5 ms·

Always thought the name choice was a bit weird. With a name like Duo, are they forever restricted to two-party calls? (Ha) It seems like the other video chat se

Always thought the name choice was a bit weird. With a name like Duo, are they forever restricted to two-party calls? (Ha) It seems like the other video chat services (eg WhatsApp, Instagram) are incorporating multi user support. The "knock" feature is kinda novel and weird (in a good way). When you call someone, they can see your video feed before they answer the call.

lrem 7y ago
Duo does support up to 8 people in a call. Naming is hard.
- alexhutcheson 7y ago
  12 now: https://twitter.com/sanazahari/status/1243397017868460033 https://twitter.com/sanazahari/status/1243397017868460033
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  Only on mobile. Duo for web does not.
dmitrygr 7y ago
only "a good way" until you(/your grandmother/your kid) get a facefull of unsolicited genitals
- rurp 7y ago
  Lol, "facefull of unsolicited genitals" is not a phrase I expected to read today. I agree though, this feature seems like a solution in search of a problem. If I'm answering the call it seems more natural to activate both cameras at the same time, and for calls I'm not going to answer the video feed just seems unnecessarily distracting. I'm sure that I have never wished for a feature like this.
reaperducer 7y ago
When you call someone, they can see your video feed before they answer the call. Seems like the sort of thing that perverts would take advantage of.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- haneefmubarak 7y ago
  If you call me on a consumer service which explicitly delineates that behavior, why would it be unreasonable for me to see your video before I accept? Presumably you would know who you're video calling anyhow prior to calling them, so there's not really a meaningful privacy violation... The only case I can think of is you calling me to expose yourself or something - to that, I'd say that a privacy option where you can make it so you have to add someone before they can video call you would suffice.
  - pryce 7y ago
    If our threat model in 2020 treats "unsolicited dick pics" as rare, and concludes that an "opt-out" setting is acceptable, we clearly haven't listened to what women have been saying for over a decade. One of the problems with an opt-out setting is that it can become a viable attack vector whenever the application settings reset: "OMG New phone for my 14th birthday" will look like an invitation to some segment of the population.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      It's explained here: http://support.google.com/duo/answer/6376115 http://support.google.com/duo/answer/6376115 Google knows about dick pics.
      - rurp 7y ago
        I don't see anything in that link that addresses dick pics. Is it just the fact that this "feature" only works with contacts?
crazygringo 7y ago
I think, much like FaceTime, it's designed primarily (both UX and architecture) around the two-party call use case, but can support several more as needed (12 total for Duo, 32 for Facetime). Whereas solutions like Meet and Zoom are designed primarily (both UX and architecture) around multi-party, supporting 100's (250 for Meet, 500 for Zoom).
- bscphil 7y ago
  Note that intuitively, it seems like Meet and Zoom have the better model - why limit the number of participants when you don't have to? And in fact a lot of consumers seem to feel this way about it; many people I know use Zoom for everything, from large meetings to chatting with a small number of family members or confidants. But under the hood, limiting the number of users allows some important technical advantages. Duo claims (in its FAQ) to be end-to-end encrypted. I believe Whatapp claims the same. And it wouldn't surprise me, knowing Apple, if their video chats on Facetime did too. This is possible only with a reasonable limit on the number of participants because of the need to negotiate a bandwidth for each stream that works for all viewers, and each stream needs to be independent, not multiplexed into a single live view. The proper use of large-scale meeting products is in corporate or paid environments where you have some kind of guarantee that your chats aren't being recorded or sold. (At least unless a three letter agency is involved.) Tools that guarantee end-to-end encryption should be used in small group chats. Your point about UX is a strong one too. There are a affordances that work better for smaller chats, others for larger ones, and it's helpful to be able to specialize.
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    > why limit the number of participants when you don't have to Because beyond UX, there are a ton of technical tradeoffs involved. In a 2-person call you want to avoid a server if possible, because it adds latency -- so that's a good first reason. Zoom and Meet would never dream of not using a server. The optimal architecture of a "small group call" is totally different from a "large group call".
  - tatersolid 7y ago

lrem 7y ago

Duo does support up to 8 people in a call. Naming is hard.

