Slashdot Mirror


Google Duo Video Chat App Arrives On iOS and Android With End-to-end Encryption (betanews.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Video chat should be simple, but it is not. The biggest issue is fragmentation. On iOS, for instance, Facetime is a wonderfully easy solution, but there is no Android client. While there are plenty of cross-platform third-party options to solve this, they aren't always elegant. Skype is a good example of an app that should bridge the gap, but ends up being buggy and clunky. Google is aiming to solve this dilemma with its 'Duo' video chat app. With it, the search giant is putting a heavy focus on ease of use. The offering is available for both Android and iOS -- the only two mobile platforms that matter (sorry, Windows 10 Mobile). Announced three months ago, it finally sees release today. There is no news about the Allo chat sister-app, sadly.

114 comments

  1. Hangouts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does Google keep spinning up new apps for shit they already have. The company is becoming increasingly split-brained.

    1. Re:Hangouts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google Duo isn't peer to peer or open source. Fail.

    2. Re: Hangouts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook tried mixing Facebook accounts and phone numbers and it didn't work at all. Totally different use cases here.

    3. Re:Hangouts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hangouts does not use end-to-end encryption.

      "When you dial a phone number from a Hangout, audio is encrypted until it reaches the carrier network. But telephone carriers are responsible for the audio within carrier networks." (https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/6046115?hl=en)

      In my opinion, that is a significant enough change to warrant re-branding. The cross-platform compatibility makes it even more-so.

    4. Re:Hangouts? by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      So Hangouts does use end-to-end encryption for audio, except when making a PSTN phone call, of course. Not sure about text however.
      Hangouts is already cross-platform. No need for rebranding.

    5. Re: Hangouts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you think some new app will be any different?

      Just imagine grandma answering her analog land line and hearing your encrypted voice.

    6. Re: Hangouts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the classic answer to fragmentation: create another one.

      https://xkcd.com/927/

  2. Not Duo Multifactor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I realize that Google Duo and Duo aren't in the same market space but still...Duo is a fairly prominent mobile app. Google will likely need to change the name of theirs.

    1. Re:Not Duo Multifactor? by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Just like how either FB Messenger and Google Messenger had to change their names. Oh wait, there's two Messenger apps! It's amazing! It's stupendous! It's Googlicious!

  3. Desktop? by StatFiend · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What about desktop applications? Is this planned?

    1. Re:Desktop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No word on a desktop application at this time..

    2. Re:Desktop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hangouts is their (overprominsing, underdelivering, stagnant, buggy, clunky and fully insecure) desktop application for chat.

    3. Re:Desktop? by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      Desktops do not matter. Nobody is ever going to ditch Windows for a Google platform in desktop, so there is no reason to create a service to lure users to it.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    4. Re:Desktop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not to worry, it will be cancelled in 2-3 years anyway. Might as well just ignore it.

    5. Re:Desktop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Nvida/AMD made proper video drivers for them and they started getting the big developers making major games for it, I can bet we would see a few of them do it.

      The main thing keeping Linux back is the fact that you have to do so much work just to get many games to work on them and they have repeated issues with drivers because they are low priority on them compared to windows.

      Kind of a Chicken and Egg situation.

      If it still worked with newer hardware and software with security and bug fixes incoming, I am thinking many people here wouldn't have left Windows XP. The vast majority of the newer windows has crap that most people honestly could care less about being built in the OS.

    6. Re:Desktop? by unrtst · · Score: 2

      Desktops matter if we believe the summary:
      "Google is aiming to solve this dilemma", where dilemma refers to fragmentation such as Facetime being iOS only, and skype being buggy and clunky.

      Personally, I think this is more like that xkcd comic about standards: https://xkcd.com/927/

      I was doing video chats in the late 90's, and others were doing it before that. Two decades later and it's still a PITA to get everyone on the same thing and working.

    7. Re:Desktop? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      How about you just run Android on your desktop? Seems a simple solution until a real app is made.

    8. Re:Desktop? by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      I believe the summary. What I don't believe is Google.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
  4. Line works great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Line works very well between android and IOS. There is a windows client but I haven't tried it with video conferencing.

  5. Solving a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I like how Google is solving the problem of refusing to use video chat with more video chat.

