Oculus today announced it’s rebranding Oculus Research, the company’s R&D lab, to the newly created Facebook Reality Labs (FRL). The shift, the company says, better addresses the increasingly important role of research and development in AR/VR while emphasizing collaboration with Facebook’s other skunkworks, something Oculus Chief Scientist Michael Abrash says is allowing for “further and faster” development of leading-edge AR/VR tech.

The lab’s focus on the future hasn’t changed, the company says, although the new name reflects a new role the R&D group plays “not only at Oculus, but also across Facebook’s AR/VR organization, which includes Building 8, Camera, and Social VR,” an Oculus spokesperson told Road to VR.

Facebook’s Building 8 specializes in researching and productizing advances in AR, VR, AI and more.

The company announced the change via a Facebook post by Oculus Chief Scientist Michael Abrash.

Image courtesy Oculus

Abrash famously offered up some bold predictions at Oculus Connect 3 back in 2016, which outlined a pretty specific direction for AR/VR on its five-year march forward, including the prediction that VR headsets would double the number of current pixels per degree to 30, push the resolution to around 4,000 × 4,000 pixels per display, and widen the field of view to 140 degrees. Both Oculus Rift and HTC Vive currently offer 15 pixels per degree, a resolution of 1,080 × 1,200 pixels per display, and a field of view of around 110 degrees.

Abrash presciently announced then that the current tech’s fixed depth of focus would also likely become variable within 5 years. Many of these technologies, including varifocal displays and 140 degree field of view, are incorporated in Oculus’ Half Dome prototype, which was revealed last week at Facebook’s F8 developer conference.

Image courtesy Facebook

“We are just a year and a half along now [after Connect 3], and I would say those predictions are holding up well,” Abrash says. “In fact, the truth is that I probably undershot, thanks to Facebook’s growing investment in FRL, which allows us to push the boundaries of what it takes to build great experiences further and faster. We are helping Oculus and all of Facebook create trailblazing AR and VR experiences, from what’s most affordable to leading edge.”

SEE ALSO
Oculus on Half Dome Prototype: 'don't expect to see everything in a product anytime soon'

Abrash says FRL “brings together a world-class R&D team of researchers, developers, and engineers with the shared goal of developing AR and VR across the spectrum,” and that while there are plenty of issues with VR and AR at present, “they’re all solvable, and they are going to get solved.”

With increasing investment, the company will no doubt continue its mission to push forward a number of related fields including optics, displays, audio sensing, computer vision, scene reconstruction, graphics animation, UX, haptics, machine learning, software and hardware engineering, social interactions, material sciences and perceptual psychology—all of it crucial to the upcoming generation of future VR/AR devices.

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. See here for more information.


  • NooYawker

    Not every research group announces every little thing they do.

    • Mei Ling

      Right otherwise they would be in serious trouble with their present and potential competitors through the reveal of their “secret sauce”.

    • Jinral Tao

      Agreed. Today’s climate is rife with people who are so eager to slap every move they make on social media, irrespective of its ‘value’.. real or imagined (or not yet conceived, for that matter). In my humble opinion, quick isn’t always best. Slow and steady works just as well… and sometimes even better.
      I believe in taking time to put things together PROPERLY. That way it allows for putting a product through its paces and correcting (or bettering) it’s performance before it hits the shelves. I personally dislike being a guinea pig for products. It leaves me feeling duped/had/taken/suckered and devalued. *My two cents*

    • SkepticalPickle

      Agreed. Best to do it right, than do it first. The iPhone wasn’t the first smartphone, but it sure as hell was the one that took the world by storm.

  • Arashi

    Promises, promises and promises. Nothing to show for it.

    • Matt Clark

      They don’t plan on releasing a CV2 for another few years. That’s been their plan from the start, and it’s no secret. I don’t know what broken promises you are fabricating in your head. Despite that, they showed us their work on the Half Dome prototype which is breaking the boundaries of current HMD technology and introducing entirely unseen technologies altogether.

      Oculus Rift is still in a ripe stage for its product life cycle, and they stated that they don’t want to release a new version until they can break grounds in every aspect and reduce cost. This is the smart thing to do.

      Do you really think they are devoting all this time and money on research just to let it fizzle as an ’empty promise’? They have a direction, and they are moving steadily.

      • Get Schwifty!

