Microsoft Is Bringing WebRTC To Explorer, Eyes Plugin-Free Skype Calls

An anonymous reader writes Microsoft today announced it is backing the Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) technology and will be supporting the ORTC API in Internet Explorer. Put another way, the company is finally throwing its weight behind the broader industry trend of bringing voice and video calling to the browser without the need for plugins. Both Google and Mozilla are way ahead of Microsoft in this area, both in terms of adding WebRTC features to their respective browsers and in terms of building plugin-free calling services that rely on the technology. In short, Skype is under threat, and Microsoft has finally decided to opt for an "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" strategy.

Comments

If you can't beat 'em, troll them

[NotInHere]

ORTC can be seen as a microsoft troll of google, which has invested a lot of money into webrtc: http://bloggeek.me/ortc-webrtc...
With WebRTC, google has a head start. With ORTC, the bias isn't as great.

Re: If you can't beat 'em, troll them

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? Bennett Haselton the frequent contributor? Haven't seen him lately. Is burning man still going on?

Re:If you can't beat 'em, troll them

[Anonymous Coward]

Google didn't even HAVE a webbrowser at first. MS did (IE). Who "trolled" whom here? Google "trolled" MS is who.

Re:If you can't beat 'em, troll them

[binarylarry]

To be fair, when Google started on Chrome Microsoft didn't really have a browser either.

Re: If you can't beat 'em, troll them

[Anonymous Coward]

He's trying out his new algorithm for leaving burning man. He took a number and is waiting for them to call 125,358 so he can go home without causing a traffic jam.

Re:If you can't beat 'em, troll them

[ozmanjusri]

ORTC can be seen as a microsoft troll of google,

Not really.

Google is one of the ORTC group members and strongly supports it. If fact, ORTC doesn't erase the work done on WebRTC, it extends it, meaning developers won’t have to rewrite their RTC applications. The expectation is they will gradually transition towards using the ORTC API.

It's possible, though unlikely, that Microsoft's embracing of ORTC now presages their traditional extend/extinguish effort. It's far harder for them to get away with that these days.

Re:If you can't beat 'em, troll them

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, WebRTC has been openly implemented by Google *and* Mozilla, and for a while now. So any "bias" is on the part of Microsoft, who can cry crocodile tears all they like for having squandered the chance to get on board because they preferred a competing standard. Also perhaps Apple, who appear to dislike to squandered their chance to get ahead with WebRTC because they dislike the open codecs involved. It's the same thing that happened with Microsoft's Touch Input spec, which while nice, came about 5 years too late to supplant the specs already in place. Too late to cry about it now.

About bloody time...

[__aaclcg7560]

The corporate world can finally move away IE6 for their intranet websites.

Re:About bloody time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because video calling is the reason they are on IE6. There's already a ton of reasons to ditch old versions of IE, the problem is old shitty browser based business apps that no one wants to spend the time or money to update or replace.

Re:About bloody time...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no more intranet sites that require IE6.

Re:About bloody time...

[Code Herder]

Those are not the droids you're looking for :).

Re:About bloody time...

[__aaclcg7560]

The biggest problem I had with IE6 as a help desk technician was Adobe Flash automatically updating and breaking the business app because the dev team was always two weeks behind on the updates. Downgrading Flash to the previous version was a five-minute fix. Some users insisted on using 15 minutes of my time to explain the problem before letting me remote into their computer system. Oy!

Re:About bloody time...

[__aaclcg7560]

If a Fortune 500 company still has Windows XP systems, the probably have intranet business apps that require IE6.

Re:About bloody time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there are still plenty of XP installations here and there, but at least I do not anymore know a single company that still uses intranet business apps which depend on IE6.

Re:About bloody time...

[__aaclcg7560]

I know quite a few in Silicon Valley. For PC refresh projects to go from Windows XP to Windows 7, these legacy IE6-dependent business apps can be a big hurdle to overcome.

Wrong strategy

[GameboyRMH]

Microsoft hasn't done "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" in the past. This is more likely another attempt at "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish." So let's wait for the next E to drop.

Re:Wrong strategy

[Technician]

They have a way to go. Google Voice to PTSN works great which is a feature Skype lacks. Skype requires fees to use a call in number, and minutes to call out of Skype. These three features leaves it way behind Google Voice. The only thing going for Skype is the size of the user base and you can have it in many countries.