  6. Man in the Middle is Annoying Man by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    From experience with Hangouts, if it's not peer to peer I'm thinking it will have the same horrible performance that often led the chat participants to switch to audio only. Good luck with that Google!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Man in the Middle is Annoying Man by Tx · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except it is peer-to-peer, it uses Google servers to initially set up the call, but the actual call traffic is direct. Don't take your facts from a random AC without a bit of checking.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    2. Re:Man in the Middle is Annoying Man by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Ok, good to know. You are right that I should not be so quick to accept AC "wisdom", but since that's how Hangouts was it seemed believable...

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re: Man in the Middle is Annoying Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Clearly you lack some basic understanding.

      When two people want to make a direct connection to each other and they are both behind firewalls (as most home users are), how does one know the other wants to talk (or what the other's IP is)? By using some other server that has a known address.

      Even bit torrent and magnet links work this way.

  7. "3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Video chat should be simple, but it is not.

    Seen from a historical perspective, video chat is frankly miraculous, and it's amazing that it works at all. But sure, okay. I can be jaded and take things for granted with the best of them.

    The biggest issue is fragmentation... Facetime... third-party options... Skype.

    Okay, so your thesis is that there are too many competing, non-standardized solutions. Cool, I'll buy that. How can we solve this dilemma? With some sort of open, universal standard that can be agreed upon, however grudgingly, by the major players?

    Google is aiming to solve this dilemma with its 'Duo' video chat app.

    Uh. Won't that just mean more fragmentation? And therefore, by your own logic, doesn't that just make the problem worse?

    1. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by Mark+of+the+North · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uh. Won't that just mean more fragmentation? And therefore, by your own logic, doesn't that just make the problem worse?

      There isn't yet a decent cross-platform solution. Something as easy to use as Facetime, but covering all important platforms. And until Duo covers Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, it isn't that solution either. But Google would seem to be interested in covering the major platforms. Users definitely want a solution with complete platform coverage. Contrast that with Apple (definitely) and Microsoft's (less so) interests being against having a cross-platform solution.

      I'm tentatively hopeful.

    2. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There isn't yet a decent cross-platform solution.

      Not that I'm a Microsoft famboi or anything, but what's wrong with Skype? It seems to support more platforms than this Duo thing does. And it works well enough for me and everyone I use it with, on a multitude of platforms.

    3. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by Arkold+Thos · · Score: 2

      Or Hangouts.

    4. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "There isn't yet a decent cross-platform solution"

      Camfrog is available on iOS, OSX, Windows, and Android. It blows everything else out of the water (it's so good Paltalk bought it just to get ahold of the underlying video tech.)

      As far as security goes, who the fuck actually expects security across a cellular network? Did nobody learn the lesson from Telegram's most recent fuckup?

      To boot, videochat on a smartphone means, well, you're more likely to have the speakerphone on (holding the handset to your ear sort of defeats the purpose of video chat,) which means people nearby can just listen in. Try encrypting actual sound waves, let's see how far you get.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1
      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by stinerman · · Score: 1

      This has pissed me off to no end.

      Remember when everyone and their dad had a chat client that used XMPP? Now it's all completely balkanized, with each client using a different protocol. I'm expected to have Hangouts, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and a few dozen other ones now. No. I refuse to.

      Although more to your point, Duo apparently uses the QUIC protocol which is open. Now that's just for the connection piece. Who knows what they're using for the data protocol.

    7. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by txsable · · Score: 2

      There isn't yet a decent cross-platform solution.

      Not that I'm a Microsoft famboi or anything, but what's wrong with Skype? It seems to support more platforms than this Duo thing does. And it works well enough for me and everyone I use it with, on a multitude of platforms.

      Have you tried to use skype with video on linux? there is no group video chat, and in the latest alpha they removed video altogether, even one to one. They also removed 90% of the settings options.

    8. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by Danathar · · Score: 2

      Look, SIP works. It's just a signaling protocol. Facetime uses SIP even though it's closed to anybody else. SIP is a standard, everybody could use it. It's not hard to implement. It's well known and well supported. Just to re-iterate SIP is a SIGNALING PROTOCOL. It has nothing to do with call quality directly. There is no reason why vendors can't implement it. There is also XMPP, but I prefer SIP myself.

