8 ms·

>I think Portal is a perfect example of how slow to adapt the company has become. It's a fantastic video conferencing device, certainly the best at its price po

>I think Portal is a perfect example of how slow to adapt the company has become. It's a fantastic video conferencing device, certainly the best at its price point. We happened to enter the pandemic with this device already available for sale, but we completely failed to capitalize on it. Thanks for your insight, but the Portal failure shouldn't be surprising. There are a large number of people who would never want to have a private conversation or meeting using Facebook infrastructure or be forced to create a Facebook account to join a meeting. As far as Zoom support, again, why would anyone trust Facebook infrastructure with private meetings? Aside from the trust issue, why buy hardware from FB just to have meetings?

xvector 4y ago
It's difficult to describe how amazing Portal is. It was a game changer for those that used it
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- billjings 4y ago
  I get the feeling that the Quest Pro is a similar game changing experience, but the strategy tax from being forced into Facebook services is absolutely suffocating. I am legit excited about the idea of having VR eye contact, and would gladly pilot headsets for my team. But nobody wants to be on Facebook's platform. It's embarrassing to even talk about it. And I'm frustrated that something that should be a fun, cool, liberating, wide open new platform is so stifled and locked down.
  - pavlov 4y ago
    Locked down? The Quest allows both sideloading and third party app stores, and the browser has good WebXR support. It’s far less locked down than an iPhone.
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      > The Quest allows both sideloading and third party app stores When did that happen? Last I checked, sideloading was a potentially bannable offense (as in effectively bricking your device and losing you your Facebook account).
      - pavlov 4y ago
        You could just use the Android Debug Bridge to load apps onto the Quest from a desktop. For a more managed option, there’s SideQuest: https://sidequestvr.com/ https://sidequestvr.com/ Also Meta itself offers AppLab which is a less strictly curated app store. Meta desperately wants you to write apps for the Quest platform. Nobody is getting banned. (You don’t need a FB account anymore either.)
        sharpneli 4y ago
        One didn't need FB account at the start either. Nothing says they won't bring it back despite backlash. Even if they have now changed their opinion on what can be done a large amount of damage is done. No-one will actively monitor that have their changed their terms. I was also under the impression that it's FB account and do the tiniest mistake and you lose it all. Thankfully it's just FB account so unlike with Google no real damage will be done. Even if the things are better now I kinda have moved on, like many others.
      - MichaelBurge 4y ago
        If you sideload pirated copies of commercial games that are on the Quest store, that's forbidden. But sideloading 3rd-party apps is fine. The "grey area" is modding games(notably Beat Saber), since it involves replacing the APK with an altered one without the consent of the developer. And if the developer sells DLC, that cuts into their profit and maybe they'll threaten to sue Facebook for damages since they created the development tools and authorized development accounts that allow people to do it.
spaceman_2020 4y ago
There is an even larger group of people who happily used Facebook’s products to stay in touch before, during, and after the pandemic. For much of the world, Whatsapp video calls were the standard way to keep in touch.
- david38 4y ago
  I highly doubt it. What percentage of those people spend money on FB?
rlt 4y ago
> There are a large number of people who would never want to have a private conversation or meeting using Facebook infrastructure or be forced to create a Facebook account to join a meeting. A large number of people in your circle / on HN / etc perhaps, but I think the vast majority of the general population have no such concern.
- bitcharmer 4y ago
  Doesn't matter. This device was clearly targeting corporate market where clueless individuals don't make purchase decisions on things like that. Facebook is not very popular among IT people in corporate world.
  - ninth_ant 4y ago
    It wasn't targeting the corporate market at first. It was conceived and designed as a consumer-oriented device.
    - bitcharmer 4y ago
      Didn't know that. In that case how was this device supposed to compete with smartphones or tablets that we already have?
      - cranekam 4y ago
        It’s clearly not intended to compete with a smartphone. It’s 50 times the size and mains powered. It’s intended to be an always-on device with a wide camera and large screen that makes it easy for a few people to talk on video. Like video conferencing. My family uses them so my parents can see my kids and they are great. We plop down on the floor in front of it and everyone has a chat, sees the kids, etc. propping up phones and straining to hear/see things is much inferior.
      - philjohn 4y ago
        Totally different usecase. My elderly parents LOVE theirs - it's simple to make calls, the camera quality is great, the automatic pan and zoom was top notch (especially for following toddlers around the room, which was crucial to them to see their grandchildren during lockdown). The story mode was much loved as well - my mother (an ex kindergarten teacher) would read the stories to my niece and nephew and they loved the AR effects and filters it applied to her, in tandem with the story.
