Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome To Have Real-Time Communications
kai_hiwatari writes "Last month, Google released an open-source project called WebRTC which aims to enables Real-Time Communications capabilities in the web browsers through simple JavaScript APIs. Now, they have taken the first step towards having WebRTC built into Chrome. With WebRTC, developers will be able to build voice and video applications using nothing more than HTML and JavaScript. This is a powerful technology which can challenge services like Skype."
If this is done through javascript then is it possible to start running these services automatically without user oversight? Could lead to some interesting spyware opportunities.
Looking up WebRTC's license right now, says it's open source. Can't wait for the other browsers to pick up on this. I just hope it warns users before allowing access to the camera and mic.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Uses a BSD-like license:
https://sites.google.com/site/webrtc/license-rights/license
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
...use JavaScript for this sort of thing? Why the special need for "WebRTC"?
Imagine Facebook: TNG where everything you're doing right now is broadcast immediately to everyone else.
I wonder if there's anything from a technical point of view that would prevent this from working on mobile devices, such as iPads and Android phones and tablets? If they're looking for wide adoption, I'll bet that getting it running on everyone's mobile or tablet would make it a killer app.
Web sites that scan your living room and generate targeted advertising, with real-time estimate of income range and instant connection to real salespersons in India.
I know Google has this whole web-based vision where everything is accessed through the browser, but I'd rather see this as a stand-alone app. I like my web browser to browse the web, my softphone to make calls, my email client to check my email, and my word processor to process my words. Heck, Windows 8 will be written in HTML/Javascript, and Gnome Shell is written in Javascript, so I don't expect to have to wait too long for a native app. I just can't wait for the cloud bubble to burst so we can go back to having traditional software again.
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
With WebRTC, developers will be able to build voice and video applications using nothing more than HTML and JavaScript. This is a powerful technology which can ...
... implement some truly awesome spy technology. Implemented both by site owners and site hackers.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I just started searching for more information on Google, and my webcam's light turned on. Now Google can put a face to their users. Good job!
Does anyone knows how to kill that annoying "[Spinner] Working..." message that stays all the time in the bottom on /. page?
More anonymous random "check out my pics" crap.
wonderful.
Sadly for Microsoft who just bought Skype they are once again one step behind, and since they will not play ball with new technologies their only attack will be some sort of "patent attack".
The 'BSD-like' license Google chose is not right in my opinion. Companies like Microsoft could easily do an 'Embrace-->Extend-->Extinguish' game on the technology. What is wrong with LGPL ver. 3?
GPLv3 is so big and overreaching that nobody wants to litigate it.
Don't worry, it's been years since MS has been in the driver's seat. They will have a hard time extinguishing it.
RTFC: LGPL != GPL.
Like many I embraced Chrome because it seemed that Firefox had become big, bloated, and cumbersome. Chrome seemed to resist the urge to stuff extra doo-dads into the browser, and I like that. (that's the beauty of plug-ins - you can add junk by choice, not because someone decided to add it for you)
The crazy thing is that I spend probably 60% of my time working in browser space, but I rely on the sites and services I use to deliver what I need, not the browser itself.
You wouldn't build Gmail into the browser, so why build in phone service?
(Aside from which, it's already built into Gmail)
Three Squirrels
Imagine Facebook: TNG where everything you're doing right now is broadcast immediately to everyone else.
As opposed to the masses who are doing this already?
Reminds me of that ST:TNG episode where Wesley saves the day (of course!) by not falling victim to the 'game' everybody is playing. "It's almost easier if you just let it play itself".
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
No Data saved the day. Wesley just avoided the game long enough for find Data disabled and Turned him back on.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
RTC has stood for "Real-Time Clock" for how many years and now suddenly it's being redefined? Where are all those who defended the use of KB/MB/GB and ridiculed those who use KiB/MiB/GiB?
FC Closer
The 'BSD-like' license [google.com] Google chose is not right in my opinion. Companies like Microsoft could easily do an 'Embrace-->Extend-->Extinguish' game on the technology.
True, they *could*, although for the moment Microsoft is really jumping on the HTML5/standards wagon like crazy. Note:
- The IE team is cranking through support for various HTML5 features, CSS, etc...