    9. Re: "3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The protocol is top secret and anything you say is stored for later "use". That's what's wrong with it.

    10. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      Skype has become worse and worse ever since Microsoft took it over. On all platforms, in general, I understand, in Linux, in particular, I know first hand experience. Based on past history, this trend will continue indefinitely.

    11. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, FWIW, my mom can't get Hangouts to work on her iPhone, which is why we use Skype instead.

    12. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by danbob999 · · Score: 2

      There isn't yet a decent cross-platform solution. Something as easy to use as Facetime, but covering all important platforms.

      There is hangouts. There is Skype (although MS is removing platforms pretty fast). Facetime is the worst possible option (only on one platform).

    13. Re: "3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      I routinely use Hangouts for video calling because most of the people I know use Gmail and have Google accounts, and it tends to be very easy. I've used it cross-platform with Linux, windows, Android, etc with no problems. I have found that it tends to have higher video quality compared to Skype and it's easy to have a conversation with multiple participants who can join and leave at their leisure.

    14. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Obligatory XKCD:
      https://xkcd.com/927/

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    15. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as security goes, who the fuck actually expects security across a cellular network?

      I do. I don't expect security *from* a network or service but I expect to be able to use security *on* a network or service. About the only thing a network/service provider should be able to confirm is that the network/service was used...for something...at a certain time. That's it - a meaningless (to them) string of bits was transferred between endpoints.

    16. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and the fact they already HAVE an app that does "video chat" (i.e. Google Hangouts), they're not only making the problem worse, they're releasing products that are in competition with their own, existing products. I've never seen a situation where that's worked out well for the company in question.

      It's just another example of Google throwing a product out there to see what sticks. People are used to it at this point. They know full well that in a year or so the thing will probably be cancelled entirely, likely with a month or two's notice that it's going to happen. A few people will adopt it and they'll be disappointed that they did in due course.

      Some of the decisions being made by a lot of big-name tech companies the past few years are utterly confusing. Microsoft's just as good an example, look at the incredibly botched pre-launch for the Xbox One. They backpedalled on as many announcements about the console as they put out, their PR guy for the whole thing was an utter douchenozzle. All Sony had to do at gaming conferences and the like to win the crowd over was essentially point at Microsoft's last press release and say, "we're not going to do that." Let alone all of those lovely Surface machines that are still sitting in warehouses, probably never to _be_ sold... If it weren't for the amount of money they were all spending, you'd think they were trying to intentionally fail out of the industry for some reason.

    17. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm on a Mac, so this might be different on windows:
      1) the desktop version is modeled like an mobile App, which makes it close to unusable
      2) the iPad version suddenly stopped receiving pictures, instead you get a link to log on on the skype web site. That site forgets your log on credentials after each click, so if you get three pictures you have to log on three times
      3) Skype randomly hicks up and eats 99% of a CPU core, in rare cases it causes some kind of locks in the kernel that stall all other processes for minutes, until it is somehow contempt with the single core (the Mac is unusable, beach balling for minutes)
      4) Skype does not integrate into the contacts list of the host OS, regardless of iOS or OS X - for me that would have been a reason to not allow it into the App store - so my important Skype contacts are (manually) duplicated into my platforms Contact list to do something as simple as associating a Phone number or postal address to them.

      Randomly the Microphone or the Camera is not working. No one knows why. Luckily that is resolved after a restart of Skype.

      And the upgrade on my Mac to an unusable Skype was forced on me because MShit bought it and released a new version and then pop ups popped up: this version is no longer supported: go download new version.

      After starting the new version I literally went to the toilette and vomited.

      But be assured, there are worse things ... e.g. a week ago the company I work for right now upgraded a decade old Notes client to the recent version ... We have 2016, I believe, and there is still no hotkey to send an eMail you just have typed :-/

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      What pisses me off the most is that companies *had* been going in the direction of federation and collaboration. Facebook and Google were notable in that they had XMPP compatible systems. But then they decided "Screw this, I want the whole pie!" and balkanized again.

    19. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      There is no technical reason at all for companies to not work together. All the building blocks have been in place for years.

      The problem is they they don't *want* to work together. They would rather balkanize so that they can have a captive audience and hopefully crush the competition.