fs111 4y ago
> There are a large number of people who would never want to have a private conversation or meeting using Facebook infrastructure Have you ever heard of Whatsapp? More than a billion people use it for private communication daily. Maybe not in the US, but elsewhere on the planet. You know who owns Whatsapp? Meta does.
- FPGAhacker 4y ago
  We should congratulate Meta on actually not destroying an app by buying it.
- smallerfish 4y ago
  Whatsapp had already carved out its market (because of SMS being charged for in its initial markets) before Facebook acquired it. https://www.statista.com/statistics/260819/number-of-monthly-active-whatsapp-users/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/260819/number-of-monthly... Granted that they've at least tripled MAU since, but that's the power of network effects. There's a heavy dose of "in spite of" rather than "because of". On the other hand if Meta tried to, say, merge Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger, I think they'd lose half their users overnight. Similarly, if Meta bought Zoom (and kept it running as it does today), most businesses probably wouldn't switch. Zoom already owns the market.
  - philjohn 4y ago
    There's also the ios to Android usecase.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    > Similarly, if Meta bought Zoom (and kept it running as it does today), most businesses probably wouldn't switch. Zoom already owns the market. Zoom's continued survival still surprises me. There was a point in time during its meteoric rise, early in the pandemic, when stories broke about it being spyware for China and a security threat, and its use was subsequently banned in many places. Then some months later people were back to using it, as if nothing ever happened.
meta_throwaway_ 4y ago
>There are a large number of people who would never want to have a private conversation or meeting using Facebook I wouldn't be surprised if Meta was the number one way people have private conversations on planet earth.
- bratbag 4y ago
  Chatting about grannies birthday? Sure. Talking about company ip? Not a chance in hell. When making a purchasing decision for company comms tools, guess which of those two have to be considered.
  - zer0zzz 4y ago
    There's probably more people using WhatsApp securely in authoritarian hellholes and nightmarish war zones around the world than many of the alternatives you are thinking of combine. Personally I wouldn't use any chat service for super sensitive conversations about company comms and IP that didn't have strong encryption as well as limitations on how messages can be backed up as well as disappearing messages. I think Signal is the only system that is semi-popular that does this where by default backups don't leave the device unencrypted.
XorNot 4y ago
This comment could not be more wrong. The Portal failed because for exactly the reason the parent pointed out: it can't run the video conferencing apps people need it too. If it's just Android then yeah, intercept the camera API to let the portal stuff work with any app and you've got yourself a killer product getting put on every grandparents TV.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
adamsb6 4y ago
As a recent insider, this is one of those things where the outside perception doesn't match the inside at all. Privacy is taken more seriously at Facebook than any other place I've ever worked. It's drilled into you from day one that we have systems in place to catch you accessing things you shouldn't and you will be immediately fired if you do. You can make mistakes that bring the entire site down and cost the company millions and they won't fire you. If you try to bypass privacy controls on an ex-girlfriend's post, you're gone. Yes, they hoover up a ton of personal data. But they guard it like the crown jewels. If you do want your data deleted, they'll delete it. I've worked on the systems responsible for this where we had to reason through what to do with things like offline backups.
- b3morales 4y ago
  I appreciate you making the point, but it sounds like the perception is correct, but the definitions don't match. Individual-human-level privacy controls are important, and it's good that they're in place, but equally important is the systemic use of all that hoovered data.
- orangecat 4y ago
  Sure, but I expect most people's primary threat model isn't that a rogue Facebook employee will access their data and use it to stalk them. It's that Facebook will sell their data to advertisers who will use it to better manipulate them, or to insurance companies who will raise their rates.
  - tomComb 4y ago
    And Facebook doesn’t sell user data either. I know there are lots of people here knowingly redefining the meaning of sell in this regard, but doing so is really harmful to the privacy cause since most companies do actually sell user data so we need that distinction.
  - adamsb6 4y ago
    That’s another common misperception, that Facebook sells data. They don’t. They sell targeted advertising that uses that data. The advertiser API specifies descriptors for who should see the ads. There’s no facility for accessing private data. Selling the data itself would be giving away a huge component of what differentiates their product from other advertising platforms. It would be like Coca Cola selling the recipe for Coca Cola.

