New Trial Brings Skype to (Some) Browsers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Trial Brings Skype to (Some) Browsers

Posted by timothy on Saturday November 15, 2014 @04:16AM from the video-chat-not-yet-standard-browser-feature dept.

Ars Technica reports that Microsoft has begun giving some users a taste of a new version of Skype, with a big difference compared to previous ones: the new one (tested by users on an invitation basis) is browser based. Rather than using the existing WebRTC standard, though (eschewed as too complex), Microsoft has developed a separate spec called ORTC (Object RTC), which is designed to offer similar capabilities but without mandating this same call setup system. Both Microsoft and Google are contributing to this spec, as are representatives from companies with video conferencing, telephony, and related products. ORTC isn't currently blessed as a W3C project, though the ORTC group has proposed integrating ORTC into WebRTC to create WebRTC 1.1 and including parts of ORTC into WebRTC 1.0. For now at least, video or audio chat therefore requires a plug-in, and requires Internet Explorer 10, or recent Firefox or Chrome browsers, and a current Safari on Mac OS X. Also at TechCrunch, among others, which notes that text chat (though as mentioned, not video or audio) will work with the new Skype under ChromeOS, too.

55 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

just a few words about that by FudRucker · 2014-11-15 04:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

NO THANK! I Dont Want It, considering Microsoft's track record it probably has NSA Spyware in it and i dont want them to listen to my phone sex sessions with clown trannys dressed in nazi uniforms

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
1. Re:just a few words about that by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  But wait, there's also Google! You like Google because they are nominally open source... what do you do??? Your mind will surely tear itself in half, your two opinions differ and you have no mental capacity to ever change either. You will be dead within minutes. We are sorry for your inconvenience.
Why... by beelsebob · 2014-11-15 04:22 · Score: 1

Why would I want this in my browser? What's not sufficient about the experience I get in the native apps? In what way is this better that I need a heavy weight piece of rendering technology sitting open, a GUI that's wrapped in my browser's window, and more latency between clicking things and stuff happening?
Seriously... Why would you implement this?
1. Re:Why... by wile_e8 · 2014-11-15 04:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The best reason I can think of is portability. Visiting your parents and using their computer? No need to install a native app, just open the web page (hopefully in the future at least, this says you still need to install a plug-in). Want to use it on Linux? No need to wait for Microsoft to update the Linux app (if they ever bother to update it), just use a standard-compatible browser to open the web page. Microsoft wants to add features? No need to make sure it works on a bunch of different OSes and versions, just make sure the web page is still compliant with the standards (you still need to make sure the browsers handle the standards correctly, but this should be an easier target).
  Not that this is perfect by any means. But nowadays computers perform well enough that most users won't even notice the problems you mention, and the other advantages more than make up for the problems.
2. Re:Why... by irq-1 · 2014-11-15 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  The best reason I can think of is portability. ... Want to use it on Linux? No need to wait for Microsoft to update the Linux app (if they ever bother to update it), ...
  Two problems with this. First, codecs and patents are still an issue. The latest working draft of ORTC contains this example of a connection, notice how often it says "common": // Steps to be followed: // 1. Determine the RTP features that the receiver and sender have in common. // 2. Determine the codecs that the sender and receiver have in common. // 3. Within each common codec, determine the common formats, header extensions and rtcpFeedback mechanisms. // 4. Determine the payloadType to be used, based on the receiver preferredPayloadType. // 5. Set RTCRtcpParameters such as mux to their default values. // 6. Return RTCRtpParameters enablig the jointly supported features and codecs.
  Second, central control by Microsoft (or Google, Apple, etc...) with a focus on ICE/STUN/TURN rather than open proxies (like Skype had before Microsoft) or a new and open solution for P2P connections. ORTC hasn't eliminated P2P, but it's not the focus and won't get any love from giant multinationals that can't make money on it.
3. Re:Why... by irq-1 · 2014-11-15 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  No pre tags anymore? WTF Slashdot?
4. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  So now we put the client in the cloud?
  Can we put the grandparents in the cloud next?
5. Re:Why... by matbury · 2014-11-15 06:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  ...because M$ always has to be different and effectively proprietary. I've been using WebRTC for weeks now and it works fine. I'm on Linux and it works on every browser I've tried; Firefox, Chromium, and Opera (developer). It works on Windows too in every browser except IE (any version). Try it for yourself for free and no need to sign up or anything: https://appear.in/ (There's multiple other demos out there on the web to try too).
  Do you think M$ are afraid of users migrating to more hassle-free and universally useful/cross-compatible versions of VoIP if they see how easy it is?
6. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-16 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I'd prefer this to installing Skype on any of my machines at all.
7. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 20:16 · Score: 0
  