alexhutcheson 7y ago
12 now: https://twitter.com/sanazahari/status/1243397017868460033 https://twitter.com/sanazahari/status/1243397017868460033
Mindwipe 7y ago
Only on mobile. Duo for web does not.

dmitrygr 7y ago

only "a good way" until you(/your grandmother/your kid) get a facefull of unsolicited genitals

rurp 7y ago
Lol, "facefull of unsolicited genitals" is not a phrase I expected to read today. I agree though, this feature seems like a solution in search of a problem. If I'm answering the call it seems more natural to activate both cameras at the same time, and for calls I'm not going to answer the video feed just seems unnecessarily distracting. I'm sure that I have never wished for a feature like this.

reaperducer 7y ago

When you call someone, they can see your video feed before they answer the call. Seems like the sort of thing that perverts would take advantage of.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
haneefmubarak 7y ago
If you call me on a consumer service which explicitly delineates that behavior, why would it be unreasonable for me to see your video before I accept? Presumably you would know who you're video calling anyhow prior to calling them, so there's not really a meaningful privacy violation... The only case I can think of is you calling me to expose yourself or something - to that, I'd say that a privacy option where you can make it so you have to add someone before they can video call you would suffice.
- pryce 7y ago
  If our threat model in 2020 treats "unsolicited dick pics" as rare, and concludes that an "opt-out" setting is acceptable, we clearly haven't listened to what women have been saying for over a decade. One of the problems with an opt-out setting is that it can become a viable attack vector whenever the application settings reset: "OMG New phone for my 14th birthday" will look like an invitation to some segment of the population.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    It's explained here: http://support.google.com/duo/answer/6376115 http://support.google.com/duo/answer/6376115 Google knows about dick pics.
    - rurp 7y ago
      I don't see anything in that link that addresses dick pics. Is it just the fact that this "feature" only works with contacts?

crazygringo 7y ago

I think, much like FaceTime, it's designed primarily (both UX and architecture) around the two-party call use case, but can support several more as needed (12 total for Duo, 32 for Facetime). Whereas solutions like Meet and Zoom are designed primarily (both UX and architecture) around multi-party, supporting 100's (250 for Meet, 500 for Zoom).

bscphil 7y ago
Note that intuitively, it seems like Meet and Zoom have the better model - why limit the number of participants when you don't have to? And in fact a lot of consumers seem to feel this way about it; many people I know use Zoom for everything, from large meetings to chatting with a small number of family members or confidants. But under the hood, limiting the number of users allows some important technical advantages. Duo claims (in its FAQ) to be end-to-end encrypted. I believe Whatapp claims the same. And it wouldn't surprise me, knowing Apple, if their video chats on Facetime did too. This is possible only with a reasonable limit on the number of participants because of the need to negotiate a bandwidth for each stream that works for all viewers, and each stream needs to be independent, not multiplexed into a single live view. The proper use of large-scale meeting products is in corporate or paid environments where you have some kind of guarantee that your chats aren't being recorded or sold. (At least unless a three letter agency is involved.) Tools that guarantee end-to-end encryption should be used in small group chats. Your point about UX is a strong one too. There are a affordances that work better for smaller chats, others for larger ones, and it's helpful to be able to specialize.
- crazygringo 7y ago
  > why limit the number of participants when you don't have to Because beyond UX, there are a ton of technical tradeoffs involved. In a 2-person call you want to avoid a server if possible, because it adds latency -- so that's a good first reason. Zoom and Meet would never dream of not using a server. The optimal architecture of a "small group call" is totally different from a "large group call".
- tatersolid 7y ago