    20. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      That's called streamlining the user experience in CURRENT_YEAR tech company jargon. You and the rest of their users are too stupid to handle anything but the most basic and braindead of interfaces.

    21. Re:"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the upgrade on my Mac to an unusable Skype was forced on me because [MS] bought it and released a new version and then pop ups popped up: this version is no longer supported: go download new version.

      "...history... doomed to repeat it." I learned the lesson from MS itself in the late nineties. They went nuts trying to fight the then-major-player, AOL. The MS Messenger client started forcing upgrades on people and adding anti-features, like the then-bold replacement of smileys with icons and animations, as well as adding the super-annoying nudges. That's when I saw these jerk-style shutoffs.

      At some point they started doing it to Skype. Unlike with standalone software, it's hit or miss whether even acquiring old installers before they a bad company buys off your choices will allow you to continue to log in. I do recall that the upgrade notifications didn't affect MirandaIM's use of the protocol (I even had it running AOL's OSCAR alongside ICQ back when friends still cared to chat outside of their Facebook lives)

      Sadly, I can't even convince people to use Hangouts over text. I deal mostly with older people who only know the Skype brand, and don't even realize what a Google account is. Sadly, there's too much chat client fragmentation (it's like the nineties never ended!). Google Hangouts disappointed me with failures to do video at crucial moments: overseas call to my mother when I realized I could train her, as well as 2 different tests I've room with potential users in the same room. At least Skype always works, but I hate even starting up the client on a blue moon. I know what they did to spy on Linux...
         

  8. Don't bother with Duo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google will cancel it within five years like they do almost everything else.

  9. Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by stedlj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does not work on tablets, iPad or desktop because it is phone number based. :-(

    1. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Viber is phone number based and works on iPad, Tablets and Desktops ...
      Wow, that was simple!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Does it require a cell phone to be turned on, with battery and signal?
      If so, it doesn't pass the test and shouldn't even be considered.

    3. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Why are people stupid enough to design protocols based on phone numbers in the 3rd millennium?

    4. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      Because then you already have a database of "usernames" for your friends and family. It makes a lot of sense actually, hence the popularity of WhatsApp which is really just another instant messaging service.

    5. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      It does require you to set up an account with a phone number first. WhatsApp is similar. Telegram requires *a* number during initial setup, but after that you can install the client on any mobile or desktop device you want, and it will just work. Supposedly, Telegram will work with a landline number in lieu of a cell number, but I never tested that.

      IIRC, you can sign up with Snapchat without a phone number, but it doesn't have a desktop client.

    6. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      I also already have email addresses. There is no benefit to protocols based on phone numbers.

    7. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      So they all suck.

    8. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Yup. Tragedy of the commons 'n all that.

    9. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does not work on tablets, iPad or desktop because it is phone number based. :-(

      I noticed after contacting a youth who had an email-to-text option to skirt around paying for a data plan, Google Hangouts popped up the notification to "confirm" my own number.
      When a few reboots and other pokes failed to remove it, I turned to the notifications remover in the Xposed root framework.

      Numbers are too common a data point to snoop from users. We owe it to the text-for-free apps and now to Yahoo, Google, MS and FB. They covet that info so much they'll silently scrape it with their Apps even if you refuse to confirm it

    10. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not about you or I, or slashdotters. We are NOT "market" penetration. The general populace determines it, and they do pick those clients regardless of protocols or phone number requirements.

      The problem is based on popularity and the unexpected events where you don't always choose how to get in touch with *others* for emergencies. This happens. e-mail address and Google account names aren't obvious, especially when someone else set it up for them at the point of sale of their new device in exchange to have them become a new customer (and sadly saved themselves the bother to explain the implications --these situations are near-guaranteed failure when you try to reset someone's Google password when the need does arise to alter their account or locate a lost device ).

      While I hate *both* phone numbers and emails as login keys (plus, usernames are secret), females and elders are unlikely to command any clients with pieces of information beyond instant recall or an address book.

    11. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      It's not a tragedy, there are alternatives working right now without this limitation.

    12. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Of course there are. But if they don't achieve some level of critical mass, then they become marginalized and eventually disappear. Or if you have a number of overlapping social circles, you end up having to install multiple clients because some use one client and others use a different one.