        I think he was confused with HTC….

      • Andrew Jakobs

        Well, they could have upgraded the Rift with the higher resolution displays like the Vive Pro as ‘small’ upgrade..

        • William Ogilvie

          They could have released a oculus pro but in doing so harmed there branding with a not really massive upgrade, the pro is good if you have not already got the vive or oculus. Its like apple and samsung popping out new phones every 6 months with hardly any viable advantage over the previous model.
          I personally want a company that deliveries a working headset that it does what it says on the box.
          Is Facebook going to do a mobile VR set of course they are they would be mad not to, the amount of mobile users vs PC users is massive and each year new and faster processors are coming to the mobile market. If Vive and any other company doesn’t get into the mobile VR market like Facebook they will have a huge mountain to climb to claw back those sales and we are taking trillions of dollars in marketing/purchasing etc…shit I might go and start buying Facebook shares now because once they crack 4k VR mobile with play ability like the rift there shares will be gold dust.

  • Kev

    “Further and Faster” has got to the the least accurate description for anything Oculus has done in 2 years. VR has become a competitive business and they are often not even in the conversation.

    • Bookoo

      What? The comment is relative to what could have been accomplished without the large capital investment.

      So not exactly sure how Oculus isn’t in that conversation. Also what companies are in that conversation? There really aren’t that many VR/AR companies and even less with substantial funding backing them.

      • Lucidfeuer

        That’s actually interesting: I’m willing to bet Oculus would be more developed and have sold more without Facebook.

        • Bookoo

          I don’t see how that’s possible unless they ended up partnering with Valve, but even then I don’t see it being any more developed.

          It might have shipped with controllers, but by then it probably would have shipped well after Vive and by then the “VR hype” probably would have died down a bit.

          Oculus was really only able to gain and maintain market share due to price cutting and content, which would have likely been harder to do as a smaller company.

          • doug

            I think you are both right. They would have sold more Rifts without the facebook connection (assuming the same price) because they would have shed the facebook privacy policy. But the privacy policy of the Rift is precisely what keeps the hardware cost down.

          • Lucidfeuer

            As s smaller company, they would have actually used the tech and start-up they invested-in (like 13thLab, NimbleBit etc…) and expected a lower margin-cut without shareholders therefor allowing the investment in required component and implementation.

            For short: we would probably already have inside-out tracking, hand tracking and beginning or wireless which would have driven the market faster and wider with the possibilities it entices.

            Oculus being bought by Facebook means they have to spend the minimum possible on components, costs, developments and iteration as long as they can somewhat develop branding and a few patents, two great ways to sustain valuation for the stockholders at minimum cost…they’re not in technology product, innovation or even business anymore, but a complete other game that is poisoning all corporations from Google to Samsung or Apple.

      • Kev

        omg… Heh that’s my point – others are doing more with less. Though there are some large companies in VR – HP, Lenovo, Dell, Samsung, HTC, Sony, Google with Daydream, Magic Leap, SNAP, Steam, Microsoft and many many others. Heck just google VR on Amazon to see just how many. Oculus capital investment has helped NONE of them but instead attempt to establish a proprietary VR brand.

        • Bookoo

          I still don’t get your point.

          You just listed other large companies who are also investing a lot of capital and/or companies that have released or are releasing a VR headset. How exactly is HP, Lenovo, and Dell in the “VR/AR conversation”, but Oculus isn’t?

          We have no idea what FB/Oculus is working on and the prototype they showed off last week seemed like a pretty huge step up from anything we have seen so far and I have to imagine they have even more experimental stuff as well.

          • Mradr

            That’s the point, he doesn’t have a point LOL

          • Kev

            Oculus is in the smartphone VR conversation but even that was late and duplicative. No difference between the HTC focus and the Oculus Go and really Google Daydream devices duplicate all those functions almost exactly. The big differentiator? Outdated snapdragon processor = a lower price. They just aren’t innovating is the point – I really wish they were.

          • Bob

            Oh my god you are providing me with SO MUCH entertainment.

