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.
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.
What about desktop applications? Is this planned?
Line works very well between android and IOS. There is a windows client but I haven't tried it with video conferencing.
Google Duo isn't peer to peer or open source. Fail.
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.
I like how Google is solving the problem of refusing to use video chat with more video chat.
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
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?
Does not work on tablets, iPad or desktop because it is phone number based. :-(
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
https://xkcd.com/927/
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
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 :)
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...
...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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
What about https://wire.com ? It appears to be a better option.
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.
I wouldn't get to used to it; Google will just discontinue it in 18 months.
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.