      Hell, I've been trying my damnedest to move away from Facebook Messenger cause I despise Facebook. But there are enough people who are on it, that it becomes very difficult.

      I used to use Trillian to manage all these services, but they've slid so far behind that I've had to abandon it. Now I'm using Franz on the Desktop, and connecting to services that at least have the decency to provide a web UI, even if it's not optimal (eg: WhatsApp).

    13. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Of course there are. But if they don't achieve some level of critical mass, then they become marginalized and eventually disappear.

      Some of them have both the critical mass and are not based on stupid phone numbers. Hangouts, Skype, probably others.

      Or if you have a number of overlapping social circles, you end up having to install multiple clients because some use one client and others use a different one.

      Except if you have a very limited number of contacts, most people are likely in that situation.
      That's why it's our job (tech enthusiasts) to promote the less crappy of them and boycott the crappy ones as much as we can. Ideally, there would be an open standard that would kill them all. XMPP is as close as it gets, but still not perfect for all situations. Then you have those which are cross-platform, free and not based on phone numbers.
      Last are the crappy ones, either based on phone numbers or closed to a single vendor platform (such iMessage/Facetime) which we should avoid at all costs.

      Hell, I've been trying my damnedest to move away from Facebook Messenger cause I despise Facebook. But there are enough people who are on it, that it becomes very difficult.

      I hear you. I also do what I can to avoid it. I don't install it on my phone. I used the mobile web page but they shut it down (desktop version still works, even on phones, but is far from optimal).

      Now I'm using Franz on the Desktop, and connecting to services that at least have the decency to provide a web UI, even if it's not optimal (eg: WhatsApp).

      I just tried Franz, never heard of it before. Good for you if you like it, but to me it looks like a web browser, I already have one. Deleted.

    14. Re:Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      That's basically what Franz is. It's a a web browser dedicated to handling IMs that have Web APIs. The nice thing about it is that it gives you full access to whatever the target IM provides over the web, so you don't lose functionality like you would with say, Trillian or Pidgin, and you still get basic OS integration, like notifications, etc.

      It's the single best option I've been able to find that lets me (relatively) painlessly manage multiple IMs without having a bajillion clients all running simultaneously.

      I personally despise having to keep my browser open just to maintain my message connectivity. I'm opening and closing browser windows on a regular basis, and IMO a browser should be just that, not an OS replacement. We already have Emacs for that. :)

      It also has the benefit of running under Linux, which you don't get with an unfortunate majority of dedicated clients. (Apparently Microsoft has supposedly pulled their thumb out and pulled Skype for Linux out of abandonware status... We'll see what happens, I guess.)

  10. Video chat is useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't serve any purpose, email is more efficient.
    I'm sure google will be retiring Android soon anyways.

    1. Re:Video chat is useless by Khyber · · Score: 1

      E-mail is useless when the problem requires near real-time observation.

      Example, a switch whose fans are acting up. Live video of the fans spinning or failing to spin (maybe ticking over a bit then stopping) can't be shown with a static picture and text.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  11. FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about a FreeBSD client?

    1. Re:FreeBSD by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they ought to do that. Also, I don't get the point of doing an iOS version - why would anyone pick that when FaceTime is already there? Instead, Windows 10 Mobile would have been a worthy choice, as would FreeBSD/PC-BSD, Linux (non Android) and Windows 10

    2. Re:FreeBSD by johanw · · Score: 1

      Facetime works only to other iOS device users, not to Android users. As for other platforms: I would expect a Symbian version before a win mobile version, just to rub the failure of windows mobile to MS.

  12. What's in it for Google with "encryption"? by tanstaaf1 · · Score: 2

    One thing we ought to have learned by now is that with free Aps from Google *YOU* (and everyone else in your contact list) are their "product". They are a targeted advertising company -- pure and simple; Alphabet may eventually make them something else, and give them a reason to stop doing evil, but that is not now. With that premise out of the way (and dismantle it if you can) why is google offering this -- and does "With End-to-end Encryption" really mean encrypted so even google can't eavesdrop and datamine? I recently declined to participate in a paid, on-line seminar because Google was hosting the video service; I would have liked to attend. I refuse to by ANYTHING (no matter how much I want it) which uses Google's payment services. I try to avoid dealing with people who have the bad taste to use gmail for important correspondence. Anyway, I'm not likely to go for this unless I have better assurances of complete privacy than merely a mouthing of words about "end to end encryption". Google has a 100% record of getting their foot in the door with promises of privacy and changing the terms of their "free" offerings later. And I am taking 20 computers off of Microsoft for the same solid objection. I'm not going to easily sell my privacy for trinkets. But I would like a good reason to feel differently. It would be nice to be able to video chat with people who don't have iphones. "If you would not willingly give your body to any passer-by to do with has he willed, why do you give your mind?" -Epictetus