          • Mradr

            I’m sorry, what xD? HTC focus is a China only product:) It looks pretty shitty in comparing to the OGO and on top of that – OGO is offering static FOVA rendering to help curve performance needs something no other mobile device can say they have. LOL a one year old CPU is considered outdated? Lets try again here:) Are you considered outdated for how old you are xD? Maybe you need to stop posting here bruh XD

            OGO vs day dream
            100 FOV vs 90 FOV
            2560 x 1440 resolution (1280 x 1440 per eye) vs Depends on device
            200$ total page, 79$ + whatever the cost of a phone so we can safely say 150$ or more depending if you want to go new or not xD
            Should I keep going:)?

    • SkepticalPickle

      So I assume the games funded by Oculus and the research put out by FRL into things like the Half Dome prototype means Oculus is totally “not in the conversation” right?

      • Kev

        Oculus showed the DK1 in 2013, DK2 in 2014 which actually had a higher fov than any of their current devices. Since then they’ve abandoned the PC VR market going for smartphone based devices with 1% the processing power. Their next VR device “Santa Cruz” also a cellphone based device.

        • Bookoo

          Half dome was a prototype showing tech for VR and most of it will probably make its way into CV2 and future releases.

        • dk

          yep the rift and the vive started with a super shitty resolution ….should have been at least as much as 1440p phones ….but they did it partly to make it easier to run …and so on
          no one is abandoning anything….but headsets should be updated at least every 2 years

          • Andrew Jakobs

            It could only be done if there actually were displays back then that were not too expensive. Let’s not forget, the DK1 and DK2 are both using 1 mobile screen, whereas the CV1 and Vive use specifically for VR designed single displays per eye. And due to that, they could use physical IPD which (if adjusted correctly) reduces motionsicknes very much.

          • dk

            yes that’s another reason they used crappy res …because it’s slightly cheaper
            also the last gen nvidia cards were just coming out ad most people interested in vr would have had something like 970 980 ….and also a demanding game is already hard enough to run even with that crappy res

          • Andrew Jakobs

            Back then there weren’t any screen the needed size with a higher resolution, at least not which didn’t cost A LOT more than the ones they had.

          • dk

            that sounds like bullshit they worked with the manufacturers to make the crappy res screens ….they could have ordered something with higher res……and I did agree that it would be more expensive like 20-30% or something like that …it’s not some crazy pixel density like the 4k sony phone

            ….and the dk1/2 used those screens because they were basically prototypes not because those r the only displays in existence at the time or because making a slightly different screen would cost double or triple

          • Mradr

            And yet we had people crying their laptop, their current video card, and so many other random problems happening at the time for all headsets because the res for that time was already pushing video cards. This was when W10 was also being release and many other factors that was going on. I really think your history is a bit fuzzy mate.

          • dk

            yes like I sad the crappy res is still demanding even on modern hardware and that’s one of the reasons they chose it ………..and it’s just sad that the first gen fully tracked desktop systems didn’t at least match the pixel density of phones doing 3dof stuff

          • Mradr

            lmao they can’t be high end and crappy at the same time xD I think you are miss understanding what it means to be crappy:) The screens that are OLED never had any issues that LCD had. They ran at 90Hz (better than being a higher res), and we got them at a pretty cheap rate considering we got two of them for a market that wasn’t really setup yet for that time period.

          • dk

            lol …..so u got that I am talking just about the resolution right…..it’s a joke that they chose that super low resolution when gear vr from 2015 with the note4 from 2014 is 1440p res

            ……the 90hz and the full tracking and the desktop graphics is what is the cool part about the 1st gen desktop headsets …..not the resolution

          • Mradr

            You do understand that note4 was a single panel, right? Not two – meaning it only had to draw one image and even then – that image was upscale and not native, right? I think you don’t understand what was going on there xD Even then, 15% of the pixels were black out and not used between the eyes/nose meaning we had wasted res/pixel count going on. The true res of gear-vr was a lot lower than you think per eye.

