6 ms·

Anyone know how Google Talk's video chat works compared to Apple's FaceTime? Is there a reason everyone can't agree on a standard?

by macrael 16y ago

patrickaljord 16y ago
AFAIK Apple still hasn't released the open specs for FaceTime while google talk has been open from the start.
- glhaynes 16y ago
  I wonder why they haven't. They said they were going to, and I believe most of it has open specs, but not all. It's been 10 months...
ComputerGuru 16y ago
Google Talk is standard. It's all XMPP, which is a kick-ass push-based messaging protocol.
- gatlin 16y ago
  My information might be a bit stale so this is as much a question as a statement, but I believe that Google Talk does not quite follow the Jingle XEP. They claim to be working very hard on bringing Gmail Chat in line with the spec, which I presume diverged from their working implementation.
  - pthatcherg 16y ago
    That is correct. We are working hard on it. By the way, libjingle, the Open Source library for writing jingle applications, already mostly speaks XEP-166 and XEP-167. We're still working on XEP-176, though. http://code.google.com/p/libjingle http://code.google.com/p/libjingle
    - gatlin 15y ago
      I have a nifty idea for a small project which would make use of libjingle, and I'm about ready to go buy a camera for my desktop to work on it. Is libjingle to the point where I could interact with my Google Talk contacts in their browsers? My other option is libpurple and their implementation and I am not very excited about that prospect :)
- jallmann 16y ago
  Last I checked, the protocol encoding for GTalk on Android had been modified to make it more lightweight for mobile -- it could be an entirely different protocol, not sure. XML FTL.
  - pthatcherg 16y ago
    Google Talk on Android uses the same XMPP-based signaling as all the other Google Talk products (gmail, the win32 app, etc).
    - jallmann 15y ago
      Sounded like they were moving towards a different encoding though. Is this still valid? http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=201#c1 http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=201#c1
- ZoFreX 16y ago
  Actually Google Talk diverges quite heavily from the specification, and the other problem with XMPP is that it has several parts, and no clients implement all of it. In addition the mobile version of GTalk uses a proprietary protocol rather than XMPP to talk to Google's servers to reduce bandwidth.
  - seabee 16y ago
    > the mobile version of GTalk uses a proprietary protocol That's a really irrelevant point to standards. With that logic you could argue that Opera Mini isn't a web browser because Opera servers download the HTML and convert it to a proprietary format for display on the device. Or that Bitlbee doesn't adhere to XMPP because users communicate to a Bitlbee server through an IRC client.
  - pthatcherg 16y ago
    Actually, the standard deviated from the original implementation, as Google Talk pre-dated the standard. Either way, we're working on it. Also, the mobile version uses the same protocol as all of the other products (such as gmail). You can take our Open Source library (http://code.google.com/p/libjingle http://code.google.com/p/libjingle) and use it to make an app that calls the mobile version, just like you can for the other products.
    - ZoFreX 15y ago
      Who do I need to speak to to get Google Talk to not suck? I get signed out several times per hour on my phone, several times per-day through the web interface, and I have a list of bugs as long as my arm I could give you (although perhaps some of these bugs are XMPP rather than Google bugs, I don't know which are which). The funny thing is that if you actually made Google Talk good, it could easily be the #1 chat application. XMPP Transports are far and away the best solution for managing presence on multiple protocols, if Google provided reliable transports for AIM, Live, FB etc then, combined with the (absolutely awesome) centralised chat history feature you could definitely win users over (I have set up transports on my Google account anyway using Gajim and hot-chilli.net, and it's brilliant). However, GTalk doesn't support XEP-0030 or XEP-0144 which make the process a lot nicer. Lastly, the desktop and web clients are both a complete joke. The web client can become disconnected without "realising" so your messages go into a black hole, and the desktop client steals focus which is an instant uninstall for me and for many other users. Perhaps I'm being naive, but the problem of sending a message to a person and making sure they definitely get that message does not seem to be difficult. It works with very high reliability through GMail, for example, or when posting a comment on Hacker News... but for some reason as soon as we are in the domain of "IM" then reliability becomes a serious issue (except with Skype, which is the only IM client that gets this right (and that is the ONLY thing that Skype gets right)). TLDR: Please make Google Talk good, because it really has huge potential and already has some massive advantages against the competition. Right now though, it has so many huge problems that frankly I think adding video message support is like polishing the brass on the Titanic.
car 16y ago
Anyone know how Google Talk's video chat works compared to Apple's FaceTime? Google: Jingle (created at Google), an extension of Jabber/XMPP for signaling, RTP for media, H.264 video, GIPS (acquired by Google) audio Apple: SIP/STUN/TURN/BuzzwordBingo for signaling/NAT traversal, RTP for media, H.264 video, AAC audio Is there a reason everyone can't agree on a standard? a) Google: not-invented-here-syndrome b) Apple: massive lock-in c) Skype: see Apple
- nl 16y ago
  >Is there a reason everyone can't agree on a standard? a) Google: not-invented-here-syndrome To be fair, I'm not aware of any standard that existed when Google first released Google Talk video/voice. It is pretty strongly standards-based, though, and uses appropriate extension points in standard protocols (Jingle on XMPP).
  - car 16y ago
    Bit of a history here, but SIP had been around for a couple of years when Google Talk was released. I spoke to Chris Sacca, who was part of the Google Talk team (if I'm not mistaken) at Startup School a couple of years ago, and he told me that the 'SIP gateways' would be coming online shortly. This must have been in 06/07'. If memory serves well, the reasons why Google didn't go with SIP at the time had to do with federation and trust between different SIP domains. So it was mostly security and anti-SPAM related. They were meaning to do the right thing - i.e. being open - but found that SIP could not serve their needs.
- est 16y ago
  > RTP for media, H.264 video, GIPS (acquired by Google) audio Google use Speex in Jingle now.
- DarkShikari 16y ago
  Part of the problem is that no good standard exists. RTP is a complete unusable disaster: it's incredibly overcomplicated and almost no system supports more than an arbitrary and incompatible subset of the spec, so almost all RTP systems end up being incompatible with everything else.

