Slashdot Mirror
Google WebRTC: Can It Replace Skype?
mikejuk writes "Google WebRTC, all open source, is part of the web revolution that allows one browser to talk directly to another without the need for a server getting involved. WebRTC is an API that used the new P2P web API to allow developers to implement audio and video communications using direct P2P links between browsers. This really is a game changer."
And, while this feature doesn't seem to have gotten a lot of attention so far, Google Voice can call landline and cell phones for a small fee, just like Skype.
Tell me that such a thing as direct p2p connection between two anonymous computers in the wild, and even web-browser, is simply said IMPOSSIBLE without a third party, which is managing the tunnel between them. I simply don't see how this could work. No, no and no.
MS has not announced how exactly they will change Skype, but you can bet it will involve monetization in all forms. Don't expect any of the currently free Skype services to continue. Asterisk already lost Skype support.
This is a great opportunity for Google to roll out a multi-platform competitor.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Unless something has changed, Google Voice isn't VoIP, and doesn't charge to call landlines or cell phones because it uses your own phone minutes to call them.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Read the summary again, it's a WEB REVOLUTION! Red like the blood that shall be spilled for the virtual betterment of all!
Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
Adobe's RTMFP has had this ability for years now, and they've since developed it further to include peer-to-peer rebroadcasting.
Except... it requires Flash, which is a dirty word around these parts.
This signature can save you $400 on your car insurance!
I heard you like an OS in your OS, so I put an app in your app so you can experience the reinvention of every app while you surf the web.
I'm not sure I like this trend of taking every piece of software functionality, making it work inside a browser, and then treating it like it's something new. I feel like I'm back in the 90s, where every new song on the radio was some old song sung by a new person.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
Huh? To name a few Google apps that are successful: Google Earth, Chrome, Gmail, & Picasa.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
how about this; whenever you read browser, mentally substitute 'http html5 and javascript interpreter'
that should clear up your issue.
Thanks for visiting Google Voice. We're not yet open for users outside the US, but are planning to expand our service to additional countries in the future.
Sorry. Not even close to Skype.
from the WebRTC FAQ:
Includes and abstracts key NAT and firewall traversal technology using STUN, ICE, TURN, RTP-over-TCP and support for proxies.
Does anyone know how well this works in practice? It seems that some external server will be needed for coordination, making this very much less P2P than it would otherwise be.
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
And since the big reason for using skype is to stay in touch internationally, that's a much bigger barrier than you might think.
I am trolling
Nah, what failures all of those were. Just like the failure of AppEngine, Google Translate, Android...the list of failures goes on and on... /sarcasm
The WebRTC code that was released is missing many important bits that are required to compete against Skype. The most important is probably a bandwidth management engine, the code that's currently public just sends at a pre-configured bitrate. That means it can only do low resolution video with a shitty quality.
That said, Google Talk in GMail and Android have a dynamic bitrate stuff, and I expect they will be released at some point. I should also mention that Farsight2/Farstream using in Empathy and Pidgin are currently gaining the same kind of bandwidth management that Google is doing. So we should get at least two independent open implementations soon.
How much revenue do they bring in?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Steve Jobs said it at the WWDC keynoe when it was announced in June of last year: "We're going to the standards bodies starting tomorrow and we're going to make FaceTime an open industry standard."
All that means is that FaceTime's protocols will be open - so anyone could build their own implementation of a FaceTime client or a FaceTime server (presumably it needs one).
It does not necessarily mean that Apple's FaceTime system will accept connections from non-Apple FaceTime clients, or that Apple's FaceTime clients (the FaceTime app on OS X, or FaceTime on iOS devices) will connect to non-Apple FaceTime servers.
Which is too bad, really. I hope they do fully open it up to outside use, but I doubt it.
Putting moderation advice in your
Yup, your heard me, Global IP Solutions that was aquired last year by google was maker of the Engine that Skype was using.
Looks like they parted ways back in 2007 with Skype 3.2.
Looks like Skype really shot them selves in the foot on this one, Google just opensourced it with a BSD style license and soon Skype will be history.
Which may explain why they sold off to Microsoft reciently.
You can read more on my blog post.
http://videotechnology.blogspot.com/2011/06/webrtc-bringing-real-time.html
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso