5 ms·

People don't use Web browsers for video chat. They use Skype. Getting people to change will be hard, especially since the browser offers no real benefits over S

by ootachi 14y ago

People don't use Web browsers for video chat. They use Skype. Getting people to change will be hard, especially since the browser offers no real benefits over Skype. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to get people to change, only that it will be hard and Skype interoperability is a very legitimate thing to want to achieve.

Joeboy 14y ago
I can't really see how Skype can stay in the game after browsers support VOIP. At the moment if one party doesn't have Skype, it generally means either they end up installing it or (more likely) you abandon VOIP. At the point when you can say "no problem, just go to this URL...", Skype starts to seem pretty redundant. Of course that won't happen immediately, and always the possibility the plan might get derailed somehow, so I'd agree that Skype interop would be good.
- viraptor 14y ago
  They have nat-free servers and their own automatic nat-traversal methods. Even if every single browser supports VOIP, you won't be able to use it between 2 random people using standard home connection. Until we get out of the lack of IPv4 addresses situation there can be no true peer to peer network.
  - Joeboy 14y ago
    Sure, I wasn't particularly thinking it would be peer to peer. It can easily be through somebody other than Skype though.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    The PeerConnection API has methods of doing NAT traversal. STUN, etc. It's already covered.
    - skypeopensource 14y ago
      Its not enough. Need something like skype supernode functionality.
      - drivebyacct2 14y ago
        I don't understand why. I'm not a networking expert but I have some experience with networking... I mean, I've already tried a proof-of-concept out with a computer behind a NAT router and it worked fine.
        viraptor 14y ago
        Think about 2 devices (A,B) behind routers in different networks. Connections from A end up on B's router since there's no existing connection to match and connections from B end up on A's router. Unless you explicitly configure port forwarding B will never know that A is calling him.
        drivebyacct2 14y ago
        Is that not precisely what STUN/TURN is for?
        viraptor 14y ago
        Yeah - that will do, but the TURN operator is a third party. I commented about the situation assuming Joeboy meant P2P connection without Skype or anyone else Skype-like (the URL is the only thing needed). If you're ok with someone else providing TURN and making money on it in some way to pay for the bandwidth, then yeah - that's enough.
        drivebyacct2 14y ago
        I'll be honest, I'm currently abusing the STUN servers that Google uses in their own WebRTC examples and will need to evaluate my own options. I was under the impression that STUN could be used to establish a connection that from then forward was able to be only peer to peer after the connection through the NAT had been established.
  - skypeopensource 14y ago
    Yeah, skype supernode concept very sexy.
  - tonfa 14y ago
    Why would it be peer to peer? That's actually an issue with skype on mobile (which I think is fixed now since they use centralized servers for mobile connections).
    - viraptor 14y ago
      I assumed P2P, since Joeboy mentioned "no problem, just go to this URL...". If you're not doing this in a P2P way, then you need an account with third party and the third party sometimes needs to transfer both your signalling and your audio. That means they need to get money for that from somewhere... In that case you're pretty much in the same position as with Skype - just without a download. Account, configuration, potential payments, etc. remain. Edit: Actually now I see a solution - if only one person had an account, this would still be possible and he could start a call by sending some URL. So for the other person this is "just go to this URL". Unfortunately we still need a third party to handle the traffic unless you require the account holder to ensure their network is capable of acting as a server.
  - pgeorgi 14y ago
    WebRTC includes the various standard methods for NAT hole punching (STUN and the like)
muuh-gnu 14y ago
> People don't use Web browsers for video chat. That was before Google Voice+Video+Hangouts. A significant number of people I contact with has already switched to Google because it is much easier to use.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
The browser offers no benefit? No installation, I can tweet, facebook, text, email a single link that opens an instant video chat with me, that's not a benefit? No user account registration, etc? There's literally no effort needed to start using it. In fact, with oAuth you can even tie into existing user bases. Chat with all of your Facebook/Twitter friends by authing those accounts and the backend telling you which friends already have it. You get built in userbases for free almost.
- ryanbrunner 14y ago
  That 'almost' is a lot bigger than you're making it out to be. With a hypothetical "WebRTC video chat" service, in order to chat with "any of my facebook friends", I need to: - Give all my data on my Facebook friends to the service in question. (Let's assume for the moment that it's a benevolent hypothetical chat service and I don't have to give up a lot) - Invite one of my friends. - Hope that my friend accepts the service accessing their information in the same way (A very big hurdle if it's a service they've never heard of) Or I could just use Skype, that they're already on.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    ... It's still a wash in my opinion. There's no account required at all for a WebRTC application. I can send you a link on any service and you're a click away from video chatting with me. The Social Auth integration was just an example of how easy it would be to build off of existing user bases.
- bmj 14y ago
  Grandparents probably don't note this difference. Skype is decidedly most popular by faraway folks keeping touch, particularly those that aren't terribly computer-savvy.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Grandparents have to be the most likely to understand or benefit from this difference. Grandma, open the email I sent you and click the link [or] Grandma, Go to "tinyurl.com/5yp7q". versus, Grandma, download Skype, find it, run it, walk through the Installer, make an account, login, add my username, then call me. (and even then, this is glossing over a gross number of details that are hard for the unsavvy). Even if it's already set up, there's no barrier to use of a simple WebRTC-based service assuming it's done correctly.