Anyone know how Google Talk's video chat works compared to Apple's FaceTime? Is there a reason everyone can't agree on a standard?

by macrael 16y ago

Anyone know how Google Talk's video chat works compared to Apple's FaceTime? Is there a reason everyone can't agree on a standard?

patrickaljord 16y ago

AFAIK Apple still hasn't released the open specs for FaceTime while google talk has been open from the start.

glhaynes 16y ago
I wonder why they haven't. They said they were going to, and I believe most of it has open specs, but not all. It's been 10 months...

ComputerGuru 16y ago

Google Talk is standard. It's all XMPP, which is a kick-ass push-based messaging protocol.

gatlin 16y ago
My information might be a bit stale so this is as much a question as a statement, but I believe that Google Talk does not quite follow the Jingle XEP. They claim to be working very hard on bringing Gmail Chat in line with the spec, which I presume diverged from their working implementation.
- pthatcherg 16y ago
  That is correct. We are working hard on it. By the way, libjingle, the Open Source library for writing jingle applications, already mostly speaks XEP-166 and XEP-167. We're still working on XEP-176, though. http://code.google.com/p/libjingle http://code.google.com/p/libjingle
  - gatlin 15y ago
    I have a nifty idea for a small project which would make use of libjingle, and I'm about ready to go buy a camera for my desktop to work on it. Is libjingle to the point where I could interact with my Google Talk contacts in their browsers? My other option is libpurple and their implementation and I am not very excited about that prospect :)
jallmann 16y ago
Last I checked, the protocol encoding for GTalk on Android had been modified to make it more lightweight for mobile -- it could be an entirely different protocol, not sure. XML FTL.
- pthatcherg 16y ago
  Google Talk on Android uses the same XMPP-based signaling as all the other Google Talk products (gmail, the win32 app, etc).
  - jallmann 15y ago
    Sounded like they were moving towards a different encoding though. Is this still valid? http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=201#c1 http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=201#c1
ZoFreX 16y ago
Actually Google Talk diverges quite heavily from the specification, and the other problem with XMPP is that it has several parts, and no clients implement all of it. In addition the mobile version of GTalk uses a proprietary protocol rather than XMPP to talk to Google's servers to reduce bandwidth.
- seabee 16y ago
  > the mobile version of GTalk uses a proprietary protocol That's a really irrelevant point to standards. With that logic you could argue that Opera Mini isn't a web browser because Opera servers download the HTML and convert it to a proprietary format for display on the device. Or that Bitlbee doesn't adhere to XMPP because users communicate to a Bitlbee server through an IRC client.
- pthatcherg 16y ago
  Actually, the standard deviated from the original implementation, as Google Talk pre-dated the standard. Either way, we're working on it. Also, the mobile version uses the same protocol as all of the other products (such as gmail). You can take our Open Source library (http://code.google.com/p/libjingle http://code.google.com/p/libjingle) and use it to make an app that calls the mobile version, just like you can for the other products.
  - ZoFreX 15y ago
