4 ms·

You're confusing Firefox Hello with WebRTC. Let me explain by analogy with a video codec: For video, Firefox contains a video codec. Surfing to YouTube lets th

by cjensen 12y ago

You're confusing Firefox Hello with WebRTC. Let me explain by analogy with a video codec: For video, Firefox contains a video codec. Surfing to YouTube lets the YouTube web page play video. Firefox does not contain a "Youtube Player". That's exactly the opposite of what they have done here. They have added basically added a "Telefonica WebRTC Player". That's wrong. They should have added WebRTC generically so that you go to a web page at Telefonica to use it. Or better yet, use it with a server you trust.

quadrature 12y ago
I can't help but think that this has something to do with their decision to drop google as the default search option. This is their monetary avenue going forward.
windlep 12y ago
WebRTC was "generically" added to Firefox in 2013, ie: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/06/webrtc-comes-to-firefox/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/06/webrtc-comes-to-firefox/ Of course, with it being added generically, tons of websites immediately started using it..... nope. Ok, well, lets go back before that blog post... https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/02/hello-chrome-its-firefox-calling/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/02/hello-chrome-its-firefox-c... Ah ha, isn't that neat. WebRTC in Firefox and Chrome and a demo of it! Wait, still pretty much zero use in the wild of WebRTC... This is why Google/Mozilla are adding features utilizing these new specs to the browser, because they're cool and no one else is. In the case of WebRTC, it's for a good reason, its a PITA to run TURN/STUN servers to ensure that people behind firewalls can establish a connection.
- ferongr 12y ago
  Facebook uses WebRTC for calls on the release versions of Firefox. That probably counts for something.
  - windlep 12y ago
    Cool, I didn't know that. It definitely counts for something.
- zanny 12y ago
  I've had good experiences with talky and I know hangouts uses webrtc. I think the biggest problem is the lack of accounts, chat, logging, and persistence in webrtc. Thats what keeps it from being a p2p communication protocol in general whereas now its just a toy for video calls. I mean, when you cannot share links during your video call easily, somethings wrong.
  - windlep 12y ago
    Agreed, I believe Hello will be added text chat along with the video calls using WebRTC data channels in an upcoming release.
  - TD-Linux 12y ago
    Hangouts still uses the Google Talk plugin, as far as I'm aware.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    It may be "something wrong" for you, but for me it's exactly what I need to let my mother video chat with her grandson after Skype became useless (breaks more often with every passing release, it seems; we've given up on it). Sharing links, accounts, chat, logging and persistence are all irrelevant for my use, and they in any case don't belong in webrtc - webrtc is a component for people to use to build services like what you appear to want.
  - rakoo 12y ago
    > I think the biggest problem is the lack of accounts, chat, logging, and persistence in webrtc. WebRTC is not a messaging technology, it is a raw data communication technology. It is just here to move bytes from one client to another. The features you are talking about are managed by said clients, meaning that it has to be handled by Firefox/Chrome itself.
- hox 12y ago
  As for STUN/TURN being painful, Twilio recently released a STUN/TURN service platform: https://www.twilio.com/stun-turn https://www.twilio.com/stun-turn. At least makes things somewhat simpler.
- dagingaa 12y ago
  Working for a major player in the WebRTC space certainly gives me a bias, but "noone cares" is pretty far from the truth. There are millions of WebRTC users already, hell, we might even be approaching the billion now if you count Snapchat and Hangouts as WebRTC services. (Yes, Snapchat uses WebRTC for their video chat features) Check out: - https://appear.in/ https://appear.in/ - https://talky.io/ https://talky.io/ - https://screenhero.com/ https://screenhero.com/ - https://github.com/feross/webtorrent https://github.com/feross/webtorrent - https://peercdn.com/ https://peercdn.com/ - https://sharefest.me/ https://sharefest.me/ - ...and lots, lots more. Sorry to the ones I forgot to mention/don't know about. For some pure WebRTC experiences. http://simplewebrtc.com/ http://simplewebrtc.com/ if you want to build something yourself. The thing is, you don't know that the service you're using uses WebRTC, quite frankly because the technology doesn't matter, the user experience does. Also, the sheer fact that we seem to have standardised a very good (and very secure) way of doing peer to peer transfers, and that's getting implemented in browsers, with client libraries for iOS and Android is HUGE.
leeoniya 12y ago
I have to mostly agree with this sentiment. But there is of course the question of revenue streams. I won't fault Mozilla for having a default WebRTC provider (like they do for search provider), but the provider needs to be configurable by the end user. I'm hopeful that the long-term goal is exactly this.