If I need to call phones in the US and Canada and not use an expensive cell plan, Google Voice works great for free unlike Skype. I use Google Voice as a second line to filter salesmen.

Re:Wrong strategy

[phoenix_rizzen]

Except that Google Voice only works for Americans. If you don't live in the US, it's extremely difficult to get a GV number, or to use GV.

Skype works on any Windows/MacOS computer, virtually any iOS, Android, or MS phone device, some consoles, and probably other devices. Even if you can't phone a landline using it, you can still connect with people using it.

A better comparison would be Google Hangouts which can be used to:
    - send/receive SMS messages on cell phones
    - send/receive instant messages on cell phones, tablets, chromebooks, laptops, PCs, etc
    - make voice or video calls between Hangouts users
    - make voice calls to landlines within North America for free (and other countries for pennies)

Google Hangouts is quickly overtaking Microsoft Skype in features, although it's still building it's userbase.

Re:Wrong strategy

[Technician]

Thanks for the info. I haven't switched to Hangouts yet because it only works on Chrome so It requires a browser switch.

For worldwide users another competitor is the open standard SIP. Many manufactures have SIP (VOIP) phones and adapters, and many with free SIP service. Unlike Skype many of the SIP registars permit multiple resistrations (extensions) at the same time, so I can have a phone at home and at work. A call rings both just like Google Voice. Inexpensive calling plans can be added if needed from Free US DID through IPKall or Callcentric, or other providers + trunk lines for outgoing calls. SIP to SIP is always free world wide. Some SIP providers provide video too like Skype if desired.

Re:Wrong strategy

[aztracker1]

I like Hangouts a lot, and the kinks in the Google Voice integration on my phone are finally mostly worked out. I do think that RTC is important, MS being late to the game was able to look at the problems, and both Google and Mozilla agree, which is why ORTC is coming into play... similar to how IndexedDB came out after other implementations. The crappy part is I'm still stuck supporting IE8 and IE9... so it will be close to a decade before I can really use this for certain things.

Other issues with WebRTC not withstanding, there are some compelling ideas in there.

Re:Wrong strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather just Skype have a web app that can be used in any browser. If people want it, they can navigate to mobile.skype.com (or whatevert the website is) and use it with whatever browser they like. If not, then they can just entirely ignore it.

Skype's app for Linux sucks huge balls, and the Android App invades your privacy left and right and also is bloated and sucky. A simple web app would be a miracle because then I wouldn't have to install Skype's shitty software on my laptop (afaik, the only non-open source software on it).

Or just open up their API so pidgin/kopete/etc. can use it, but that's way too much to ask I know.

Re:Wrong strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Skype works on desktop Linux now too, provided you use Pulseaudio. Can't speak to how well (never much saw good reason to bother with a known spy platform for "encrypted" voice/video communications...), but it does work. If it's anything like the Linux version prior to Pulseaudio from years ago though, expect a limited feature set.

Re:Wrong strategy

[arisvega]

Some time ago I took a long, hard look on "Skype alternatives". Let me share my finds with all of you:

Skype is Shit. Let me repeat that: Skype is Shit, and this Shit that Skype is mostly became shit after Microsoft messed with it. Allow me to elaborate:

- Call quality auto-degrades, when Skype 'decides' you are not to be prioritized. No other option given to the user to prioritize or adjust it in any way; useful settings to manage call parameters are virtually non-existent;

- Land line connectivity is poor, with low success rates (try it for yourselves: try calling from your regular phone the line you just failed to get a connection, and see how quick and crisp the result is);

- Privacy is a joke, even the links one pastes in Skype's chat interface trigger Microsoft spider bots that show up to check on the link shared. Again, try this for yourself and see what happens. I would not be surprised if the infamous Facebook policy is applied (the one that saves not just what you post, but what you type in the textboxes, even if you hit Backspace);

- The super useful desktop sharing function was made a PREMIUM service. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

- Over the years, and version after version, the ads have become audaciously overwhelming. The current image of Skype's window on your desktop crammed with its glam and glitter ads is plain silly. Grandma (for whom most of us maintain Skype) is having a hard time figuring out where to click to bring up which window that may or may not have the big green button she is looking for.