  "I've been using WebRTC for weeks"
  Well aren't you the trail-blazing pioneer. WebRTC is fun and is useful to call one other person if you're both using a compatible browser. What if you want multi-party? Sorry, WebRTC can't handle that. Want to call a landline? Sorry, WebRTC can't handle that. There are many more scenarios that WebRTC can't handle, and won't do in its current form, hence the push for a new spec, that can handle these things and more. Just because you've played around with a gimmicky service for 'a few weeks' that doesn't mean it's ready for you to rely on daily for all your communication needs.
8. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-25 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  If this means Skype will now be available on ChromeBooks, then this is fantastic news ... as this is the last hurdle before my parents can finally drop Windows for something simpler!
Don't piss off the boffins at Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 04:24 · Score: 0

Or you'll be skyping in text only? WTF?
1. Re:Don't piss off the boffins at Microsoft by FudRucker · 2014-11-15 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  might as well just send an email (for internet)
  or cellphone texting
  
  --
  Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... by _xeno_ · 2014-11-15 04:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Oh, goodie, I can only hope this new browser-based version of Skype works as well as the new browser-based version of Lync does, especially with Microsoft rebranding Lync as Skype for Business.
I remember when I used to be able to use my USB headset with Lync, prior to corporate moving to the new browser-based version of Lync. Now I can only use the built-in speakers and microphone because Lync manages to completely ignore the global sound settings somehow! I sure hope they manage to bring this feature to the new browser version of Skype.
Granted, this was still a step up from the Lync client which routinely crashed if the network hiccuped in any way, but still. I can only hope the Skype team is taking over the Lync team and not the other way around.
I will give Lync some credit. It makes a great excuse for blowing off a meeting. "Oh, sorry, I tried to attend your meeting, but Lync blew up." "Oh, yeah, it does that to me all the time. We'll try again tomorrow."

--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
1. Re:Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... by serviscope_minor · 2014-11-15 04:55 · Score: 2
  
  Oh god you bring back bad memories.
  I can see why MS bought Skype. Lync is a special kind of terrible. Seriously, using Lync and trying to actually get sane inputs and outputs actually made me wish for pulse audio. Now, that's fucked up.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
2. Re:Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... by Technician · 2014-11-15 04:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Lync can be used with communications headsets. UN-checking the option to use the sound device only for communications permits using the headset for Lync as well as for all other PC sound playback.
  The best option in my opinion is to use a desk phone for Lync calls. Polycom makes some nice ones as well as Snom. Alternate firmware can change the SIP phone into an OCS VOIP phone able to integrate with your Lync account. Search for Snom OCS firmware for more info.
  Desk phone, speaker phone, or headset is your choice.
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
3. Re:Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... by _xeno_ · 2014-11-15 05:20 · Score: 2
  
  I think you're talking about Lync in general (that is, the desktop chat/VoIP app). I'm talking about the new Lync webapp that's used for Lync conferencing. For some reason I can't figure out, at least on Mac OS X (which is what my work laptop is), the Lync webapp refuses to use anything other than the internal speaker/mic or the speaker/mic port on the side. It doesn't matter what audio device you have set up in Settings, it just ignores it and uses either the internal speaker/mic or the ports, although you can select which of the two to use. Back when IT still supported the old Lync desktop app, that supported any audio device I threw at it. The new Lync webapp that they're having everyone use in place of the Lync desktop app, on the other hand, does not.
  I have no clue how relevant the Lync webapp is to the new Skype browser thing the story is referring to. I can only hope it turns out to be completely unrelated given how poorly the webapp works. But it's potentially relevant given that Skype and Lync are now operated by the same team and they're basically discontinuing Lync in favor of Skype. (Unless it turns out to just be a branding thing, and Skype for Business will be an entirely separate code base from Skype. Microsoft hasn't exactly been clear on the future direction of Lync.)
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
4. Re:Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... by Technician · 2014-11-15 05:43 · Score: 2
  
