Slashdot Mirror
Facebook To Launch In-Browser Video Chat With Skype
tekgoblin writes "Facebook will be launching a new in-browser video chat application. 'The product has been built on Skype and will include a desktop component. It’s not clear to me whether that means it will just work if a user has Skype already installed on the computer, or if additional software will need to be downloaded even if the user already uses Skype. But it’s clear that there’s very deep integration between the products, and from the user’s perspective, the product will be an in-browser experience.'"
Now everyone I Skype is going to automatically know who my friends are, where I went to school, and how many Farmville credits I have.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Only if 9/10 of you friends are named Richard.
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
People seem to use Skype with family and close friends.
People seem to use Facebook with acquaintances.
Their uses are mostly incompatible.
Something tells me that this is going to be a nice feature to have, but that it isn't going to beef up Skype's or Facebook's userbase (as TFA suggests).
Do they archive all video content for datamining purposes?
Google isn't really a competitor to Facebook. However, Facebook is a competitor to Google, as now people spend lots of time on Facebook and find all kinds of interesting links and stuff there, and maybe even use Facebook's search instead of Google. (yes, I know we techies don't do that, but we're a minority)
What comes to Google+, it's quite far from competitor to Facebook. It just misses so much stuff. There isn't any of those games, apps, fan pages, events.. Maybe some of them will be added to Google+, but on their basic idea of circles I don't think they will do games, apps and (fan) pages. Events and calendar, sure. But don't underestimate those apps on pages on Facebook. Normal people love them. So Facebook and Google+ will probably run side to side, serving slightly different purposes for different people. Just like Facebook and LinkedIn are doing now.
Diaspora and GNU Free Call. In other words, talk to me in about five years when it's ready.
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
So Skype allows group of text-only for their free accounts. Group video chat requires that everyone be a Skype subscriber to get access. Will this limitation continue?
Google+ allows group video chat (Hangouts) up to 10 people for free, though there is no mobile support yet.
Also, I'm uncertain of what Google's back-end architecture is (looks like it's P2P also, using XMPP Jingle, but I don't know the details of this tech). Skype uses supernodes to connect people together, which is really a P2P technology. Since any person running a skype client that is not behind NAT can act as a supernode, connection quality on skype calls can easily vary.
Its not what it is, its something else.
Exactly. You need a simple or cute name to catch on.
Diaspora is an awful name, I know it has a meaning (although I had to Google it so as to make sure it wasn't a disease) but it's hardly catchy.
Tuxchat would have been better.
Google is going to do everything they can for this one.
Then they would had released the thing finished, not in an early beta. Especially so if they still are thinking of adding major features to get users to move from Facebook. And they wouldn't have capacity problems to handle those even those few early users. Come on, they run Google and YouTube and several other huge sites after all.
But you know, we have seen this route before. Orkut was supposed to be this too - it didn't work out. Even started with the same kind of limited invites. Google Talk was supposed to be replace existing IM networks.. That didn't really work out. The software was extremely limited. I don't know how it is now, but why should I or anyone else care. I've seen it and noticed the existing ones are better. It's hard to change that image later on. Google Wave was supposed to be it too... failed.
Seriously, if you're going to compete against one of the biggest sites of the internet, you just don't bring your version out unfinished and missing major features. This is marketing basics. The image a person gets first will stick forever.
You mean like they will realize they can use Usenet for grouped discussions, IRC for real-time discussions, email for sending pictures of their holiday or latest party and install Exchange server for scheduling and calendar services? Both Facebook and Google+ are doomed!
Well, now Facebook is face-to-face. So Facebook has evolved into Facebook. It's also getting awfully bloated with needless this and that. There must be a point where a centralized social networking service collapses under the weight of features that must eventually be spread out across the web. Mid 90's everybody on AOL jumped ship when the realized the same stuff was on the web, only spread out across a better and wide open landscape. It seems like Facebook is running headlong into it's own demise. It is inevitable the we will eventually be able to manager social networking features across the vast, open playing field that is the web. Google+ is showing a small taste of this.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
I get your point, hyperbolic as it is, but it's not like people don't realize that there are other websites outside of Facebook.