xvector 4y ago

It's difficult to describe how amazing Portal is. It was a game changer for those that used it

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
billjings 4y ago
I get the feeling that the Quest Pro is a similar game changing experience, but the strategy tax from being forced into Facebook services is absolutely suffocating. I am legit excited about the idea of having VR eye contact, and would gladly pilot headsets for my team. But nobody wants to be on Facebook's platform. It's embarrassing to even talk about it. And I'm frustrated that something that should be a fun, cool, liberating, wide open new platform is so stifled and locked down.
- pavlov 4y ago
  Locked down? The Quest allows both sideloading and third party app stores, and the browser has good WebXR support. It’s far less locked down than an iPhone.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    > The Quest allows both sideloading and third party app stores When did that happen? Last I checked, sideloading was a potentially bannable offense (as in effectively bricking your device and losing you your Facebook account).
    - pavlov 4y ago
      You could just use the Android Debug Bridge to load apps onto the Quest from a desktop. For a more managed option, there’s SideQuest: https://sidequestvr.com/ https://sidequestvr.com/ Also Meta itself offers AppLab which is a less strictly curated app store. Meta desperately wants you to write apps for the Quest platform. Nobody is getting banned. (You don’t need a FB account anymore either.)
      - sharpneli 4y ago
        One didn't need FB account at the start either. Nothing says they won't bring it back despite backlash. Even if they have now changed their opinion on what can be done a large amount of damage is done. No-one will actively monitor that have their changed their terms. I was also under the impression that it's FB account and do the tiniest mistake and you lose it all. Thankfully it's just FB account so unlike with Google no real damage will be done. Even if the things are better now I kinda have moved on, like many others.
    - MichaelBurge 4y ago
      If you sideload pirated copies of commercial games that are on the Quest store, that's forbidden. But sideloading 3rd-party apps is fine. The "grey area" is modding games(notably Beat Saber), since it involves replacing the APK with an altered one without the consent of the developer. And if the developer sells DLC, that cuts into their profit and maybe they'll threaten to sue Facebook for damages since they created the development tools and authorized development accounts that allow people to do it.

spaceman_2020 4y ago

There is an even larger group of people who happily used Facebook’s products to stay in touch before, during, and after the pandemic. For much of the world, Whatsapp video calls were the standard way to keep in touch.

david38 4y ago
I highly doubt it. What percentage of those people spend money on FB?

rlt 4y ago

> There are a large number of people who would never want to have a private conversation or meeting using Facebook infrastructure or be forced to create a Facebook account to join a meeting. A large number of people in your circle / on HN / etc perhaps, but I think the vast majority of the general population have no such concern.

bitcharmer 4y ago
Doesn't matter. This device was clearly targeting corporate market where clueless individuals don't make purchase decisions on things like that. Facebook is not very popular among IT people in corporate world.
- ninth_ant 4y ago
  It wasn't targeting the corporate market at first. It was conceived and designed as a consumer-oriented device.
  - bitcharmer 4y ago
    Didn't know that. In that case how was this device supposed to compete with smartphones or tablets that we already have?
    - cranekam 4y ago
      It’s clearly not intended to compete with a smartphone. It’s 50 times the size and mains powered. It’s intended to be an always-on device with a wide camera and large screen that makes it easy for a few people to talk on video. Like video conferencing. My family uses them so my parents can see my kids and they are great. We plop down on the floor in front of it and everyone has a chat, sees the kids, etc. propping up phones and straining to hear/see things is much inferior.
    - philjohn 4y ago
      Totally different usecase. My elderly parents LOVE theirs - it's simple to make calls, the camera quality is great, the automatic pan and zoom was top notch (especially for following toddlers around the room, which was crucial to them to see their grandchildren during lockdown). The story mode was much loved as well - my mother (an ex kindergarten teacher) would read the stories to my niece and nephew and they loved the AR effects and filters it applied to her, in tandem with the story.

fs111 4y ago

> There are a large number of people who would never want to have a private conversation or meeting using Facebook infrastructure Have you ever heard of Whatsapp? More than a billion people use it for private communication daily. Maybe not in the US, but elsewhere on the planet. You know who owns Whatsapp? Meta does.