    1. Re:What's in it for Google with "encryption"? by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

      While I don't go to quite the same lengths that you do, I agree with your sentiment. Unfortunately, it seems to be very much in the minority.

      The prevailing attitude seems to be, "Well, they're gonna harvest my data whether I like it or not, so I may as well enjoy it." It's nice to know that identity theft has become such a non-issue that people can be happily blasé about it.

    2. Re: What's in it for Google with "encryption"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So which BSD distribution do you prefer?

  13. Obligatory XKCD by silkenphoenixx · · Score: 1
  14. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't believe it and don't trust it. The "APP APPY APPS" guy has one point, they never have you in mind, period. Your phone isn't your property. Your carrier owns it, its manufacturer owns it, your government owns it, you just pay exorbitant rent. Anything you do on your phone can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion, at the very least.

    Google has no interest in providing you a secure communication channel.

    On a desktop computer that runs Linux or Windows7 at the latest, install Pidgin, install OTR plugin. Now you can communicate securely with others who have also installed Pidgin and OTR plugin. This is free, it uses rotating AES symmetric keys. No one stands to make any money or get any sweet government buddy points by selling you out, because there's nothing to sell out. It's all free, as in free, as in beer, as in speech, as in whatever.

    Google can't be trusted.

    1. Re:No by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      Now you can communicate securely with others who have also installed Pidgin and OTR plugin

      And there's the stumbling block, when the vast majority of people neither know nor care about security to bother setting up this or any other form of secure communication. PGP has been around for encrypted email for years, but how many non technical people do you know who secure their personal mail with certificates?

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
  15. Already a solved problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are already so very many video conferencing/calling solutions out there. Some with open source and some with encryption and some with both. The only reason google makes a video app is so they can snoop on you.

    If your privacy really is meaningless and worth nothing, how did google get to be worth billions and billions of dollars by collecting and selling it? If advertising can't affect people, how did google get to be worth billions and billions of dollars by serving ads? Think about it.

  16. POTS by darkain · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Serious question. POTS systems are pretty much standardized world-wide, except for the numbering schemes between various regions around the globe. But right now, I can simply dial a number for virtually any country in the world, and it'll work.

    Fragmentation within the video space exists BECAUSE of what Google is doing right now. This isn't their first chat system. It isn't their second. It really isn't even their third system. (Chat, Voice, Hangouts, Google+). If they can't even manage decent interoperability between their own services, how the hell are end users supposed to enjoy this?

    Since the POTS networks have been upgraded over the years to include things like CallerID, SMS and HD Audio/VoLTE, why couldn't they just add another universal expansion for a video protocol that can be standardized across the board that any telco and handset manufacturer could get behind? I don't need to worry about having to download an app to be able to call or text someone, why should I have to do the same if the exact same call contains video on top of voice/text?

    1. Re:POTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is no money in that...at least not for them.
      on the other hand a fully encrypted stream that could only be (over)heard by the participants and google is a gold mine.
      Try saying repeatedly 'diaper, diaper...' and 'dildo, dildo...' before you search something on google and see the result for yourself

    2. Re:POTS by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      Serious question. POTS systems are pretty much standardized world-wide, except for the numbering schemes between various regions around the globe. But right now, I can simply dial a number for virtually any country in the world, and it'll work.

      Except for certain parts of New Jersey Verizon no longer gives a fuck about (and is allowed to by a corrupt state government, along with an FCC that can no longer be bothered with mere copper).

    3. Re:POTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already standarized as part of VoLTE (IR.92/IR.94 are the standards) which include video calling in HD. The issue is more of (a) not every country/operator has VoLTE and theres no way to charge for it yet.

