Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FaceTime on the web requires Chrome or Edge, no mention of Firefox

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 199 posts

Re: FaceTime on the web requires Chrome or Edge, no mention of Firefox

#171

Post by lxgr »

behnamoh wrote: post #88
nklmilojevic wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot achieve true E2E encryption on Firefox as it doesn't support insertable streams, so I guess this is where the limitation is. EDIT: bug on bugzilla https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1631263

Then how come Zoom works in FF?

Zoom does very weird things in the browser. They essentially don‘t use WebRTC, but rather grab raw camera frames, H.264 encode them in software (using WASM!) and shove them down a Websocket (or WebRTC Data Connection. This lets them use their own encryption as well.

More details: https://webrtchacks.com/zoom-avoids-using-webrtc/

Re: FaceTime on the web requires Chrome or Edge, no mention of Firefox

#172

Post by lxgr »

systoll wrote: post #102
behnamoh wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how come Zoom works in FF?

Because the Zoom web client doesn't support end-to-end encrypted calls. Only their apps do. https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360048660871-End-t...

That can‘t be why – one benefit of their weird way of using WebRTC is that it would actually allow them to provide end to end encryption in all browsers, regardless of support for WebRTC insertable streams.

Re: FaceTime on the web requires Chrome or Edge, no mention of Firefox

#173

Post by simondotau »

namdnay wrote: post #65
simondotau wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really! My respect for France has gone up a few notches.

Don't get too excited, in France there's a tax on all storage devices (sd cards, usb sticks, hdds, laptops, phones etc) to help subsidise the record and film industry...

Honestly, I'd take that trade. A narrow, stupid tax is definitely the lesser of two evils here. (Especially as it means I'd have a moral license to pirate whatever I wish!)

Re: FaceTime on the web requires Chrome or Edge, no mention of Firefox

#174

Post by simondotau »

nephanth wrote: post #105
namdnay wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get too excited, in France there's a tax on all storage devices (sd cards, usb sticks, hdds, laptops, phones etc) to help subsidise the record and film industry...

Note that internal HDDs aren't taxed under this tax, only external ones. (So if you don't want to pay it, you can just buy a SATA HDd and an adaptor). Phones are taxed though (yes this doesn't make any sense technically)

Is the tax on a phone's storage capacity or its overall retail price?

Re: FaceTime on the web requires Chrome or Edge, no mention of Firefox

#175

Post by [deleted] »

drw85 wrote: post #94
namdnay wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get too excited, in France there's a tax on all storage devices (sd cards, usb sticks, hdds, laptops, phones etc) to help subsidise the record and film industry...

Germany has that too. Even on paper, since you could copy pages under copyright.

[deleted]

Re: FaceTime on the web requires Chrome or Edge, no mention of Firefox

#178

Post by musicale »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #59
tyrion wrote: post #49

It may seem an advantage to use the latest cutting edge features of a single platform, instead of using well established standards which are compatible with every browser. Sure, you are going to leave out some small minority of users, but you gain access to many new features. However, you are helping push the web become an increasingly centralized place, controlled by just a few entities, with interests which are ver…

I can count the number of developers I've worked with over the last 5 years that care about it working in any browser other than Chrome on one finger. This idea that only Chrome matters is absolutely coming from the bottom up and when you point out something broken in Safari the first response from them is "Does it work in Chrome?" before they even look at it because they themselves don't even test in a second browse…

"Web Browser" === "Chrome"

I suppose we're back in the golden era of "Works Best With Internet Explorer."

Re: FaceTime on the web requires Chrome or Edge, no mention of Firefox

#179

Post by NavinF »

southerntofu wrote: post #56
NavinF wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's very practical. A lot of devices are just too weak to encode anything other than H.264 so that's the one codec you must support. Other codecs are better, but you have to do more testing and enable those codecs only on calls where all members are using a device that supports it.

> A lot of devices are just too weak to encode anything other than H.264 Not that your point is wrong, but a lot of devices are too weak to encode/decode H264 as well. It's very recent for me to have access to second-hand hardware with H264 support and still i'm in western Europe where it's easier to come by. Though as the other commenter pointed out, if you can afford to use hardware en/decoders then it's always the…

Are you sure you're not thinking of H265?

I'm kinda curious which devices don't support H264

Re: FaceTime on the web requires Chrome or Edge, no mention of Firefox

#180

Post by cyanydeez »

acqq wrote: post #164
spankalee wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WebRTC Insertable Streams: https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6321945865879552

The state of it in Firefox: "Opened Apr 2020" https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/330 Then in October added "Insertable streams is worth prototyping " Also: "I will remind people that this isn't the place for advocating for what gets implemented in Firefox. This is something that the media team needs to work out." then "closed 26 Oct 2020" But, hey, it's June 2021, you just got a new UI redesign whi…

firefox has serious performance issues, i had to switch to chromium.

i really want to support firefox in my development but their tooling is just not presented in a rational footprint. when i inspect a vue proxy object, i dont want to see all the setters and getters.

they are losing mind share because neight to user facing components normthe dev facing have a well considered presentation or pefformancd

Post reply on HN