  If MS drops support for all the Polycom Lync devices including conference speakerphones and desk phones, Bluetooth Lync headsets, etc, Corporate will be a hard sell.
  Best of Lync and Skype should not obsolete all the business telcom hardware products in use by corporate users. That would be dropping the most useful parts.
  I don't wear headphones all the time. I don't have disruptive speakers, and I can still hear my phone ring, and answer it, even while the PC is in a locked screensaver, in hibernation, or even rebooting.. Not all my job is screen time.
  Do you ever reboot? Lock the screen and step out? Read a paper list, drawing, manual, or report?
  Missing calls while not watching the screen or have another app on top is unacceptable.
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
5. Re:Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  There is no "browser based version of Lync" today. You can I'm in OWA and join meetings via a browser if you have no client at all. Why should you be surprised that an app in a browser offers less than a full installed client?
6. Re:Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  If MS drops support for all the Polycom Lync devices including conference speakerphones and desk phones, Bluetooth Lync headsets, etc, Corporate will be a hard sell.
  Best of Lync and Skype should not obsolete all the business telcom hardware products in use by corporate users. That would be dropping the most useful parts.
  I don't wear headphones all the time. I don't have disruptive speakers, and I can still hear my phone ring, and answer it, even while the PC is in a locked screensaver, in hibernation, or even rebooting.. Not all my job is screen time.
  Do you ever reboot? Lock the screen and step out? Read a paper list, drawing, manual, or report?
  Missing calls while not watching the screen or have another app on top is unacceptable.
  With a proper Lync unified communication setup your mobile will ring simultaneously with your PC, and you pick up wherever it is convenient.
7. Re:Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Oh god you bring back bad memories.
  I can see why MS bought Skype. Lync is a special kind of terrible. Seriously, using Lync and trying to actually get sane inputs and outputs actually made me wish for pulse audio. Now, that's fucked up.
  Not sure how you define sane, but in my experience Lync *always* follows what is set in the control panel sound applet (press start, type "sound", choose whatever input and output you want active (I've had multiple of each and no problem switching between them)).
8. Re:Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... by serviscope_minor · 2014-11-15 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Lucky git.
  Sometimes it does sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes (and this is my favourite) it won't let you have the input and output from the same device. WTF is that about? What do I even have a USB headset for anyway?
  Like the other guy, about half the lync meetings involved one or all participants signing out and in again since sometimes it only lets you change the settings while disconnected. Oh sure it pretends to be OK, but it lies. WTF was THAT about???
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
9. Re:Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... by _xeno_ · 2014-11-15 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell is this, then?
  The Lync thing I'm talking about it only for online meetings. It's a part of Lync implemented as a web app and for some reason if you aren't on Windows it's your only choice if you want to see what other people are presenting. The place I work at doesn't actually use Lync for generic telephony. (Although they do have some form of half-assed integration where someone calling my office phone will, in fact, cause a Lync desktop app notification to appear. I just can't answer the call using Lync because our VoIP system isn't actually Lync.)
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
10. Re:Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 22:37 · Score: 0
  
  Where are the United Nations options?
I don't want this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 04:34 · Score: 0

Browsers already do too much. I don't want my browser to be filled with bells and whistles.
1. Re:I don't want this by Billly+Gates · 2014-11-15 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Then use IE 6.
  Html 5 is more than about text viewers with pictures. It is a standard for applets and guis
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
Gee thanks. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 05:10 · Score: 0