          • dk

            xD duuuude I am talking about nothing else but the resolution ….u got that right
            ….it’s just hilarious that daydrem/gearvr has better angular resolution than the freaking rift/vive
            ….and yes like I said everything else about the rift/vive is obviously better ……except for the crappy res

          • Mradr

            Dude I dont think you understand maths is what I am saying:
            1080×1200 = cv1 per eye
            Gearvr/daydream = 1080×1440 – 1152×1440 per eye

            See – they are pretty much the same res…

          • dk

            rift/vive ——————-1080×1200 per eye
            daydream/gearvr ——1280×1440 per eye
            and with smaller 1440p phones it’s even greater angular resolution

          • Andrew Jakobs

            But an increase in resolution of the screens at that time propably did cost a lot more than 20-30% and it would have needed better onboard chips to control them and would have needed better GPU’s at the time to push them (even current (midrange) GPU’s have problems pushing the current screens with great visuals at the higher framerate)..
            You have no idea how much it really cost to develop newer higher resolution, lower latency displays which also have a high yield during production. It’s not as easy and cheap as you think. Also at that time people were already bitching about the price of the headsets, would the resolution have been the current Vive Pro/Samsung Odyssee displays then the price would have been a couple of hundreds more (due to higher production cost of the then not yet possible resolution at that size)..
            Because they can produce the screens now, doesn’t mean they could have produced them 3 years ago (let’s not forget Oculus worked in conjunction with samsung on developing those displays in the first place)..
            the DK1/2 used those displays because at that time those were the most available screens, higher resolution where even much more expensive back then, and again, back then the GPU’s had big trouble even pushing those displays.. Yes there were higher resolution displays at that size, but they were at least twice the price and no GPU (except the ultra highend) would have been able to drive the displays. They wanted to create an AFFORDABLE headset, not the best headset for what money can buy (then you’ll have to look at the real professional headsets which costs thousands of dollars)..
            You just aren’t realistic…

          • dk

            like I already said I agree with u on everything u r listing …..including that if they wanted to use 1280x1440p the panel will cost more …..and u r saying that it would be unimaginably more when there is absolutely nothing crazy about that resolution …….and like I mentioned multiple times yes it would be somewhat harder to drive the pannel

    • Andrew Jakobs

      How do you really know? Maybe they keep the real progress a secret and only show these prototypes just so they can wow, the competition when they reveal the CV2.. But it’s also quite possible this is just it..

      • Kev

        That’s easy. They haven’t released but one retail HMD for PC VR since their original announcement in 2013. They are obviously focused on smartphone based VR. I have no doubt they will release something new eventually but by then the competition will have released multiple additional new generations of devices.

        • Eddy Franco

          I think you may be underestimating the amount of money a standalone mass market adopted 6DOF headset would bring in for Oculus/Facebook. High end PC VR is amazing! But I don’t ever see it hitting mass market adoption like the standalone headsets.

        • Mradr

          So it doesn’t count that they release hand controllers, software updates that even Vive doesn’t have, and continue to improve software for VR it shows that they haven’t made progress? Are you ok mate xD?

          • Kev

            Nope. 1 Oculus HMD for PC consumers since 2013. That is a fact. They abandoned us for cellphone HMD’s, plain and simple.

          • Mradr

            CV1 release back in 2015 mate, and the controllers a few more months later that were better than Vive silly wands. I’m sorry mate, but you lost this round:)

          • Kev

            Prior to that were the DK2, DK1 and the devices they showed in 2013. Between 2013 and today only 1 device actually for sale en masse on the PC from Oculus. Sorry, you lose.

          • Bob

            LOL

          • Mradr

            LMAO mate, you need to just lay down. Everything is ok. Just lay down and get some sleep:) You are speaking nonsense now.

          • David D. Taylor

            Unless you are counting the DK1/2, it is 1 device launched to mass markets since 2016… and you’re making a big deal about only releasing one headset compared to Vive’s 2 HMDs? The 2nd of which is a joke? I’d rather Oculus keep working on their 2nd headset and make it a true next gen HMD, vs Vive’s ‘I did it first’ second HMD. Better to release a superior device second then a half-assed, super expensive device first, IMO.

    • brubble

      A rather narrow view.

      • Kev

        Wow you totally misinterpret me. Actually I feel sorry for Oculus and root for them. I had high hopes for them to be innovative, disruptive, exciting. I funded the kickstarter, bought all their devices up to the CV1.

        They just haven’t and aren’t innovating even in the smartphone based VR space. They are slightly iterative on their own devices but each step someone else beats them to it. HTC beat them with the Vive and the focus. HTC beat them to the punch on resolution. Steam beat them to market with SteamVR vs. Oculus home. They had the largest investment and the greatest public good will of anyone and YET they get beat to market – repeatedly.

        Unfortunately the CV2 will likely be irrelevant when it’s finally released because the pattern will repeat itself and they will be the last to market. Their mojo was high back in 2013-2014. I hope they get it back before they get lapped.

