4 ms·
This is very good news, I'm really tired of how bad Skype's quality has gotten. WhatsApp's voice calls, on the other hand, are almost always crystal clear, ofte
by Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 10y ago
This is very good news, I'm really tired of how bad Skype's quality has gotten. WhatsApp's voice calls, on the other hand, are almost always crystal clear, often better than even phone calls.
- evacchi 10y agoIt's interesting how my opinion is completely opposite. I feel like chat apps tend to get "featuritis" as soon as they become more popular.
- grenoire 10y agoWhatsApp is probably one of the most barebones chat apps I've seen so far. It's providing exactly what I need for communicating with people, and nothing more. I doubt that adding video calls to a chat app requires a featuritis diagnosis.
- zamalek 10y ago> featuritis Email likely won't be an eventuality in this case.
- jhasse 10y agoTry Telegram :) It doesn't have voice or video chat and the clients are open-source. So you can remove these features if it ever becomes popular ;)
- LiquidFlux 10y agoIs the quality of a phone call a high bar? I've always found WhatsApp, Messenger and Skype to provide what sounds like much less compressed audio, occasionally at the cost of latency until the bitrate drops to compensate.
- telesilla 10y agoThere is one main reason for Skype's terrible call quality these last years, and that is because it's no longer peer to peer as it was at it's beginning. All Skype calls go through Microsoft's servers, as far as I understand. I expect WhatsApp can make use of P2P (I suppose WebRTC) as I also find the phone calls excellent quality and have come to use it a lot. I'll definitely be ditching Skype very soon once video is proven.
- volkanh 10y agoMost cellular networks run behind symmetric carrier grade NATs. Even when you have two mobile devices behind the same NAT their traffic will not flow P2P. All traffic has to be routed to the public net (and then back in if you can figure out IP:Port which is usually not possible with symmetric NATs). They will never be hair-pinned on the NAT either... True P2P is only possible when at least one mobile device is on a public network or behind a more permissive NAT device.
- notoverthere 10y agoI think @telesilla's point is that a Skype call would be going through all the cellular network's infrastructure, and then off to Microsoft, before coming back. It's an extra link in the chain, meaning another potential bottleneck and added latency.
- crdb 10y agoIt's the opposite for me. All WhatsApp calls - including to others in Singapore literally less than a mile from me - have a 3 second lag. This is not the case with Skype.
- torrent-of-ions 10y agoYep, WhatsApp is high latency and really latency is more important than quality for voice calling. Video calling I think is actually a bit more lenient because you can pick up more visual cues to more easily adjust for the lag.
- yati 10y agoSame for me, where WhatsApp randomly tries to "reconnect" for audio only calls, Skype works flawlessly with video. Also, with Skype, I can make really cheap international calls to phones. I only wish they'd not abandoned the Linux client so badly.
- unixhero 10y agoIt's not the same for me. EUROPE TO US, EUROPE TO LATIN AMERICA, LATIN AMERICA - EUROPE ASIA TO EUROPE All without latency.
- ungzd 10y agoAt least Skype works on desktop.
- dandelion_lover 10y agoWhat about jitsi meet? https://meet.jit.si/ https://meet.jit.si/
- GFischer 10y agoUnfortunately Jitsi was acquired by Atlassian, so I don't think you'll see many advances there. They were (are) some of the best at working with WebRTC. Edit: I would put more stock on Appear.in. They also have some of the best people, and they have recently launched a monetization plan (I was worried about that part)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]