Gee thanks, Microsoft. Now if I want a app with RTC support I have to write two versions, one in the WebRTC which will work in Firefox and Chrome, and one in ORTC for Explorer, and all because you couldn't be assed to port your second-rate VoIP acquisition to what others already supported. I know Google snubbed your Pointer Events spec because they're apparently not skilled enough to make it work well in Chrome, but this doesn't make you look any better.
1. Re: Gee thanks. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  As if Google ever gets anything right. Fail after fail. Their only successes are their acquisitions (Maps, YouTube). It's a wonder how they're even still in business.
2. Re: Gee thanks. by jones_supa · 2014-11-15 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  As if Google ever gets anything right. Fail after fail. Their only successes are their acquisitions (Maps, YouTube). It's a wonder how they're even still in business.
  Same reason as why Microsoft is still the king of the OS market with their crusty software: for new companies the barrier of entry to the field is too high.
3. Re: Gee thanks. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  That's neither here nor there. Two of the four major browser engines support WebRTC already and it has shown itself to be practical in both of them. This smacks of Google's Dart VM - rather than focus on fixing up and modernizing Javascript (which is already built into browsers and won't be going away) they chose the option that will fragment and bloat up the web for very little (if any) actual benefit over the alternative. It's a braindead idea no matter who does it.
Tried on IE 6 by Billly+Gates · 2014-11-15 05:11 · Score: 1

The page doesn't look right and it doesn't work. How can the Web Development guys be so incompetent? I am filling a bug report and expect a fix by the end of today. Thanks -phb

--
http://saveie6.com/
Solaris by relisher · 2014-11-15 05:18 · Score: 1

Perhaps this means Skype can run on Solaris in Firefox...
The opposite needs to be done with Hangouts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 05:21 · Score: 0

I want to use Hangouts with my friends so badly, but the fact that it runs in a browser and not a thick client is a deal breaker for me.
New efficiencies. by fahrbot-bot · 2014-11-15 05:25 · Score: 0

Rather than using the existing WebRTC standard, though..., Microsoft has ...
So they're simply skipping their traditional embrace, extend, extinguish process. Efficient.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
1. Re: New efficiencies. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  Except that their gripes with WebRTC are legitimate. Witness the issues poping up just getting it properly implemented.
R O T F L M A O by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 05:57 · Score: 0

I knew /. had some fruitcakes posting here, but I had no idea how much so (even a transfreak in "Boorb").
Re:You like tranny's? /.'s got 'em! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 05:59 · Score: 0

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha BarbaraHudson the tranny freak.
too late (been there, done that) by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 05:59 · Score: 1

https://appear.in/
one click browser-based audio/video. bandwidth issues aside, it works.
(/me not affiliated in any way, just an happy user)
Get fucked. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 06:09 · Score: 0

Well here we go again. Microsoft gets their hands on a product and as soon as they do, they poison the well. "WebRTC is just too hard, we had to invent our own, proprietary spec rather than learn that complicated mess." They seriously expect people to shell out hundreds for Windows 10 when their own programmers can't be arsed to write things to a standard?
The real answer is that they're more than capable of course, they're just trying to elbow their way past the competition and establish a proprietary specification over an open one. Again. Embrace, extend, extingush -- it's been going on for decades now, what's amusing is that people are still falling for it. Even here.
skype as always been horrible by ruir · 2014-11-15 06:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

and only getting worse after being bought by Microsoft. Forgive me for not being too enthusiastic about having yet another piece of crap in my browser. I would prefer to make a pact with the devil first. Hell, using software from Microsoft is no better than that.
1. Re:skype as always been horrible by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  and only getting worse after being bought by Microsoft. Forgive me for not being too enthusiastic about having yet another piece of crap in my browser. I would prefer to make a pact with the devil first. Hell, using software from Microsoft is no better than that.
  Skype got popular because it was less horrible than the alternatives, especially it's ability to punch through NATs and firewalls and bad connections without the user having to do any configuration.
You like tranny's? /.'s got 'em! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 08:29 · Score: 0

Barb (Tom) Hudson http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Microsoft at it again by davydagger · 2014-11-15 09:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