by ootachi 14y ago

Joeboy 14y ago

I can't really see how Skype can stay in the game after browsers support VOIP. At the moment if one party doesn't have Skype, it generally means either they end up installing it or (more likely) you abandon VOIP. At the point when you can say "no problem, just go to this URL...", Skype starts to seem pretty redundant. Of course that won't happen immediately, and always the possibility the plan might get derailed somehow, so I'd agree that Skype interop would be good.

viraptor 14y ago
They have nat-free servers and their own automatic nat-traversal methods. Even if every single browser supports VOIP, you won't be able to use it between 2 random people using standard home connection. Until we get out of the lack of IPv4 addresses situation there can be no true peer to peer network.
- Joeboy 14y ago
  Sure, I wasn't particularly thinking it would be peer to peer. It can easily be through somebody other than Skype though.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  The PeerConnection API has methods of doing NAT traversal. STUN, etc. It's already covered.
  - skypeopensource 14y ago
    Its not enough. Need something like skype supernode functionality.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      I don't understand why. I'm not a networking expert but I have some experience with networking... I mean, I've already tried a proof-of-concept out with a computer behind a NAT router and it worked fine.
      - viraptor 14y ago
        Think about 2 devices (A,B) behind routers in different networks. Connections from A end up on B's router since there's no existing connection to match and connections from B end up on A's router. Unless you explicitly configure port forwarding B will never know that A is calling him.
        drivebyacct2 14y ago
        Is that not precisely what STUN/TURN is for?
        viraptor 14y ago
        Yeah - that will do, but the TURN operator is a third party. I commented about the situation assuming Joeboy meant P2P connection without Skype or anyone else Skype-like (the URL is the only thing needed). If you're ok with someone else providing TURN and making money on it in some way to pay for the bandwidth, then yeah - that's enough.
        drivebyacct2 14y ago
        I'll be honest, I'm currently abusing the STUN servers that Google uses in their own WebRTC examples and will need to evaluate my own options. I was under the impression that STUN could be used to establish a connection that from then forward was able to be only peer to peer after the connection through the NAT had been established.
- skypeopensource 14y ago
  Yeah, skype supernode concept very sexy.
- tonfa 14y ago
  Why would it be peer to peer? That's actually an issue with skype on mobile (which I think is fixed now since they use centralized servers for mobile connections).
  - viraptor 14y ago
    I assumed P2P, since Joeboy mentioned "no problem, just go to this URL...". If you're not doing this in a P2P way, then you need an account with third party and the third party sometimes needs to transfer both your signalling and your audio. That means they need to get money for that from somewhere... In that case you're pretty much in the same position as with Skype - just without a download. Account, configuration, potential payments, etc. remain. Edit: Actually now I see a solution - if only one person had an account, this would still be possible and he could start a call by sending some URL. So for the other person this is "just go to this URL". Unfortunately we still need a third party to handle the traffic unless you require the account holder to ensure their network is capable of acting as a server.
- pgeorgi 14y ago
  WebRTC includes the various standard methods for NAT hole punching (STUN and the like)

muuh-gnu 14y ago

> People don't use Web browsers for video chat. That was before Google Voice+Video+Hangouts. A significant number of people I contact with has already switched to Google because it is much easier to use.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

The browser offers no benefit? No installation, I can tweet, facebook, text, email a single link that opens an instant video chat with me, that's not a benefit? No user account registration, etc? There's literally no effort needed to start using it. In fact, with oAuth you can even tie into existing user bases. Chat with all of your Facebook/Twitter friends by authing those accounts and the backend telling you which friends already have it. You get built in userbases for free almost.

ryanbrunner 14y ago
That 'almost' is a lot bigger than you're making it out to be. With a hypothetical "WebRTC video chat" service, in order to chat with "any of my facebook friends", I need to: - Give all my data on my Facebook friends to the service in question. (Let's assume for the moment that it's a benevolent hypothetical chat service and I don't have to give up a lot) - Invite one of my friends. - Hope that my friend accepts the service accessing their information in the same way (A very big hurdle if it's a service they've never heard of) Or I could just use Skype, that they're already on.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  ... It's still a wash in my opinion. There's no account required at all for a WebRTC application. I can send you a link on any service and you're a click away from video chatting with me. The Social Auth integration was just an example of how easy it would be to build off of existing user bases.
bmj 14y ago
Grandparents probably don't note this difference. Skype is decidedly most popular by faraway folks keeping touch, particularly those that aren't terribly computer-savvy.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Grandparents have to be the most likely to understand or benefit from this difference. Grandma, open the email I sent you and click the link [or] Grandma, Go to "tinyurl.com/5yp7q". versus, Grandma, download Skype, find it, run it, walk through the Installer, make an account, login, add my username, then call me. (and even then, this is glossing over a gross number of details that are hard for the unsavvy). Even if it's already set up, there's no barrier to use of a simple WebRTC-based service assuming it's done correctly.