    Who do I need to speak to to get Google Talk to not suck? I get signed out several times per hour on my phone, several times per-day through the web interface, and I have a list of bugs as long as my arm I could give you (although perhaps some of these bugs are XMPP rather than Google bugs, I don't know which are which). The funny thing is that if you actually made Google Talk good, it could easily be the #1 chat application. XMPP Transports are far and away the best solution for managing presence on multiple protocols, if Google provided reliable transports for AIM, Live, FB etc then, combined with the (absolutely awesome) centralised chat history feature you could definitely win users over (I have set up transports on my Google account anyway using Gajim and hot-chilli.net, and it's brilliant). However, GTalk doesn't support XEP-0030 or XEP-0144 which make the process a lot nicer. Lastly, the desktop and web clients are both a complete joke. The web client can become disconnected without "realising" so your messages go into a black hole, and the desktop client steals focus which is an instant uninstall for me and for many other users. Perhaps I'm being naive, but the problem of sending a message to a person and making sure they definitely get that message does not seem to be difficult. It works with very high reliability through GMail, for example, or when posting a comment on Hacker News... but for some reason as soon as we are in the domain of "IM" then reliability becomes a serious issue (except with Skype, which is the only IM client that gets this right (and that is the ONLY thing that Skype gets right)). TLDR: Please make Google Talk good, because it really has huge potential and already has some massive advantages against the competition. Right now though, it has so many huge problems that frankly I think adding video message support is like polishing the brass on the Titanic.

car 16y ago

Anyone know how Google Talk's video chat works compared to Apple's FaceTime? Google: Jingle (created at Google), an extension of Jabber/XMPP for signaling, RTP for media, H.264 video, GIPS (acquired by Google) audio Apple: SIP/STUN/TURN/BuzzwordBingo for signaling/NAT traversal, RTP for media, H.264 video, AAC audio Is there a reason everyone can't agree on a standard? a) Google: not-invented-here-syndrome b) Apple: massive lock-in c) Skype: see Apple

nl 16y ago
>Is there a reason everyone can't agree on a standard? a) Google: not-invented-here-syndrome To be fair, I'm not aware of any standard that existed when Google first released Google Talk video/voice. It is pretty strongly standards-based, though, and uses appropriate extension points in standard protocols (Jingle on XMPP).
- car 16y ago
  Bit of a history here, but SIP had been around for a couple of years when Google Talk was released. I spoke to Chris Sacca, who was part of the Google Talk team (if I'm not mistaken) at Startup School a couple of years ago, and he told me that the 'SIP gateways' would be coming online shortly. This must have been in 06/07'. If memory serves well, the reasons why Google didn't go with SIP at the time had to do with federation and trust between different SIP domains. So it was mostly security and anti-SPAM related. They were meaning to do the right thing - i.e. being open - but found that SIP could not serve their needs.
est 16y ago
> RTP for media, H.264 video, GIPS (acquired by Google) audio Google use Speex in Jingle now.
DarkShikari 16y ago
Part of the problem is that no good standard exists. RTP is a complete unusable disaster: it's incredibly overcomplicated and almost no system supports more than an arbitrary and incompatible subset of the spec, so almost all RTP systems end up being incompatible with everything else.