Comment by petterroea
17 hours ago
It is sad that it takes a Meta developer having some fun to realize they should open up ADB.
This isn't the repairability and reuseability of old devices mindset people have been begging for. This is some guy using internal privileges to having some fun, and deciding the rest of us should get a piece of the fun as well.
This is a "happy story" in the same way it is a "happy story" when some kid successfully fundraises a classmate's cancer treatment because the healthcare system neglects them.
> It is sad that it takes a Meta developer having some fun to realize they should open up ADB.
Former facebook research lab twat here. It wasn't one dev.
We asked when they shitcanned portal (which was a great product, badly managed) to open it up. Infact one of the kernel devs made a very direct plea to allow the community to adopt the hardware so that we could avoid Ewaste.
It was denied because there are keys on the device that would leak if meta opened it up. (I'm not an android dev so I don't know the ins and outs of that)
However, portal was a casualty of the dash to VR. They scaled up the team briefly, which meant that lots of weird stuff was tried, but the roadmap was diluted. The idea was that they portal would be the "portal" to horizon worlds. this meant that they pushed back the plan for thirdparty app stores that would have meant you had something to actually do on the device.
neglect and stupidity from zuck meant that the portal was killed, even though the next gen device was actually a really great media device (wireless, removable charging stand, excellent speakers, but nothing to run on it.)
> They scaled up the team briefly, which meant that lots of weird stuff was tried, but the roadmap was diluted.
Boz never cared for Portal, it wasn't his product. I was one of the original engineers on Portal. The VP running the research lap responsible for Portal was canned in a political coup, and her entire org moved under Boz, merging it with Oculus into the AR/VR team. There was some ham-fisted justification around why a smart home product should be part of AR/VR, but it never really made sense.
Portal had a bunch of other problems, including:
* Massively over-specced hardware, the SoC was the same SoC as the Quest, even though it had no reason to be. The BOM was something like $500. We were selling these units at a huge loss.
* Cambridge Analytica broke right in the middle of development, which completely tanked any remaining trust in the Facebook brand. Everyone knew the product was completely sunk at that point, but nobody wanted to come out and say it. At the last minute we had to stuff a plastic camera cover into the box as a result.
* Boz was convinced we could build a voice assistant for Portal and Quest that was better than Siri, but the Assistant team at FB was completely out of their depth. We ended up right before launch having to sign a deal with Amazon to ship Alexa on the product.
* So much politics. AR/VR had a virtually unlimited budget so there was a massive land grab to hire as many people as possible, with no consideration around what they'd actually work on. Even though Quest and Portal had the same SoCs, they had completely separate Android OS builds and engineering teams, because everyone was trying to build the biggest engineering teams they could. People were constantly leaking shit: I found out we were delaying the project because an executive leaked it to Bloomberg while the executive meeting was still happening.
> So much politics. AR/VR had a virtually unlimited budget so there was a massive land grab to hire as many people as possible, with no consideration around what they'd actually work on. Even though Quest and Portal had the same SoCs, they had completely separate Android OS builds and engineering teams, because everyone was trying to build the biggest engineering teams they could. People were constantly leaking shit: I found out we were delaying the project because an executive leaked it to Bloomberg while the executive meeting was still happening.
Hnnnnnn
yup, the empire building and land grabs. yup, I had forgotten about the early days before maui was actually universal and people needed different tools to flash different devices.
1 reply →
We bought two portals for elderly relatives, predominantly for video calling, and I don't think there has been another product, then or since, that fitted that use case as well, especially with people who maybe aren't as familiar with smartphones.
So somewhat frustrating when it all started to wind down various bits of functionality disappeared a bit at a time, until finally you had something that would receive calls, but not be able to make them - and perhaps not even that any more.
(About the only downside I saw on it was the messenger vs whatsapp tussle caused a bit too much confusion).
But it was a solid bit of household tech for several years, so +1 for that!
6 replies →
i had a portal at home for work. great product for VC, i tried using one with my parents and my dad kept it in the trunk of his car outside because that's how negative the facebook brand equity was.
> It was denied because there are keys on the device that would leak if meta opened it up.
Many devices wipe such keys as part of unlocking the bootloader. The better ones restore access upon relocking with a stock OS but that's far from guaranteed.