    4. Re:POTS by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      The folks at Jitsi are trying to realise your vision. I've used it and it's got some rough edges, but it really hopes to be a FOSS, standards-based Skype/Facetime killer.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  17. "End-to-end" for certain definition of end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "End-to-end" encryption where one end is Google's server.

    If you think this makes you safe from snooping you better think again. It has been proven time and time again that the most common malicious agent when it comes to internet communications is the government. They want to read everything you send and/or receive. Google decrypts your messages and video on their end, and store them in plaintext for government agencies to inspect. Do not trust Google with your security. They have been known not only to happily turn over and sell user data but also to actively scan files and messages and then inform the police about suspected "illegal" activities. They absolutely CANNOT be trusted, avoid them like the plague.

    1. Re:"End-to-end" for certain definition of end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google IS the American Government. Schmidt works for the DOD. Everyone should stop seeing Google as a company and more like a branch of the DOD.

  18. Another product that is being done over and over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google, just make a facetime client that works on *ALL* Android platforms. That include Kindle. Stop frag-ing the environment. Also desktop and web - hence full web solution.

    If I want stand alone app -- GET "Line". Text, Voice, VoIP, "Face"... just as easy as using test messaging.
     

  19. Is this penis-wave encryption? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    How does the encryption work? I can't find an explanation on Google.

    Key handling and exchange is hard; most non-hard methods of key exchange require some sort of penis-shaped sound wave to remediate their bad design.

  20. Why not just port Hangouts? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Was there no iOS app for Hangouts? It seems like Google is just trying to re-invent their wheel. I look forward to this Allo/Duo thing. There's a lot of hype behind it so maybe it will bring something new and useful to the table.

  21. Google's "end-to-end" encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is not so good when you learn that it's actually routed through Google's servers, and that they have all the keys to read the traffic. But of course it fools the dumb 99% into thinking they will be safe, secure, protected, free.

  22. more fragmentation... by lkcl · · Score: 1

    The biggest issue is fragmentation

    we know!

    The offering is available for both Android and iOS -- the only two mobile platforms that matter (sorry, Windows 10 Mobile).

    so the biggest issue is fragmentation... but they leave out Windows 10 Mobile.... oh dear :)

    1. Re:more fragmentation... by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 0

      Why would they cater for Windows 10 Mobile? Here, see how relevant it is: http://www.windows10update.com....

  23. Happy people by jimbo · · Score: 1

    If I see one more picture of mindlessly happy people I shall raise my cane in a threatening manner!

    So, no desktop support - more fragmentation then...

  24. I think that everyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...is missing the point of Google Duo. The problem with current version of video chat is that if you own and Android you can't video chat someone that owns an iphone and vice verse. With Duo, supposedly you can if both parties have Google Duo installed. My wife and I are going to love this if it works. No matter how hard I try I can't get her to give up are iPhone so we have never been able to video chat. I'm going to download this right now, and when her and I meet for lunch we are going to give this a shot!

    1. Re:I think that everyone... by johanw · · Score: 1

      I have no problems with video calling between Android and iOS: Viber and BBM both can do it. Skype too, but Skype refuses to connect to my wifi because I once had a Tor exit node running at home. They apparently hate anonymous communication.

    2. Re: I think that everyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are other video chat apps out there that work on both platforms. Google is doing nothing new here.

    3. Re:I think that everyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to know; I was unaware of either of these apps. I did download Google Duo at lunch on both of our devices, and it works well.

  25. Facetime works on computers by linuxguy · · Score: 1

    I have used many of the popular video conf/chat solutions. To talk with family and coworkers for meetings. I have for now standardized on Google Hangouts. It mostly works, and works on many devices and platforms. I have also on occasion used Facetime. I do not have an iphone or ipad, but have a Macbook. It surprises me that Google is pitching this product as a Facetime replacement. I can use Facetime on my computer. The same is not true of Google Duo. For now, Google Duo is entirely useless to people who need a solution that also works on computers.

    1. Re:Facetime works on computers by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      I use NetMeeting.

    2. Re:Facetime works on computers by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Facetime doesn't work on computers, or at least 95% of them which aren't Macs.
      Hangouts works just fine on computers. No need for Duo.

    3. Re:Facetime works on computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it uses WebRTC most likely it will be available in chrome as well in the not too distant future.