FPGAhacker 4y ago
We should congratulate Meta on actually not destroying an app by buying it.
smallerfish 4y ago
Whatsapp had already carved out its market (because of SMS being charged for in its initial markets) before Facebook acquired it. https://www.statista.com/statistics/260819/number-of-monthly-active-whatsapp-users/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/260819/number-of-monthly... Granted that they've at least tripled MAU since, but that's the power of network effects. There's a heavy dose of "in spite of" rather than "because of". On the other hand if Meta tried to, say, merge Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger, I think they'd lose half their users overnight. Similarly, if Meta bought Zoom (and kept it running as it does today), most businesses probably wouldn't switch. Zoom already owns the market.
- philjohn 4y ago
  There's also the ios to Android usecase.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  > Similarly, if Meta bought Zoom (and kept it running as it does today), most businesses probably wouldn't switch. Zoom already owns the market. Zoom's continued survival still surprises me. There was a point in time during its meteoric rise, early in the pandemic, when stories broke about it being spyware for China and a security threat, and its use was subsequently banned in many places. Then some months later people were back to using it, as if nothing ever happened.

meta_throwaway_ 4y ago

>There are a large number of people who would never want to have a private conversation or meeting using Facebook I wouldn't be surprised if Meta was the number one way people have private conversations on planet earth.

bratbag 4y ago
Chatting about grannies birthday? Sure. Talking about company ip? Not a chance in hell. When making a purchasing decision for company comms tools, guess which of those two have to be considered.
- zer0zzz 4y ago
  There's probably more people using WhatsApp securely in authoritarian hellholes and nightmarish war zones around the world than many of the alternatives you are thinking of combine. Personally I wouldn't use any chat service for super sensitive conversations about company comms and IP that didn't have strong encryption as well as limitations on how messages can be backed up as well as disappearing messages. I think Signal is the only system that is semi-popular that does this where by default backups don't leave the device unencrypted.

XorNot 4y ago

This comment could not be more wrong. The Portal failed because for exactly the reason the parent pointed out: it can't run the video conferencing apps people need it too. If it's just Android then yeah, intercept the camera API to let the portal stuff work with any app and you've got yourself a killer product getting put on every grandparents TV.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

adamsb6 4y ago

As a recent insider, this is one of those things where the outside perception doesn't match the inside at all. Privacy is taken more seriously at Facebook than any other place I've ever worked. It's drilled into you from day one that we have systems in place to catch you accessing things you shouldn't and you will be immediately fired if you do. You can make mistakes that bring the entire site down and cost the company millions and they won't fire you. If you try to bypass privacy controls on an ex-girlfriend's post, you're gone. Yes, they hoover up a ton of personal data. But they guard it like the crown jewels. If you do want your data deleted, they'll delete it. I've worked on the systems responsible for this where we had to reason through what to do with things like offline backups.

b3morales 4y ago
I appreciate you making the point, but it sounds like the perception is correct, but the definitions don't match. Individual-human-level privacy controls are important, and it's good that they're in place, but equally important is the systemic use of all that hoovered data.
orangecat 4y ago
Sure, but I expect most people's primary threat model isn't that a rogue Facebook employee will access their data and use it to stalk them. It's that Facebook will sell their data to advertisers who will use it to better manipulate them, or to insurance companies who will raise their rates.
- tomComb 4y ago
  And Facebook doesn’t sell user data either. I know there are lots of people here knowingly redefining the meaning of sell in this regard, but doing so is really harmful to the privacy cause since most companies do actually sell user data so we need that distinction.
- adamsb6 4y ago
  That’s another common misperception, that Facebook sells data. They don’t. They sell targeted advertising that uses that data. The advertiser API specifies descriptors for who should see the ads. There’s no facility for accessing private data. Selling the data itself would be giving away a huge component of what differentiates their product from other advertising platforms. It would be like Coca Cola selling the recipe for Coca Cola.