- Windows 8 is apparently going to strongly support HTML5-based apps
- Microsoft seemed okay with supporting WebM in IE as long as it was installed as a separate codec on the system (no promise yet of baking it in)
Also note that according to Wikipedia, marketshare for browsers in May 2011 is something like this:
Internet Explorer (43.5%)
Firefox (27.9%)
Google Chrome (16.8%)
Safari (7.3%)
Opera (2.2%)
Mobile browsers (5.8%)
At this point, if Chrome and Firefox team up on any web technology, they'll have equal marketshare with IE. If Opera and Safari join in, then they have a more than 10% advantage over IE.
This means that if IE tries to embrace/extend here, they'll have not only an uphill battle, but they might find themselves in a fight they can't win. End users will just download Firefox or Chrome and install that if YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever Hot and New website they're using stops working for them.
What is wrong with LGPL ver. 3?
Google likes permissive licenses. Such licenses allow Google and their Copyleft-shy friend companies not feel "trapped" by the share-alike feeling of copyleft licenses such as the (L)GPL. Attitudes in various companies are gradually changing, and Google does work on a number of (A|L)GPL projects, but for now you're going to see most of the work coming out of Google be available under permissive licenses.
There is a certain logic to putting the reference implementation of any standard under a permissive license. If one does so, any company or individual can take the code and incorporate it into any project, with little thought paid to licensing back the changes or releasing code or schematics. This allows a standard to quickly gain acceptance and get a bit of a "head start" in use in the wild.
However there is a bit of a problem with getting everyone to use the same reference standard. If you look at something like WebM, you'll see that the reference is ...the standard which is... the reference. Did I confuse you yet? What I mean to say is that if there is only one implementation of a given technology, then it is likely that the implementation is inextricably bound together with the documentation for the standard, and it is highly likely (as was the case with WebM) that a compatible implementation cannot be constructed merely from the documentation, but must be partially guessed at or inferred from the reference.
So while I am supportive of the desire to have reference implementations of a standard available under a permissive license, I am also quite in favor of a requirement of several standards bodies which is that they will not ratify or recommend a standard until there are at least two independent, inter-operable implementations of the proposed standard.
coding is life
Without Wesley Data doesn't get turned on....so how is this not Wesley saving the day again?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Well put! Thanks.
When will Opera & Pidgin have this?
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
So you are saying they embrace HTML5/standards?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Without Wesley Data doesn't get turned on
That put a horrible picture in my head and I threw up a little in my mouth.
How does this challenge Skype? Someone still has to write the damn software, you know. It isn't like you couldn't write a "skype killer" before this.
EEE doesn't work on BSD-licensed (or public domain) software as long as as there is an active developer community around the open source version (and especially not if there is at least one big corporate user that sponsors the open source version to get people to work for them for free), it only works if there is little concern in the community for the product for open licensing, or if the product is essentially dead. Sure, you get use in closed products that may or may not contribute back, but so what? Lots of closed products use SQLite code, yet SQLite is still alive as an active public domain project, with lots of big corporate backers, presumably because those corporations realize that SQLite is important for their business, but not what they are in the business of selling, so its more important to them that it is maintained than that they exclusively control it. PostgreSQL, with a BSD-style license, comes to mind, as well.
The bigger danger with EEE is against standards like the communication interface, and the license you choose for the software, no matter how restrictive, is unlikely to effectively restrain EEE on against the communication interface, except by inhibiting adoption in the first place, which is counterproductive. OTOH, as long as there are enough big users of the original interface (something which Google has some power to make happen), its very difficult for an EEE effort to displace the original interface in the open source software with an incompatible interface only provided by their own proprietary software.
GPL-style licenses (including the LGPL, though not as much so as the GPL itself) are really good if you favor Free Software for ideological reasons but don't actually believe that it offers value for developers as well as end users. If you believe that it brings pragmatic benefit to developers, rather than just ideological satisfaction, to release source under open-source license rather than keeping it proprietary, the additional restrictions in GPL-style licenses become counterproductive for developers (including the first developer) and unnecessary (as the pragmatic value providers downstream developers a built-in incentive to release their own work under a similar license.)
TFA provides nothing useful over the site itself, other than a bunch of hover-over-this-text ads.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I'll be satisfied when someone reboots Duke Nukem 3d as a browser playable game.
that would be the episode named, oddly enough: "The Game". And how come no one here remembers Robin Lefler's involvement?
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.