5 ms·
It would seem to greatly lower the cost of building a Skype-killer, though, and that's a pretty big deal.
by icambron 14y ago
It would seem to greatly lower the cost of building a Skype-killer, though, and that's a pretty big deal.
- josh2600 14y agoSort of. Now you don't need to build client software, but that was never the real prowess or power of Skype, it was always the infrastructure. Think of it this way. Skype has 2 things that WebRTC doesn't: Signaling and a Directory. Without those two components, you just have a phone without a phone number :/. Lower barrier, yes. Easy? No, there are still significant costs.
- pbhjpbhj 14y agoSeems like Facebook is pretty close to solving signalling and a directory - in effect it already has them for their messaging service. If you enable chat on Facebook then people can already find you for chat and know if you're [reporting that you're] available. FB is already in bed with Skype though I think so not sure how that would pan out in practice.
- josh2600 14y agoThere's a difference between phone numbers and the Facebook directory. One is a user-owned identity which can migrate between carriers, the other a walled garden. With a phone number, I have an identity which can be linked to many services including Facebook. With a Facebook login, I am beholden to Facebook as my directory. I'm not saying that this is relevant, because for the majority of users it isn't. I'm saying this for the hackers who just watched Facebook deny Voxer. If Facebook can capriciously decide who I can and can't talk to, that's not really what I would call an identity. What Facebook gives you is a slice of an identity, the slice it thinks you ought to have. For many that is enough; for others it is an insult.