        • Bob

          Trolling at it’s finest. Isn’t that right?

        • Mradr

          I can beat this whole post in one shot:)

          HTC had to sell it’s whole VR line to google because they didn’t make enough money. Talk about embarrassing:)

        • brubble

          Ah, I see your direction here, my mistake. Still I cant see cv2 being irrelevant. Of course this all remains to be seen.

          • Kev

            Thing is I hope it’s not irrelevant. My argument is it would wind up being irrelevant if they release it along the same timelines as everything else they’ve worked on. Oculus has made it clear they need to be faster and more disruptive – I hope they do but I think it will take a genuinely fresh thought process.

          • brubble

            Perhaps Oculus is pacing themselves to really wow us with a pack leading device in the cv2? I can only hope.

  • realtrisk

    Am I the only one who sees the beginning of the end of Oculus as a distinct entity? Facebook will absorb the whole thing, eventually, and just name it Facebook VR or some crap.

    • Get Schwifty!

      Maybe they will, maybe not. They spent an awful lot of money for it, and it’s counterproductive to ruin the branding at this stage. Could it become “Facebook Oculus”? That I could see…. I mean, it’s effectively that now. If they *ever* wanted to spin it off, it would be more valuable by name as Oculus though, so I don’t think they will anytime soon.

    • NooYawker

      They already absorbed them entirely. I doubt they’ll remove the name oculus.

  • CURTROCK

    I see comments here disparaging Oculus/FB efforts in the VR/AR field, saying they are moving too slow. They have released the DK1, DK2, CV1, and GO. They have shown Santa Cruz, and Half Dome. Please do show me evidence of another company that has invested more, or released more than Oculus/FB. (not to mention brought prices down to approaching mass consumer level, as well as building a platform from scratch)

    • Get Schwifty!

      HTC Vive Pro…. oh, wait….

    • NooYawker

      Valve.

      • CURTROCK

        Agreed. Valve have most certainly contributed large to the emergence of VR in general, and continue to do so. My comment was in reference to people stating that Oculus/FB was moving too slow. While Valve is a major VR player, i don’t see them going “all in” like Oculus/FB.

      • GigaSora

        I don’t see how flooding the market with poorly designed headsets is helping move the industry forward, NooYawker.

        • NooYawker

          Yea it’s been terrible for the smartphone industry.

          • GigaSora

            I guess I didn’t expect you to see my point, but yeah :D

          • NooYawker

            Actually I do get it but it’s unavoidable. Even if Valve didn’t go royalty free you’d see tons of knock offs on the market anyway.
            Lower priced products are always going to sell the most and there will be a coupe of high end premium products.

    • Bob

      “I see comments here disparaging Oculus/FB efforts in the VR/AR field”

      No what you saw was trolling. Nothing else.

  • bud

    Is that the postman knocking on the door? with our Pimax 8k 200deg FOV butter smooth
    zero SDE 4k per eye needful?

    The precious… say it the way it needs to be said…

    THE PRECIOUS….ahhhh the precious.

    People want ultra high quality VR…… it doesn’t matter what your lab is called, were it is located. Customers globally want the best VR experience,

    • Ombra Alberto

      Personally waited for the CV2.

      Cv2>pimax 8k 200 Fov

      • Kev

        Heh that may be true- because in 2025 when Oculus releases the CV2 Pimax will probably have released 4 more generations of HMD’s by then as would most of the other competitors. Therefore it would indeed be better than the Pimax 8K.

        • SkepticalPickle

          By 2025, we’ll be lucky to have gotten the first Pimax headset with all the delays they’ve gone through ;P

          • Bob

            IGNORE THE TROLL.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      Let’s first wait for Pimax to actually release it’s Pimax 8k headset, as it’s been postponed time after time.. And who knows, it might even suck with it’s 4k per eye, on paper it might sound great, but maybe in realisty their headset might be a piece of junk.. (hopefully it wouldn’t be a piece of junk so it shows the other headsetmakers it can be done). And also let’s wait how much the actual headset is gonna cost when it’s going on sale for regular users to buy, as the kickstarter price was said to be lower than the production model.

      • Kev

        Or oculus to release anything at all???