by cjensen 12y ago

quadrature 12y ago

I can't help but think that this has something to do with their decision to drop google as the default search option. This is their monetary avenue going forward.

windlep 12y ago

WebRTC was "generically" added to Firefox in 2013, ie: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/06/webrtc-comes-to-firefox/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/06/webrtc-comes-to-firefox/ Of course, with it being added generically, tons of websites immediately started using it..... nope. Ok, well, lets go back before that blog post... https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/02/hello-chrome-its-firefox-calling/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/02/hello-chrome-its-firefox-c... Ah ha, isn't that neat. WebRTC in Firefox and Chrome and a demo of it! Wait, still pretty much zero use in the wild of WebRTC... This is why Google/Mozilla are adding features utilizing these new specs to the browser, because they're cool and no one else is. In the case of WebRTC, it's for a good reason, its a PITA to run TURN/STUN servers to ensure that people behind firewalls can establish a connection.

ferongr 12y ago
Facebook uses WebRTC for calls on the release versions of Firefox. That probably counts for something.
- windlep 12y ago
  Cool, I didn't know that. It definitely counts for something.
zanny 12y ago
I've had good experiences with talky and I know hangouts uses webrtc. I think the biggest problem is the lack of accounts, chat, logging, and persistence in webrtc. Thats what keeps it from being a p2p communication protocol in general whereas now its just a toy for video calls. I mean, when you cannot share links during your video call easily, somethings wrong.
- windlep 12y ago
  Agreed, I believe Hello will be added text chat along with the video calls using WebRTC data channels in an upcoming release.
- TD-Linux 12y ago
  Hangouts still uses the Google Talk plugin, as far as I'm aware.
- vidarh 12y ago
  It may be "something wrong" for you, but for me it's exactly what I need to let my mother video chat with her grandson after Skype became useless (breaks more often with every passing release, it seems; we've given up on it). Sharing links, accounts, chat, logging and persistence are all irrelevant for my use, and they in any case don't belong in webrtc - webrtc is a component for people to use to build services like what you appear to want.
- rakoo 12y ago
  > I think the biggest problem is the lack of accounts, chat, logging, and persistence in webrtc. WebRTC is not a messaging technology, it is a raw data communication technology. It is just here to move bytes from one client to another. The features you are talking about are managed by said clients, meaning that it has to be handled by Firefox/Chrome itself.
hox 12y ago
As for STUN/TURN being painful, Twilio recently released a STUN/TURN service platform: https://www.twilio.com/stun-turn https://www.twilio.com/stun-turn. At least makes things somewhat simpler.
dagingaa 12y ago
Working for a major player in the WebRTC space certainly gives me a bias, but "noone cares" is pretty far from the truth. There are millions of WebRTC users already, hell, we might even be approaching the billion now if you count Snapchat and Hangouts as WebRTC services. (Yes, Snapchat uses WebRTC for their video chat features) Check out: - https://appear.in/ https://appear.in/ - https://talky.io/ https://talky.io/ - https://screenhero.com/ https://screenhero.com/ - https://github.com/feross/webtorrent https://github.com/feross/webtorrent - https://peercdn.com/ https://peercdn.com/ - https://sharefest.me/ https://sharefest.me/ - ...and lots, lots more. Sorry to the ones I forgot to mention/don't know about. For some pure WebRTC experiences. http://simplewebrtc.com/ http://simplewebrtc.com/ if you want to build something yourself. The thing is, you don't know that the service you're using uses WebRTC, quite frankly because the technology doesn't matter, the user experience does. Also, the sheer fact that we seem to have standardised a very good (and very secure) way of doing peer to peer transfers, and that's getting implemented in browsers, with client libraries for iOS and Android is HUGE.

leeoniya 12y ago

I have to mostly agree with this sentiment. But there is of course the question of revenue streams. I won't fault Mozilla for having a default WebRTC provider (like they do for search provider), but the provider needs to be configurable by the end user. I'm hopeful that the long-term goal is exactly this.