Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Combines Social API and WebRTC
theweatherelectric writes "Mozilla has put together a demo which combines WebRTC with Firefox's Social API. Over on Mozilla's Future Releases blog, Maire Reavy writes, 'WebRTC is a powerful new tool that enables web app developers to include real-time video calling and data sharing capabilities in their products. While many of us are excited about WebRTC because it will enable several cool gaming applications and improve the performance and availability of video conferencing apps, WebRTC is proving to be a great tool for social apps. Sometimes when you're chatting with a friend, you just want to click on their name and see and talk with them in real-time. Imagine being able to do that without any glitches or hassles, and then while talking with them, easily share almost anything on your computer or device: vacation photos, memorable videos — or even just a link to a news story you thought they might be interested in – simply by dragging the item into your video chat window.'"
this sounds like it should be an addon, not something native.
If you were likewise confused by this blurb about clicking on friends' names in the browser, what WebRTC actually is at a technological level, at least, is basically a collection of real-time P2P streaming-media stuff that is currently usually implemented via browser plugins or 3rd-party software. W3C is trying to standardize and expose it via more normal javascript APIs.
The basic functionality will include things like: users opening video or audio streams with each other (which includes NAT-punching, negotiating codecs, etc.) to support Skype-style video chat in the browser; streaming logic to deal with sending/buffering/etc. for P2P streams; support for data connections directly between users, to allow browser-based multiplayer gaming to bypass a central server; and some kind of management of local multimedia resources that I don't fully understand.
The draft standard is here.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It'll now be easier to camwhore all day without relying on unstable flash or java \o/
Look at it this way: this news isn't for the anti social neck beard that doesn't want to mingle, but for the anti social neck beard that may want to implement said functions at his work and get paid
... the documentation on these features exist, and the Social API works for more things than just Facebook. There's literally a whitelist in the browser (about:config, key social.activation.whitelist) which only allows Facebook to use the Social API features. (And if you edit the whitelist yourself and try to use the feature on a different site, it just re-opens the Facebook sidebar because Facebook's siderbar seems to be hardcoded in other places too.)
You're going to get modded down (probably rightly so) for your flame presentation, but your content is true: the thing that most slashdotters don't appreciate is that 99.99% of the world does not use computers to "hack out perl scripts and learn that exciting new regular expression syntax". They use computing to socialize. It's an extension of their social circle, which explains why things like Facebook are so wildly popular. But it's certainly true that a certain segment of the population doesn't get this, and is offended that "their" technology is being used by the unwashed masses for things as mundane as socialization.
Humans are social creatures and social computing is only going to become more and more important to daily life as time goes on. I think it's much like... gearheads being annoyed that anyone can buy a car now and run it for 200,000 miles without having to know how to replace head gaskets and so on. It took "their" hobby and made it far less relevant, so that reliable cars are accessible to anyone. Since it's less exclusive now, they have suffered a loss of their club. The same thing has happened to the oldschool command-line computer hackers. They're seeing the world at large adopt technology, and use it in their normal day to day lives, and they don't like it one bit.
I don't think techies object to using technology for socialization. That's something techies themselves have been doing for decades! Even years ago before so many "normal" people were on the internet, social technologies like IRC, Usenet, and mailing lists were extremely popular.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If by "socializing" you mean surfing hideous Japanese rape porn involving underage girls in Hello Kitty panties with shaved pussies covered in copious quantities of steaming hot jizz, than you are correct!
I'm not so sure... look how proud people on here are that they DON'T have a Facebook. It's much like this guy, but for social.
The web browser is the GUI of the cloud. The operating system is irrelevant as Firefox on OS X, Linux or Windows will provide exactly the same user experience reducing the OS to an api.
I wonder if these standards will result in an explosion of new web browsers or of specialized applications, each claiming to be better/faster than the other.
The problem here (and indeed the reason that most of /. passionately hates Facebook) is that the Neck Beards that frequent this Web site simply DON'T "socialize" and really have zero concept about this thing called "socializing" and what happens when you "socialize".
My problem with it is that they have implemented their interpretation of an unfinished standard. This will lead to early adopters supporting what will eventually be a "close, but no cigar" implementation and more fragmentation in the wonderful world of browsers.
That's how web standards work. Multiple browsers try out alpha implementations to figure how the feature should actually work and get feedback on it. The browser developers discuss what precisely the final standard should look like and then declare it a standard once they agree. I'm not sure about these standards, but at least in CSS there's prefixing (putting "-webkit-", etc. in front of properties) to prevent any confusion about draft vs. final standards.
Thinking of web standards as something developed in a void and then implemented in real browsers only when finalized gives a very warped view of the actual process.
Imagine being able to do that without any glitches or hassles, and then while talking with them, easily share almost anything on your computer or device: vacation photos, memorable videos â" or even just a link to a news story you thought they might be interested in â" simply by dragging the item into your video chat window.'"
In other words, what iChat has allowed me to do for half a decade? I've used it to run contract negotiations with the contract document shared via iChat to all parties, for example.
So what exactly is new here?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
An unfinished standard only one single company uses and only this single company will use for the foreseeable future.
Even calling it "Social API" is a scam. It is a "Facebook API" and it will stay a Facebook API, and by integrating it into the core browser instead of an addon, Mozilla is helping coerce Facebook on everybody.
Fuck Mozilla, this is outright treason. It is time they take a serious nose dive.
I'm not on Facebook and no menu items or sidebars show up for me. Perhaps you should have logged out of Facebook to realise this.
Geez. Firefox has become its own OS. I wonder when they will release a good browser for it... ;)
I have Kopete, thank you very much. And actual applications. Not Xzibit's latest memetic abominations.
Why not factor out all these enhancements (Social API, WebRTC, some 3D layered view on a web site, ...) as officially maintained plugins and offer two versions of firefox for download. One full install and a minimal install where it's possible to download the plugins.
"it will enable several cool gaming applications" Any product that includes 'Cool' in the description is automatically off my list of things I need. You don't see a "cool,new seatbelt design' or a 'cool, new high fiber cereal'..... do ya?
Is that the IETF WebRTC draft mandates the Opus audio codec for all clients..
http://www.opus-codec.org/
From:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-01
3. Codec Requirements
To ensure a baseline level of interoperability between WebRTC
clients, a minimum set of required codecs are specified below. While
this section specifies the codecs that will be mandated for all
WebRTC client implementations, it leaves the question of supporting
additional codecs to the will of the implementer.
WebRTC clients are REQUIRED to implement the following audio codecs.
o Opus [RFC6716], with any ptime value up to 120 ms
True P2P. The internet can realize its potential for peer exchanges. Servers and censorship begin to lose their grip.
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.