- Dodgy background processes and connections doing dodgy things. Again, be my guest and check for yourselves. Try your everyday sysadmin tools and see what you get.

>> Skype works on any Windows/MacOS computer, virtually any iOS

I will challenge that: depends what you mean by "works". For example, it does not work on my Mac. And by "does not work" I mean that a not-so-old version will fail to connect. "Have you tried the new version?", you may ask. No thanks, I decided against it after reading the EULA. Again, try it; it was an insightful read for me. Clearly there was lots of effort put into writing it, so why not do them a favour and read it? Note that the juice here is not my predicament and my ideas of what 'this software works' means, but Microsoft's choice to piss on their users and cripple earlier versions in order to extort upgrades.

>> A better comparison would be Google Hangouts

I understand this, but really, it boils down to whether you believe that you are getting a good deal or not from Google (or anyone) for your person. If you go this way, you would be an utter fool if you expect any kind of privacy on your otherwise designated 'private' communications. Google will keep recordings of your sessions at least until a biblical proportion flood or a meteor impact event physically destroys its data centres. Until then, Google (or whoever is in their shoes at the time) will ever-analyze and dissect your data, with current and ever-developing algorithms and resources: that's what Google DOES in its core.

A very simple to set up a convenient videoconf scheme is to use something o p e n s o u r c e (say Jitsi), and use it to handle an o p e n (say XMPP) protocol. Set one up for grandma as well, show her where the green button is, and videochat with her with strong end-to-end encryption, keeping those magick cookie formulae of hers only between her and you. You taught grandma Skype, you can teach grandma this one as well. Grandma knows.

Make sure you at least give your friends and associates a chance to break out of this Skype/Hangout trap that we tech-informed people have totally set up for ourselves, stop using the ".. but everybody uses Skype .. " and ".. but my contacts .. " excuses, and deliver the

Re:Wrong strategy

[squiggleslash]

Google Talk/Hangouts does what you're describing. Google Voice is the enhanced voicemail system. While there's some integration between the two, they're not the same thing.

OK...

[0123456]

...and why do I want this 'feature' again?

Re:OK...

[Tablizer]

To make more browser security holes for anti-malware scanning software makers to get rich from. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Next question?

it's a web browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't we just settle for it rendering web pages properly instead of bolting on all sorts of shit ?

Re:it's a web browser

[westlake]

Can't we just settle for it rendering web pages properly instead of bolting on all sorts of shit ?

It seems like only yesterday that the geek was on a crusade to eliminate any and all plug-is. The problem is that the web page has evolved far beyond the one-way-street, the silent, static, display of text and low-res graphics, typical of the early nineties.

The web browser is in serious danger of being eclipsed by the walled garden and the app --- which are in no way burdened by the geek's sense of propriety, his belief that he owns the web and the web browser and can dictate what it can and cannot do.

Re:it's a web browser

[Billly Gates]

IE has for 5 years now. Oh your comparing a 13 year old version when Mozilla and even Opera required quirks and hacks? Yeah real fair comparison. IE 6 was more standards compliant than Netscape and Mozilla 1.0 anyday. Compare a modern browsers

implying anyone uses internet explorer

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, some people use it do download Firefox/Chrome.

"Plugin-Free"

[sexconker]

I'd rather have to deal with plugins than deal with the feature creep, bloat, and widened attack surface you get from shoehorning all this shit into the browser.
With plugins, you get the best, fastest, and most secure experience. (By not installing the plugins.)

I DON'T want my browser to support fucking Skype calls on the web, encourage shitty web-design trends that sacrifice usability in favor of a hip image, support shitty DRM over HTML, etc.
The merits of any individual feature, as well as the shitty design choices of any give site, are beside the point. Baking all this shit into the browser removes my choice, shifts development focus away from performance, security, and enhancement of core features, steals my megahertz and megabytes, etc.

Re:"Plugin-Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure people complained similarly as hooks and features were added to the OS. While a lean and mean OS has value, most users came to expect more and more out of the box. Today the browser is the "OS experience" that most users have as they spend 80-90% of their time in a browser.

All of this has happened before, all of this will happen again.

