8 ms·

>If you want to implement a Google Voice solution, you’re more than welcome to, via the browser. The browser is completely inadequate to the task. I don't even

>If you want to implement a Google Voice solution, you’re more than welcome to, via the browser. The browser is completely inadequate to the task. I don't even think Webkit has the audio input features implemented yet, and if they exist they're completely useless for any real-world applications, especially on a phone. Telling people to use APIs that don't exist yet is nonsense.

SamAtt 16y ago
The whole argument of "you can use the browser" has always been a straw man that falls apart when exposed to even the least bit of scrutiny. You can't access much of the hardware via the browser (no audio, camera, etc...) You can't charge for a browser app. You can't play video with any kind of content restrictions (which Flash video offers). And so on. The whole line of reasoning is ridiculous. I won't say this article is inappropriate for HN but I think it's unworthy of HN.
- tumult 16y ago
  That's not what a straw man argument is
- zck 16y ago
  >You can't charge for a browser app. This line jumped out at me. What definition of "browser app" are we using that requires them to be free? Obviously a browser app can't be a website, as it's trivial to put a website behind a paywall. What else are we talking about?
mechanical_fish 16y ago
the browser is completely inadequate to the task Okay, but have you explained that to Google? http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/0126/Google-Voice-iPhone-finally-get-along-but-without-Apple-s-blessings http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/0126/Googl... Now, I'll concede that the HTML5 app which Google released as "Google Voice for the iPhone" might not be the app of your dreams. Maybe you should aim your ire at Google, then, for releasing a thing called Google Voice that isn't the ideal Google Voice. But you can hardly blame a pundit for believing that an app which already exists and which Google has officially announced is physically possible.
stanleydrew 16y ago
Well in the particular case of GV, no browser audio api is required since voice calls all run over the regular cell network, so technically the browser is adequate to the task. But your point is still valid in general for a lot of other cases.

SamAtt 16y ago

The whole argument of "you can use the browser" has always been a straw man that falls apart when exposed to even the least bit of scrutiny. You can't access much of the hardware via the browser (no audio, camera, etc...) You can't charge for a browser app. You can't play video with any kind of content restrictions (which Flash video offers). And so on. The whole line of reasoning is ridiculous. I won't say this article is inappropriate for HN but I think it's unworthy of HN.

tumult 16y ago
That's not what a straw man argument is
zck 16y ago
>You can't charge for a browser app. This line jumped out at me. What definition of "browser app" are we using that requires them to be free? Obviously a browser app can't be a website, as it's trivial to put a website behind a paywall. What else are we talking about?

mechanical_fish 16y ago

the browser is completely inadequate to the task Okay, but have you explained that to Google? http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/0126/Google-Voice-iPhone-finally-get-along-but-without-Apple-s-blessings http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/0126/Googl... Now, I'll concede that the HTML5 app which Google released as "Google Voice for the iPhone" might not be the app of your dreams. Maybe you should aim your ire at Google, then, for releasing a thing called Google Voice that isn't the ideal Google Voice. But you can hardly blame a pundit for believing that an app which already exists and which Google has officially announced is physically possible.

stanleydrew 16y ago

Well in the particular case of GV, no browser audio api is required since voice calls all run over the regular cell network, so technically the browser is adequate to the task. But your point is still valid in general for a lot of other cases.