6 ms·

Never really understood why people were strongly opposed to Firefox Hello. As far as I understand, it's a minimal wrapper on WebRTC. Seems to be no argument on

Never really understood why people were strongly opposed to Firefox Hello. As far as I understand, it's a minimal wrapper on WebRTC. Seems to be no argument on bloat, perhaps a minimal argument on confusing the user? Or was there some privacy implication I hadn't heard of?

favadi 10y ago
It is just not useful for anything. You can't tell your friends to install Firefox for a video call.
- iamd3vil 10y ago
  You don't need Firefox for a video chat. It sends a link and you can open it in any browser.
- amelius 10y ago
  Why can't we in 2016? What is so special about "installing" software as opposed to just running it, that it needs additional consideration?
adrusi 10y ago
Well for one, Firefox Hello works with a centralized signaling server running proprietary code. Not appealing to the contingent of Firefox users who use it because it's the most in-line with free software ideals of the popular browsers.
- icebraining 10y ago
  running proprietary code No, the server is MPLv2 licensed: https://github.com/mozilla-services/loop-server https://github.com/mozilla-services/loop-server
  - adrusi 10y ago
    As I understand, It uses Telefonica's proprietary (and misleadingly named) OpenTok platform. The README you linked even mentions specifying TokBox credentials.
    - dingaling 10y ago
      You are correct, Hello used OpenTok. To enable Hello with NoScript active one had to whitelist opentok.com and tokbox.com Loop Server was indeed open source but sat downstream from the WebRTC and STUN / TURN provider https://wiki.mozilla.org/File:Loop-network.png https://wiki.mozilla.org/File:Loop-network.png Interesting to see OpenTok's pricing, though presumably Mozilla had an 'arrangement' with Telefonica: https://tokbox.com/pricing https://tokbox.com/pricing