Re:"Plugin-Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you should be using a decent browser that lets you turn the damn thing off. The rest of us are looking forward to finally getting decent P2P software that is cross-platform capable, but you're free to turn it off entirely if you'd prefer.

Re:"Plugin-Free"

[BitZtream]

I DON'T want my browser to support fucking Skype calls on the web, encourage shitty web-design trends that sacrifice usability in favor of a hip image, support shitty DRM over HTML, etc.

There are plenty of options from you to choose from if you want a featureless browser.

What you really mean is that you don't want anyone else to have features either. If all you wanted was to just not use DRM'd content you could simply ... not use DRM'd content. What you want is for no one else to have DRM'd content because you think if no one else does you'll get your way and all content will be DRM free.

Hint: It won't happen. Content producers will simply not produce before they let you freely copy their work.

They know they can't stop illegal copying completely, all they have to do is keep it down to a small subset of the population ... people who ever never going to pay anyway, then they don't lose money and life goes on. I suspect you're one of those people who probably will never pay for content regardless of how your supplied. If thats true, what you want is irrelevant. If I'm wrong, I apologize for making the assumption, but as soon as you get all ranty about DRM it starts to sound like you're just unwilling to pay for anything. Not everyone who is anti-drm is like that, just most.

I don't like restrictive DRM either, but as someone who creates combinations of bits for a living (Software Dev) I am painfully aware of the difficulty is surviving people who pay like they are supposed to and dealing with all the hassles that come from freeloaders who steal your work. Let me give you a hint, if people stole my software and I never knew they had, I'd care far less. You lose your ability to give a shit after so many phone calls for tech support from users using a pirate bay serial number.

Re:"Plugin-Free"

[NotInHere]

Flash has an install base of 99%. Of the 1% that don't have flash installed, there are some people (like me) who dislike it, but welcome the open web with all its new standards. So the people who have a worse experience (as they can't not install those 'bloaty features') are less than 1%. And even for you the situation improves. You can turn on and off everything you want or don't want, at least in firefox, in which there are about:config settings for most of the APIs. With flash you have a very binary choice. And for the other 99%: everybody who uninstalls flash is a reason more to have such APIs in the browser.

Re:"Plugin-Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing there are Open Source browsers. If you care enough about this just pay a dev 50$ to make you a quick patch ifdef'ing all the code you don't want out of your browser of choice.

Re:"Plugin-Free"

[Bert64]

Much more than 1% now, most mobile/tablet users don't have flash...

Re:"Plugin-Free"

[Bert64]

It's usually even easier than that, a lot of these features are already compile time optional (eg ./configure --without-xxx), and gentoo at least lets you turn various optional features off when you install things via use flags.

Re:"Plugin-Free"

[sexconker]

Please tell me how to turn this shit off in Firefox, for example.
Do I have to go to some undocumented or barely-documented flag in about:config ?
How do I know Firefox is respecting that flag? How do I know Firefox will respect it in the future?
Assuming Firefox is respecting that flag, what exactly is it doing? Is it actually NOT loading the modules necessary for that feature? Or is it loading entire browser+bloat as usual, and just not calling the module? Does disabling the shit protect me from the latest exploit that targets it? Will I have to download a patch for the latest exploit? When will it be available? How much resources does this shit take? Does disabling it get me those resources back? What about storage? Can I delete the relevant files or is shit baked in so hard that the browser won't function without them being there?

If it were a plugin, I'd have the choice of not installing it at all.

Re:"Plugin-Free"

[NotInHere]

Yeah, the 99% are PC market share:

http://www.adobe.com/mena_en/p...

Special Extensions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will there be special extensions to the WebRTC features?
Probably.

I dislike webrtc

[Anonymous Coward]

webrtc allows sites to view your internal IP addressing scheme. Not a good thing.

With Firefox you can disable it via about:config by toggling media.peerconnection.enabled

Re:I dislike webrtc

[BitZtream]

If your ip addressing scheme is a security risk, you don't know shit about security.

Re:I dislike webrtc

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a broad statement from someone who has no clue about why the OP states what he does. So, yes, Einstein, allowing outsiders to enumerate your RFC-1918 schema can be a very big deal. If you don't know this, YOU know nothing of security. Non-routable IP address schemas can reveal a grat deal of how an internal network is setup, the topology, etc. that people may not want revealed. You can segregate your LANS with VLANS, via firewalling, whatever, but knowing the internal layout of a network can be dangerous to those who would harm it.