    4. Re:Facetime works on computers by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Hackintosh virtualized.

    5. Re:Facetime works on computers by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      You can run a fully functional Android window on a windows/mac OS. Then run Duo.

    6. Re:Facetime works on computers by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      for all 2 people out there with a hackingtosh this is also an option...

  26. Allo app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the 'Allo 'Allo app?

  27. CUSeeMe by crow · · Score: 1

    No thanks. I'll stick with CUSeeMe.

    Seriously, this was working just fine twenty years ago. Why is this still a problem? Granted, CUSeeMe didn't have encryption, but you could do multi-way video conferences, and it was cross-platform.

    Skype at least covers all the major platforms. We use it for a weekly video call with our son's grandparents across the country who would otherwise rarely see him. It's not perfect, but it works well enough (Android to Windows laptop).

    Google Hangouts also covers all the major platforms. We tried it for our weekly video call, but ran into too many glitches, and Skype does the job.

    This may add end-to-end encryption, which is a plus, but it needs to be significantly better than Skype to take over. That means a *good* desktop interface, as well as mobile. You might even be able to do an HTML5 version and have it work everywhere.

    1. Re:CUSeeMe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does skype do so well that you're sticking with it? Is it the NSA back doors that make you feel safer? Is it the wonderful attention to the Linux client that you enjoy? There is a reason Skype is crumbling in use. Once it is locked away nicely in the windows store, you can safely use it with your secure rom PC's in Windows 10 only!

    2. Re:CUSeeMe by crow · · Score: 1

      Skype works fine on my Android phone, and it works on my mother's Windows laptop. When we tried Google Hangouts, something didn't work. We're sticking with Skype because the core functionality works for us: video phone calls.

      Yes, it has it's problems:
      *) Encryption is sub-par.
      *) It drops connections if my phone jumps networks.

      But it works on the platforms we need it to work on, and it solves our problem. Switching would require that the core video conferencing of the new alternative be noticeably better. Otherwise it's not worth the effort to walk my mother through it.

  28. FBI knows already ---- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is nothing from Google that isn't spied on. Eric Schmidt works at the Pentagon for crying out loud. If it passes through *anywhere*.* Google or gstatic or google-analytics ... encryption is a moot point.

    Use Firefox less than/equal to 45.0 and NoScript add-on. Remove every default permission under XSS, and uncheck all under ABE.

    Then do this, every single step.
    https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-making-automatic-connections

    Install the addon Adblock Plus and Adblock Element hider ... also here is a good start for a custom filter list.
    http://pasted.co/6aeed3e0

    Just copy it all as a .txt file and import it at CUSTOM filter. Move the dialog box to custom. It will add it. Use that format to block whole domains as you come across them. You can enable/disable immediately if needed. For casual surfing just leave it enabled.

    The rest of the smart tweaks I will not post lest Slashdot FBI pursues counter-spy shit and you have to go back to Firefox 2.03. (which I do have)

  29. dont use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    google is ran by the CIA/NSA and they want every single piece of your existence

    you arent even a human fucking being to them

    dont use it

  30. Wire app? by xandre · · Score: 1

    What about https://wire.com ? It appears to be a better option.

  31. Standards by yurikhan · · Score: 1

    Start by agreeing on a common open federated protocol and common patent-unencumbered codecs for video and audio. Then and only then client and server software will follow.

  32. Obligatory: by Zanadou · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't get to used to it; Google will just discontinue it in 18 months.

  33. Not gonna happen. by Zibodiz · · Score: 1

    Skype won because it had clients for every OS under the Sun, then MS merged it with MSN Messenger, its largest competitor. Sure, it's a little buggy (although substantially less than Hangouts or Facebook Video Chat), but everyone has it.
    The encryption issue is a non-starter for two reasons: First, there isn't a viable competitor that does adequately encrypt and open the source code so that you know it really did. Second, 90%+ of the userbase don't care.
    Sorry Google, but you're not going to win the war with MS on this front; at least not with this.

  34. Jobs lied to us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember back in 2010 when Steve Jobs said something about making FaceTime an open standard?

    #stillwaiting

    1. Re: Jobs lied to us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's dead so don't hold your breath waiting for him to accomplish this.