6 ms·

Why? With that much work and grey legal areas, it's much easier to embrace WebRTC and just try to evangelize it or applications that use it. I think Skype will

Why? With that much work and grey legal areas, it's much easier to embrace WebRTC and just try to evangelize it or applications that use it. I think Skype will be a thing of the past soon enough. WebRTC is already quite impressive for a few lines of JavaScript (and optionally C++ if you want to do server side muxing and reduce the number of connections needed in a multiparty "call"). In a couple days I wrote a pretty simple, but functional multiparty video chat web-app. I'm just waiting for Chrome to support multiple PeerConnection objects. I guess I don't understand the obsession with trying to interop with Skype.

ceejayoz 15y ago
> I guess I don't understand the obsession with trying to interop with Skype. Massive existing user base?
- Joeboy 15y ago
  >> I guess I don't understand the obsession with trying to >> interop with Skype. > Massive existing user base? Web browsers have even more massive user base though, and (insha'Allah) will include WebRTC as standard before too long.
  - ootachi 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y ago
        Sure, I wasn't particularly thinking it would be peer to peer. It can easily be through somebody other than Skype though.
        drivebyacct2 15y ago
        The PeerConnection API has methods of doing NAT traversal. STUN, etc. It's already covered.
        skypeopensource 15y ago
        Its not enough. Need something like skype supernode functionality.
        drivebyacct2 15y 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 15y 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.
    - muuh-gnu 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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.
forrestthewoods 15y ago
No way. Skype is hands down the highest quality online voice chat system. I play online games with friends and we always use Skype for voice chat. I don't know what sort of audio processing magic Skype is performing but whatever it is it's incredibly good. My group tried lots of alternatives (Ventrilo, Mumble, TeamSpeak, Steam, etc) and Skype is easily the best. All the others have issues with poor quality, speaker feedback, and/or keyboard sounds. Skype has none of that. Crystal clear voice chat even when the mic is directly beside a clickety clackety keyboard. It'll take a hell of a lot more then a simple web client to dethrone Skype.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  It's not as if Mozilla and Google chose rinkydink codecs for WebRTC...
  - forrestthewoods 15y ago
    I'm sure they didn't, but Skype is just that good. Every single VOIP system my group used had issues. The microphone picking up audio from speakers and keyboard typing being two of the most problematic. Skype was the only one where that wasn't an issue. Their system just automagically filters out the cruft. Meanwhile the voice chat built into gmail was one of the absolute worst and was completely unusable. It's a much more complicated problem than people realize.
  - forgotusername 15y ago
    It's not simply about compression, Skype has a decade-long head start on tweaked echo/feedback suppression, gain control, dejitter, adaptive quality adjustment and so on. The call quality is marvelous, even with Macbook mic and lossy hotel wifi (I spend at least an hour every day using it right now). I'm sure the browser vendors will catch up, but haven't even seen mention of some of these features yet with regard to WebRTC.
    - drivebyacct2 15y ago
      No offense, and this isn't likely to be popular given the downvote above... but look harder. These are things that at they very least ARE being considered already for WebRTC. I promise I'm not trying to be abrasive. I'll update with some links when I get a chance to get to a proper computer.

ceejayoz 15y ago

> I guess I don't understand the obsession with trying to interop with Skype. Massive existing user base?

Joeboy 15y ago
>> I guess I don't understand the obsession with trying to >> interop with Skype. > Massive existing user base? Web browsers have even more massive user base though, and (insha'Allah) will include WebRTC as standard before too long.
- ootachi 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y ago
        Sure, I wasn't particularly thinking it would be peer to peer. It can easily be through somebody other than Skype though.
      - drivebyacct2 15y ago
        The PeerConnection API has methods of doing NAT traversal. STUN, etc. It's already covered.
        skypeopensource 15y ago
        Its not enough. Need something like skype supernode functionality.
        drivebyacct2 15y 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 15y 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.
  - muuh-gnu 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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.

forrestthewoods 15y ago

No way. Skype is hands down the highest quality online voice chat system. I play online games with friends and we always use Skype for voice chat. I don't know what sort of audio processing magic Skype is performing but whatever it is it's incredibly good. My group tried lots of alternatives (Ventrilo, Mumble, TeamSpeak, Steam, etc) and Skype is easily the best. All the others have issues with poor quality, speaker feedback, and/or keyboard sounds. Skype has none of that. Crystal clear voice chat even when the mic is directly beside a clickety clackety keyboard. It'll take a hell of a lot more then a simple web client to dethrone Skype.

drivebyacct2 15y ago
It's not as if Mozilla and Google chose rinkydink codecs for WebRTC...
- forrestthewoods 15y ago
  I'm sure they didn't, but Skype is just that good. Every single VOIP system my group used had issues. The microphone picking up audio from speakers and keyboard typing being two of the most problematic. Skype was the only one where that wasn't an issue. Their system just automagically filters out the cruft. Meanwhile the voice chat built into gmail was one of the absolute worst and was completely unusable. It's a much more complicated problem than people realize.
- forgotusername 15y ago
  It's not simply about compression, Skype has a decade-long head start on tweaked echo/feedback suppression, gain control, dejitter, adaptive quality adjustment and so on. The call quality is marvelous, even with Macbook mic and lossy hotel wifi (I spend at least an hour every day using it right now). I'm sure the browser vendors will catch up, but haven't even seen mention of some of these features yet with regard to WebRTC.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    No offense, and this isn't likely to be popular given the downvote above... but look harder. These are things that at they very least ARE being considered already for WebRTC. I promise I'm not trying to be abrasive. I'll update with some links when I get a chance to get to a proper computer.