Anyone know a browser that's just a WEB browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's becoming annoying to have to disable so many features I don't want, never knowing if I got them all. Just a web browser, please. HTML, CSS, maybe Javascript. Doesn't need persistent anything (history, cookies, storage, etc.).

Anyone know a browser that's just a WEB browser?

[jd142]

Lynx? It does cookies but no css and javascript.

Re:Anyone know a browser that's just a WEB browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Get Firefox, and only browser using private windows. Go into about:config and disable all the features you dislike like WebRTC, video/audio features, etc. Maybe install NoScript/YesScript, and maybe RequestPolicy/Policeman if you're that hardcore.

Microsoft WebRTC ..

[lippydude]

When will Microsoft be charging for their patented technology that Google and Mozilla stole and put in WebRTC?

Re:Microsoft WebRTC ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Right after Apple sued them for their browsers being able to render rectangles with rounded corners displaying computer generated content

Microsoft thinks your Skype privacy is important

[sasparillascott]

Privacy of Skype communications is very important for Microsoft and always good to keep in mind (probably all logged and kept forever):

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Re:Anyone know a browser that's just a WEB browser

[erapert]

Try Dillo. It doesn't support Javascript though.

More bullshit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google didn't even announce Chrome until 2008 (quote wikipedia "The browser was first publicly released for Microsoft Windows (XP and later versions) on September 2, 2008" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... ) you trolling bullshit artist.

Re:More bullshit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, yeah, whatever you say Microsoft shill. I recognize one when I see one.

Re:More bullshit?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. Deal with it.

Re:More bullshit?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that denial helps you to sleep, Google shill.

Re:More bullshit?

[binarylarry]

I am not the anonymous poster but I apologize for offending you.

I can see your love of Microsoft burns hot like a thousand Zunes!

Re:More bullshit?

[Anonymous Coward]

You were wrong. Deal with it. IE was out way before Chrome.

Re:More bullshit?

[binarylarry]

WRONG! IE was a fucking shit show. Microsoft didn't care, they killed off the competition.

Re:Anyone know a browser that's just a WEB browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry. I will not use any software that's missing a letter to make it the word for a woman's playtoy. When will the FOSSies get a god damn clue? Also, that webpage looks absolutely terrible.

Opus support for IE, finally?

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Opus codec support is "Mandatory to Implement" for the WebRTC standard. If this also brings in support for .opus in <audio> (as Firefox, Chrome, and I think most of the "little" browser projects like Opera, Konqueror, etc already have) that would be a great side-benefit.

Re:Opus support for IE, finally?

[NotInHere]

In their blog post, they pledged to implement opus for webrtc. Let's hope they also enable it for <audio> elements. But still I'm very happy about this, as perhaps one day I don't need a closed-source native application to chat and talk with my friends over skype.

It's typical Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is trying to grow its ecosystem, and is pushing Bing, Skype, Onedrive etc on everything.

Skype has turned to crap since its acquisition by Microsoft; I have the installers of the older versions, so I know. For video chatting and VoIP etc, there are much better alternatives out there.

Nokia turned to crap, Skype turned to crap, Minecraft... see the pattern already?

Ehhh

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, Skype may be under threat but Lync is far and ahead the most used Enterprise voice/video/IM service out there. There's really no need to sensationalize this whole ordeal, it's likely that the Lync or the Skype teams requested this for their stuff going forward.

Re:Anyone know a browser that's just a WEB browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Emacs.
It lacks a nice text editor, though.

it's a web browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Use lynx. Or, if you want to be crazy, use w3m -graph, and you can even get PICTURES thrown in.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like the trend of doing everything on a computer inside a web browser, nor do I get how it's somehow "easier" to have to scan a gui for buttons and traverse menus than it is to just put in a known command that I use regularly. But considering people have already been doing video chat in a browser for ages, it's about time that some effort is put into rooting out the need for Flash and HORRIBLY designed pieces of shit like Tinychat and some of the other camchat sites out there. The next time you're collaborating with people who are using a web conferencing system and it doesn't crash every 3 minutes, you can thank these efforts. And otherwise, feel free not to use them!