to think about sharing with my great aunts and the wider public via the NSA
But if you really desire more convincing, all of those companies have large existing business units devoted to selling consumer devices or licensing things to people selling consumer devices. Those business units have executives, budgets, reporting structures, etc. It is very unlikely any of those companies would buy Oculus to run it as an autonomous unit, like Facebook is saying they will do with Oculus for now.
Apple does not have business units. Apple would also never spend that much money on an acquisition, so your general point stands, but your specific statement is false.
How don't they? They have people who are in charge of people and people who are responsible to others, yes? I just checked to make sure I wasn't going crazy here:
"A logical element or segment of a company (such as accounting, production, marketing) representing a specific business function, and a definite place on the organizational chart, under the domain of a manager. Also called department, division, or a functional area."
It's a term that seems so totally generic that I feel like you have to work really, really hard to find an organization at scales far, far below where Apple operates to find a company that wouldn't fit that description (Valve?)
But that misses the point -- the point is that Apple has SOME existing organizational structure around "selling consumer electronics," and that an Apple-purchased Occulus would likely fall into that structure. I don't think there's any evidence of a company that Apple bought and let run on its own for an extended period of time, is there?
The definition you link to is unusual in my experience of the term in that it equates functional unit with business unit. By your definition I agree.
I have generally seen definitions of functional units being responsible for a function, without reference to profit or loss. Business units generally refer to a notionally divisible unit from which income, expenses, and thus profits can be measured. By this definition, Apple has only one business unit, the entire enterprise.
Again, this doesn't detract from your point, it amplifies it! Apple really would never preserve a purchased business and leave it independent. It doesn't even have business units, the structure that might, if you're naive, allow for such a thing!
An interesting discussion of Apple's functional structure:
Microsoft would buy it for the Xbox and desktop PC. They have been very good about making other peripherals for XBox work really well with Windows. I think this would have been the best outcome.
Google wouldn't be any better, and I might argue worse. They are more likely than not to just shut it down. Microsoft or Apple would be better though IMO. Alternately Valve might have been nice.
Valve would have been ideal in terms of 'companies who have lots of money and not a lot of people to justify their spending to', but I imagine that $2Bn is outside their price range. Last I heard they were working on their own VR though.
Google ? I don't know, they have so many products that they acquire and then shut down. Also, they have so many products that... it wouldn't have been such a big deal to acquire Oculus
Microsoft ? They already have a gaming branch so why not, but for the same reason as Google, people wouldn't have noticed it much.
But Facebook ? Everybody around me is going to talk about it, even non-gamers. You have no idea how huge this is for VR.
I'd like to think Berkshire Hathaway would have been a good fit. They could expand into an entirely new technology sector, Buffett seems like an insanely smart guy who would get along with Carmack, and BH seems to be focused on making companies succeed in their own fields instead of folding them into existing lines of business.
Buffett is notoriously reluctant to invest in companies he doesn't understand, or which lack existing revenue streams. He's not in the business of funding startups.
Like google? Or Microsoft?