I spoke too soon, as soon as they announced they'd open the .NET framework, they immediately pull this shit, an incompatible standard, again. for time like 1 zillion
1. Re:Microsoft at it again by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 13:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They haven't even "opened" the .NET framework. As usual that was a bunch of misleading bullshit on the part of the editors...and Microsoft, but mostly the editors. Every other article posted on the subject has been more clear, but hey..this is Slashdot, land of product placement and incompetent, troll editors.
  Oh, they've opened _part_ of it. The server-side part of it. Which is utterly pointless considering that there's already a server-side implementation of C# that's cross-platform, Mono, the one they'll apparently be "working closely with." Anyone who wants to use server-side C# in Linux is already doing it. The parts that are useful for writing desktop apps and games? Yeah, we're not getting that. They've been very clear about it. From the ZDNet article on the subject:
  "Microsoft is not planning to open source the client side .NET stack, which means certain pieces like the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) and Windows Forms won't be going open source, Somasegar confirmed."
  These are the same people who were referring to open source as a "cancer" and "viral" not so long ago. It's a complete non-story and it reeks of the desperation that Microsoft must be under at this point. Hundreds of millions of unsold Surface hardware and Windows phones, the XBONE failing so hard that it was pretty much doomed from the launch (e.g. removing Kinect from the bundle actually doubled sales of the console in some areas). Their little smart watch that apparently "makes you a better human," whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. They've shot themselves in the foot so many times that they've got nothing left below the knees.
  Incompatible standards are Microsoft's business. Embrace, extend, extinguish. They've been doing it for decades and they're not going to stop now. If any open source software succeeds, they want it to be -theirs-. If any standard succeeds, they want it to be -theirs-. Makes sense, it's in their best interests. Unfortunately it's not in anyone else's best interests, which is probably why most of their products post-XP have failed so hard that you'd almost feel sorry for them...if it weren't for the military contracts and the monopoly on the private sector.
  Though you have to admit, whoever managed to sell the US military on the idea that they should be running Windows on everything must have been the most silvery of silver-tongued bastards who ever walked the earth.
2. Re:Microsoft at it again by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 23:46 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  hardly, this is an example of Microsoft AND others like google working to fix the bad standard that was created. Not all standards are good and WebRTC is an example of one that sucks.
Re:You can talk to those on /. by TrollingForHostFiles · 2014-11-15 09:46 · Score: 1

Hi, APK!
Whereas you're just a clown...?
hugs,
Jeremy.

--
cat /dev/random
Hooooold up by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-15 18:17 · Score: 0

So I know we all hate Microsoft (me more than most, since I'm a Mac user since System 6), but they're on the right track on this one.
Here's why: Google standards > Microsoft standards > telco standards.
Yes, you guys haven't experienced what a telco can do to your precious development process. WebRTC 1.0 is using something called SDP, which was borrowed from old telco standards in order to ship webRTC and is only good for making phone calls. Once you try to do something interesting like group chat, you end up with a bunch of limitations and extra round trips.
It's not just Microsoft pushing ORTC (that was UC-RTC-Web), Google and others are involved with shifting webRTC into using ORTC concepts as well. ORTC is actually the way to save webRTC from becoming a shitty overcomplicated, unmanageable telco-fest.
ORTC is a W3C standard by kervin · 2014-11-16 03:00 · Score: 1

W3C ORTC. Before you complain please research the standards. blog.webrtc.is/ is a great place to start.
Resurrecting a zombie project... by MercTech · 2014-11-16 06:25 · Score: 1

I remember the beta test of a browser based Skype application about six years ago.... FUBAR!
It worked about as well as java based real time chat applications, poorly if at all.
If you have tried the Win8 version of Skype and had to tunnel through layers of M$ non-help screens to find out how to get rid of the "App" and bring back the Skype application client; you have my commiseration.
I've had a Skype account for a decade now. Including an incoming number for a side business of mine. It was reliable, inexpensive, and it integrated with web browsers, contact lists in email programs, and even web based faxing.
Since M$ bought Skype; the integration with web browsers no longer works reliably. Their is no integration with contact lists in email programs that works reliably. It even quit integrating with Microsoft Outlook which it had since Office XP days.
Sorry Mickey$oft... you lost your core concept chasing eye candy.. ooohhh, shiney new code!!!

--
NRRPT/RCT