        • SkepticalPickle

          They’re shown progress in standalone, mobile and PCVR, and that’s not considering the software libraries. Meanwhile Pimax hasn’t even release their first headset

          • Kev

            This will be Pimax *2nd HMD genius. Their original one is 4k and has been for sale over a year. They did it on a shoestring too.

          • Mradr

            Yea and their first gen wasn’t good at all. Many people saying the lack of degrees of movement made them sick and the lack of supported software didn’t help either…

          • Bob

            IGNORE THE TROLL

          • Mradr

            I’m good Bob. I let the real facts speak for themselves xD

        • Mradr

          Oculus already release DK1, DK2, CV1, OGO, GearVR – A REAL store front for both mobile and PC. What’s your point bruh?

    • NooYawker

      “Our” Pimax “8k” ? Newsflash it’s been delayed again so you have nothing.
      4K x’s 2 does not equate 8k. I wish they’d stop that bullshit marketing ploy.
      If the device comes out great but stop annoying people by announcing how amazing this unreleased device is.

      • Kev

        The CV2 is unreleased as well, nothing particularly innovative from Oculus since the DK1 back in 2013.

        • Mradr

          Bruh, they release AWS, hand controllers with finger tracking, low cost hardware, software, etc etc what have you done:)?

          • Kev

            Seriously? – “a controller”, “a price reduction”, “updated software” really progress???? wtf. That is just plain embarrassing. They have gone full cellphone device and left us. Can you use any of those items on the latest Oculus headset? Nope. Can you use them with upcoming Santa Cruz? Nope.

          • Mradr

            Can I use them with my current HMD that it was design for – yes xD Does the masses need a way to get into that results in more people looking buying/wanting VR depend on them getting access to it while the higher vr continues to still grow and get everything right? Are you that short sighted bruh?

  • MosBen

    I know that this is quite off topic, but there’s not a really great place to put it, and honestly I’m having trouble finding answers elsewhere online. I just picked up a new Dell XPS 13 for work. It has a couple Thunderbolt 3 ports and a non-Thunderbolt 3 USB C port. I’ve been using a 4+ year old gaming desktop for VR with an Oculus Rift, having dropped a GTX 1070 in it last year.

    Ideally, I’d like to be able to retire the gaming desktop entirely and just use my Rift with the laptop. Obviously, the onboard graphics in the i7 processor won’t cut it, so I’ve been looking at external GPU enclosures, but there are shockingly few really good comparisons or round ups that include all of the major products, and almost none that discuss VR usage. I’ve looked at the HP Omen Accelerator, which seems big, but allows installation of a hard drive in the enclosure, which would be nice for installing games and VR stuff, and it also has several USB ports on the back, as well as an Ethernet port. I’ve read that using those ports can impede on the bandwidth of the already bottlenecked Thunderbolt 3 connection, but don’t know if it’s so bad that it would make sense to just ignore the extra ports. Other enclosures like the Sonnett Breakout box don’t have any extra ports, which would mean that in order to get Ethernet and some extra USB ports I’d need to pick up a docking station (like the Dell 240w one).

    Anyway, it’d be super helpful if someone could give me some insight into what kind of setup is best, or at least viable, for an ultraportable laptop.

  • ‘Octopus Reality Labs’ sounds better

    • Ombra Alberto

      L’invidia è una brutta bestia.

      • Ma una semplice battuta è piacevole

        • Ombra Alberto

          si se la battuta la si fà una volta.. non se è recidiva per “partito preso”

          • Bene, lo scherzo appartiene a qualcun altro e mi piace piacermi. Puoi portarlo con l’utente con la foto del bambino. . Tuttavia, Oculus Reality Labs sembra migliore di qualche nome di social media. Oculus sembra più cool e più esperto di tecnologia di Facebook. Facebook Reality Labs sembra zoppo.

          • Ombra Alberto

            Già che ci siamo mi preoccuperei anche di google e dell’intelligenza artificiale che farà telefonate al posto tuo con la tua voce… altro che zoppo hahaha

  • Jeff

    “Facebook Reality”… that is a hilariously frightening sequence of words. I literally laughed out loud.

  • Raphael

    “The company announced the change via a Facebook post by Oculus Chief Scientist Michael Abrash.” <<< Should read "Facebook Chief Scientist Michael Abrash"

  • Sooner or later, the name Oculus will vanish.