The things you mention? That's what social networks are for. Connecting with people, all in one place. How do games fit in to that picture? Surely you're not arguing that people enjoy automated and impersonal Farmville spam from friends.
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Beta means nothing with Google. Everyone should know that by now. When they announce something going beta, it's pretty much same as going live and they will either improve it over time or forget it (and in some cases completely discontinue offering the service).
I seriously wonder the slashdot group think mentality about this. Usually in these Facebook stories people talk about how they lose their privacy and privacy settings on Facebook are hard to use and most are on by default. You guess what, when I signed up for Google+ today it was ever worse. You talk about Facebook leaking your data to advertisers on Google? Well, Google+ uses that data all over their advertising network and for other tracking. They state this in the very registration page. When you sign up, your profile is by default made public to the whole world, including search engines. There is no way to change that before it has already happened. And this being Google's product, it means the data is indexed in almost real time. Google+ privacy controls are MUCH worse than Facebook's. Only thing I miss in Facebook is the idea of different "circles". They kind of have that with friend groups, but it's not as defined. Otherwise Facebook lets you change any privacy setting as much as you like. I've done so.
You can already create "friend" groups on facebook. I don't see how they're any different tbh.
G+ invites have been out for what, like a week? And already FB is playing the me too! feature creep game with Google. Could this actually finally be the beginning of the end of the reign of Zuck?
I think the main issue with Facebook, or at least mine personally, is that when I started using Facebook a few years ago, I made myself completely private. I was invisible in searches, friend lists, everything. Unless I added you as a friend, you had no idea that I had a Facebook profile. The only reason I really had a Facebook profile was to keep in touch with close friends who've moved cross country or overseas, so this worked well for me.
Then what happened? Random privacy "update" from Facebook! Now all of my privacy settings are reset to default, and because I don't use the service as often as most, it goes unnoticed for a few days. Then the friend invites start rolling in. Then harassing messages from people I didn't want contact from (another reason I was private). So I set it all back to normal and went about my life.
Oh, but then another privacy "update" from Facebook! This time, not only do all of my settings go back to default, but they've also removed the ability to be invisible in searches and friends lists! Excellent!
Fuck Facebook. Seriously. I get why people like it, I get why people use it, but for people who really do value their privacy (me) and want to use the service, we'll forever be screwed by their ever changing garbage "updates" and changes without prior notice.
This is the main reason I'm excited about Google+. If they can solve those issues then I'll sign up in a heartbeat, convince the people I use Facebook to communicate with to make the switch as well (or at least get a Google+ profile).
I should have been a girl, with the way I can dance... my moves are amazing!
Microsoft dropped three times the value of Facebook for Skype... that shows:
1.) they have the money to waste
2.) they enjoy wasting money
As long as FB has those shitty clickfest "games' then Google is SOL. I have actually had folks come into the shop and buy a PC around those stupid games, folks are addicted to Mafia Wars and Farmville/Frontierville like someone on warcrack. I even had to keep a late model P4 at my apt just so when my GF comes over she can have her morning Farmville fix without waking me up.
So give it up Google if you don't get Zynga on board. Maybe Google ought to just buy them out? because while we geeks hate the things those Zynga games are hot shit to the average folks.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Then they would had released the thing finished, not in an early beta. Especially so if they still are thinking of adding major features to get users to move from Facebook.
I've used google+ and it doesn't feel like a beta at all. Everything just worked as expected, the UI is great. And its the only out of the box working group video chat for Linux I know of. Plus some extra gimmicks like watching YouTube "together." It is correct that there isn't much you can do on google+ but does it need more "major features"? I've got no idea what they plan to do but what features could it need? Maybe some gardening game? Think of twitter, featurewise its near to nothing and still people spend hours on this site.
Google Talk was supposed to be replace existing IM networks.. That didn't really work out. The software was extremely limited. I don't know how it is now, but why should I or anyone else care.
To me - and luckily some of my friends - Google Talk is the best IM for *mobiles* out there. And so at least I do care.