3 ms·

Not saying Skype is perfect (it isn't), but WebRTC by itself doesn't come close to being a Skype substitute. While stability for particular client-side bits (m

Not saying Skype is perfect (it isn't), but WebRTC by itself doesn't come close to being a Skype substitute. While stability for particular client-side bits (media, transport, etc) will now now fall on the browser vendor, you're still going to depend on another service for all the niceties (media and signaling relay, contacts, presence, history, etc), and they could screw it up just as badly as Skype, or worse. Skype could just use WebRTC as another transport -- there's no technical reason they can't.

kyro 14y ago
What matters most to me is video chatting that doesn't suck. If WebRTC is that and only that, I would be more than willing to use another chat app as a buddy list and for chat history.
mnutt 14y ago
You're correct that you'll depend on another service for all the niceties, but I for one am super excited about decoupling all of those services from the connection itself. Hopefully it'll lead to a lot more competition and innovation in the space.
- nextparadigms 14y ago
  At the very least I hope it forces IM apps like Skype and Facetime to support WebRTC (that is possible for native apps, too, right?) so that in the future we get interoperability between them. Wouldn't it be nice if WebRTC pushed video-calling into becoming like e-mail, and you could take to anyone, regardless of what "video-calling app/service" they are using?
  - jallmann 14y ago
    > Wouldn't it be nice if WebRTC pushed video-calling into becoming like e-mail WebRTC doesn't define a signaling protocol. There are already protocols for that. SIP, XMPP/Jingle, etc. It would be nice if people started using them more. WebRTC only defines an offer/answer API (which is actually a big difference!) So having two different services use WebRTC doesn't mean they'll be interoperable. (Unless the services intentionally make an effort to federate.) Any third-party attempt at interop between incompatible services is going to involve spoofing a connection to each service. While that's not impossible, WebRTC really isn't the interoperability panacea that people seem to think.

kyro 14y ago

What matters most to me is video chatting that doesn't suck. If WebRTC is that and only that, I would be more than willing to use another chat app as a buddy list and for chat history.

mnutt 14y ago

You're correct that you'll depend on another service for all the niceties, but I for one am super excited about decoupling all of those services from the connection itself. Hopefully it'll lead to a lot more competition and innovation in the space.

nextparadigms 14y ago
At the very least I hope it forces IM apps like Skype and Facetime to support WebRTC (that is possible for native apps, too, right?) so that in the future we get interoperability between them. Wouldn't it be nice if WebRTC pushed video-calling into becoming like e-mail, and you could take to anyone, regardless of what "video-calling app/service" they are using?
- jallmann 14y ago
  > Wouldn't it be nice if WebRTC pushed video-calling into becoming like e-mail WebRTC doesn't define a signaling protocol. There are already protocols for that. SIP, XMPP/Jingle, etc. It would be nice if people started using them more. WebRTC only defines an offer/answer API (which is actually a big difference!) So having two different services use WebRTC doesn't mean they'll be interoperable. (Unless the services intentionally make an effort to federate.) Any third-party attempt at interop between incompatible services is going to involve spoofing a connection to each service. While that's not impossible, WebRTC really isn't the interoperability panacea that people seem to think.