Portal from Facebook: Voice Enabled Hands-Free Video Calling

Also, they reserve the right to change this in the future - just like they've always done. FB is pretty good at bait and switch.

Are you just assuming the second part? The privacy policy doesn’t mention anything about this, except that third-party integrations may have ads, but they’re not served via FB, etc.

It's crazy how much people expect of Facebook compared to Google and Amazon, despite both of the latter companies either incorporating ads or gathering targeting information from Hangouts, Google Home, Alexa etc, or planning on doing so (Amazon planning on turning Alexa into an ads platform)[0].

[0](https://www.adweek.com/digital/why-brands-should-be-ready-fo...)

I can't find anything on the portal site mentioning encryption. They claim:

>Private by design

>Portal was created with privacy, safety and security in mind. And it has clear and simple settings, so you stay in control.

and in the FAQ:

>Secure calls

>Facebook doesn’t listen to, view or keep the contents of your Portal video calls. Your conversations stay between you and the people you’re calling.

And they have lock icons all over the place bragging about the security. But not once does it mention any sort of encryption. Presumably it's encrypted in transit to and from Facebook's servers, but if it were end-to-end encrypted such that Facebook couldn't monitor it, you'd think they would mention that.

Is "We don't listen to your calls, but we could" what passes for security and privacy at Facebook? Or is there e2e encryption and they've for some reason chosen not to mention it?

I'll stick with Facetime and iMessage, thanks.

"From the background, we notice that you're at the Grand Canyon. We suggest using our landscape filter to make the canyon really POP! Oh and here's an ad from the Bright Angel Lodge."

That's from Facebook's generalized privacy policy. According to the product page:

> Facebook doesn’t listen to, view or keep the contents of your Portal video calls.

> For added security, Smart Camera uses AI technology that runs locally on Portal, not on Facebook servers. Portal’s camera does not use facial recognition and does not identify who you are.

So, that reads more private to me. However, the general policy definitely applies to the voice commands:

> Like other voice-enabled devices, Portal only sends voice commands to Facebook servers after you say, “Hey Portal.”

Obviously, that can always change at any time, but the starting point seems to be pretty much par for the course compared to other smart display products.

Unfortunately, I have to agree. The product does actually look pretty awesome.

Edit: grammar cleanup

> Facebook doesn’t listen to, view or keep the contents of your Portal video calls. Your conversations stay between you and the people you’re calling.

It's not entirely clear from their wording if the calls are E2E encrypted or not - "doesn't" isn't quite the same as "can't". I wish they would be more clear about this.

I recall hearing that they delayed the release, which was scheduled within days of the CA incident (or one of the several others since).

Like Android's Duo one benefit would be that you can use this on any hardware, and talk to someone without an iPhone, unlike FaceTime.

Well, maybe the network effect: if you buy this gadget and log in using your FB account, you already have your contact list (all your FB contacts) ready to call.

Interestingly the other party doesn't even need to have this gadget, if they have FB Messenger app (which has the video functionality) you'll be able to talk to each other.

And what do Android users use? In Europe it would be most likely WhatsApp, and guess who publishes WhatsApp.

If they manage to add WhatsApp integration...

Alexa is barely home automation... it's a voice controlled switch in 99% of use. Home automation is events responding to triggers, as if by magic, not "Alexa, kitchen lights on", nor too any real extent voice controlled scenes.

Or the FB's own thing is not ready yet. You might get software update to add FB's assistant if/when they do it.

Or, voice assistant is not the market FB want to compete on.

The future of devices is multi-assistant, like Sonos does with the Play One. I expect a V2 model of this device to incorporate Google, et al

Why not just get an Echo Show?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/8/17944022/new-amazon-echo-...

Second gen, bigger screen, does video calls, obviously has Alexa and no Facebook involvement.

> Like other voice-enabled devices, Portal only sends voice commands to Facebook servers after you say, “Hey Portal.” You can delete Portal's voice history in your Facebook Activity Log.

It’s very much connected to their servers.

I can't speak for consumer demand, but I've worked at a place that spent a fortune on Cisco VTC devices, which are basically larger, less user-friendly versions of this.

I wonder the same thing. I mean, Kinect did a great job of providing video calling via Skype, but it never gained market acceptance. Why would this be any different?

I'm not sure what you mean about the fad of techno gadgets, though. It seems to be that we've had a lot of new gadgets for the past 40 years. Some have been phenomenally successful and stayed around and others haven't (or have come back years later in different forms). I don't expect this to end.

There are a few use cases where the screen is helpful. Multi-day weather forecasts, recipes, video calling, viewing security cameras or doorbell type cameras.

I have an Echo Show in the living room, and I make more frequent use of video calling than I'd expected to - the big use case for me is quickly dropping in to say hello to my son before bed when I'm away for work. That's something that can be done with mobile devices, but that then requires him to be near one, which he's too young for at the momment.

My family did purchase a dedicated Skype video device for my grandmother when she started suffering from cognitive decline and moved into an assisted living facility. But beyond niche use cases like that it's hard to see the point of such devices, especially when they're locked into just a single software platform.

I work in IT in a large institution. Recently we started requiring 2-factor auth to get into payroll. The number of people who tell us “I don’t use apps on my phone” and require a hardware token is shockingly high.

For every tech savvy hacker news minimalist there are 5+ people who find technology easiest to work with when a device does one thing and one thing only.

If it works well as phone, then it will be great.

When I do phone call, when someone pick up, I introduce myself and start talking. When I do hangout meeting, everybody first asks "Can you hear me"?

I think this will be a great way to spend more time with my parents who live 400 miles away. It will also allow my kids to talk to my parents more.

We already use Facebook messenger for this since it’s the easiest for my parents to use. This would be an improved messenger experience in my eyes.

>I really don't see myself video call my significant other while we are both cooking in a different home and enjoying this.

Plenty of people do just that though. Many people in long distance relationships pretty much have a constant Skype call if they’re both at home.

I don’t think the concept is a bad one at all, it’s just awkward coming from Facebook.

That was the main use case they built it for though. In another article it talks about their inspiration being the What but Why post about having spent 93% of the time you’ll ever spend with your parents by the time you’ve graduated high school.

> The biggest problem with video calling right now is that the networks are garbage

As in your internet is slow? That's not a problem for everyone I guess. For me it's pretty fast.. Facebook has tried projects to speed up last mile internet (beam it down with drones, etc), but that appears to be a hard problem to solve.

There might be a niche for an 'always on' (more or less) video service. It feels very awkward to 'be quiet together' on most current voice and video call services and that causes people to end the conversation faster than they would if they were there physically (it's one of the reasons why I like gaming with my long-distance friends, because you can chat, then focus on the game for a bit, then go back to chatting - it feel more like hanging out, and less like a focused exchange of information). As another example, Snapchat is strictly worse than normal messaging from a purely technical perspective (there's no history!), but in reality it causes people to communicate in a different way, and share things that might be too small or inconsequential to add to your permanent message record - it makes it feel like you're sharing your day and the small things in it with someone even if they're not there physically. So in a similar vein, Portal might feel like a different medium just from being on more often, and nudging people toward just leaving it on while cooking dinner. It might also not - I certainly don't want more Facebook in my life, but the point is, details in implementation and framing can make the same technology feel like a different medium that enables different kinds of communication.

Most likely, it will be officially sold only in a handful or first-world countries, like hardware from Google and Amazon is.

How do they handle Messenger? It sounds like it’s just that under the hood.