> It was denied because there are keys on the device that would leak if meta opened it up. (I'm not an android dev so I don't know the ins and outs of that)
Any idea what changed?
> neglect and stupidity from zuck meant that the portal was killed
Is Facebook really set up such that one person's whim is the single point of failure? Is there really no way for teams to progress projects with value somewhat independently?
> Any idea what changed?
sadly, or fortunately I am not at facebook anymore, so I don't have the inside track on what changed.
> Is Facebook really set up such that one person's whim is the single point of failure?
Kinda. Zuck sets direction, and he has key interests. The thing that really makes him happy is cutting edge research and new features. The thing that passes him by completely is product experience. Oculus is a great example of that. The user experience was/is trash. the time to fun is/was too high and was for a long time. Carmak spent ages saying "we can't compete on hardware specs, we can compete on ecosystem and experience" he lost that argument.
Outside of zuck there are only a few areas that actually make decisions and communicate them properly, one is monetisation/advertising and the other is Infra planning. _Everything_ else relies on people churning initiatives and seeing what sticks. With loose coordination at the centre based on who know who and who manages to convince others that "this is a Zuck priority, or related to one"
It felt very much like having a Boy king. The Boy king liked playing with toys, and if you made a toy for the king you were in favour. The boring parts were handled by "evil advisors" who are there because they don;t threaten the king's power. Everyone around the boy king is there to gain favour.
2 replies →
> Is Facebook really set up such that one person's whim is the single point of failure?
When I was there (pre-Covid) it was sort of a worst-of-all-worlds situation, compared to other firms.
On the one hand, Zuck maintains an absolute majority of voting shares, so what he say literally goes, with the board having no real authority to rein him in. If your project is something he takes a direct interest in, you are automatically subject to his whims.
On the other, Meta highly values the idea that they are a pretty flat org with no centralised command and control structure. So if your project is not under the baleful gaze of Zuck, there's a good chance that nobody in the executive suite has any fucking idea what is going on in your part of the company.
Contrast this to Bezos-era Amazon, where Bezos would sometimes directly intervene in pet projects like the FirePhone, but the entire company has a strong reporting hierarchy, and executives are expected to maintain direct command-and-control at all times over their reports (i.e. when Bezos sent one of the dreaded question-mark emails, the entire management chain damn well better be able to get their story straight top-to-bottom by the end of day)
1 reply →
Is there any company set up so that the CEO's whim isn't a single point of failure?
3 replies →
> Is Facebook really set up such that one person's whim is the single point of failure?
It doesn't sound that surprising, does it?
1 reply →
I think it'd be pretty weird if people and teams inside a company go just go rogue against the CEO.
3 replies →
> there are keys on the device that would leak if meta opened it up.
Are these keys not functionally leaked as soon as you ship the device to customers?
With enough encryption, obfuscation, and security-through-obscurity, you can make it extremely difficult to obtain those keys.
Companies like Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony ship consoles that are the target of a very motivated black market/cheating industry, and it usually takes years before any serious leaks surface.
1 reply →
I was in the Oculus for Business (later AR/VR for Work) group, and we were well into taking Portal and making it compatible with corporate MDM policies, to sell along with Workplace as a general visual conferencing platform. Sadly all went up in smoke when they cancelled the main Portal program.
I always wondered how they messed portal up. It seemed so natural of a piece of hardware to fit into everything else they do. Tying it to horizon says all I need to know.
> It is sad that it takes a Meta developer having some fun to realize they should open up ADB.
I'm not even sure if the motivation is as positive as that - the video, blog, and dev docs read more like a sales pitch for meta's AI tools...
(I'm glad they did it, the portal is great hardware; but I don't expect that this will be a pattern of opening up old hardware unless it provides tangible benefits to the AI department)
boz is the CTO
Even sadder. Turns out all we needed to not have our old devices locked down was the CTO having some fun
Why is this sad? I’m having a hard time understanding the thought you are communicating. It seems cool that a CTO had fun and that motivated him to enable ADB for everyone?
12 replies →
*all we needed was the technical leader of the company that produced the product to...
the same could be said for pretty much any change or update rolled out by any of these companies.
1 reply →