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

WebRTC is almost here, and it will change the web

venturebeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: WebRTC is almost here, and it will change the web

#81

Post by dbaupp »

rorrr wrote: post #62
spindritf wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please explain how I can have a secure online conversation with my mother easily. (Easy for me, easy for her). Pidgin with OTR -- configure and verify keys once, use whatever protocol you want. It is doable and not very difficult right now, the problem really is that no one cares.

That's assuming the clients are not compromised, hardware is not compromized, and "whatever protocol" is not susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks.

If the hardware is compromised then all bets are off. No protocol is secure when running on compromised hardware.

Re: WebRTC is almost here, and it will change the web

#83

Post by slurgfest »

moe wrote: post #79

And when you screw off the wheel it can double as a mop! What exactly does it help to have your video-feed drive around on a broomstick? I can see the entertainment value for a couple days. But when it's time to get work done again I sure as hell don't see people preferring a video broomstick next to their desk over a plain old skype-window...

Not sure what you're getting at by "drive around on a broomstick." To be sure, the article is more breathless than it needs to be. WebRTC seems to my untutored eye to be a boring, practical, good idea.

Skype is a proprietary service which (last I checked) still requires you to locally install their binary, and is completely under the control of one company... as a risk-averse person I wouldn't bet the farm building on top of any technology which requires me to swear fealty to Skype or Facebook, because who knows what will happen in a year?

Re: WebRTC is almost here, and it will change the web

#84

Post by ZoFreX »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #77
ZoFreX wrote: post #69

While this tech is exciting for a wide variety of reasons, this blog post completely misses the point for me in its efforts to hype this. > imagine it amplified by secure, real-time transmissions of audio and video Ok, I'm imagining it. And I'll still be imagining it in 12 months time, because WebRTC does nothing to fix the outstanding issues in setting up secure communications. > Skype, Cisco, and Polycom will all s…

> Why would in-browser conferencing, which will almost certainly be a worse experience than Skype What would give you that impression? A site that lets you automatically join a conference call just by visiting a page seems far more usable than Skype.

Because a general purpose device (in this case, the browser) generally falls behind in a few ways compared to a specific purpose device (in this case Skype). A few examples:

Stability: For Skype to break, you need to either crash Skype or the entire computer or O/S. For your in-browser conferencing, you just need the web browser to crash.

Connectivity: Skype has put huge amounts of work into punching through firewalls, and has many settings dedicated to that. Furthermore it's a common enough option on SOHO/consumer routers to let it through. P2P browser connectivity just isn't there yet.

Security: Our firewall at work is configured to allow Skype through. I doubt it's configured to let browsers open direct raw socket connections to any IP and port they please. I can't even begin to imagine how a network administrator is supposed to lock these capabilities down, other than completely disallowing them.

UX: Again, Skype is a dedicated program so it can do a lot more. It can keep a little overlay window open in the corner of your screen so you can look at a web page or document but keep an eye on your call. It can hook into the O/S to ensure your microphone is selected and unmuted. It can tell your music player to pause when a call comes in. None of this is possible with a browser (yes, you could add APIs, but where do you stop - are browsers going to become the next JVM, creating a cross-platform API that plasters over the differences between O/S's?)

My last point is mildly tangential: Why would P2P in-browser conferencing disrupt Skype / Polycom when it has literally zero perceivable difference to the end-user compared to regular client-server in-browser conferencing (other than the fact that with P2P you will be able to connect to fewer people than in the client-server model)?

Re: WebRTC is almost here, and it will change the web

#85

Post by slurgfest »

jan_g wrote: post #63

Is no one here worried about (again!) audio/video codecs and presence implementation? As far as I've read webrtc specs there are no specifics, they've left implementation details in the hands of implementors. I fear that Microsoft will push something skype-specific, Google (and possibly Mozilla) vp8 and xmpp/jingle, who knows what Apple will do with Safari. And different clients/browsers won't be able to communicate…

vp8/xmpp/jingle are open standards with open implementations, and Safari is a Webkit browser with a pretty good track record. Whatever Apple's problems, it doesn't seem too uncomfortable with using stuff that is BSD licensed.

Nobody can force Microsoft to support open standards, without the leverage of popular adoption and demand. So it makes no sense to wait on Microsoft to support open standards before trying to use them.

So if browsers can't talk to each other, whose fault is that? If Microsoft decides to be the odd man out, it's Microsoft's fault. If everyone else allows open standards to be suppressed as they wait for Microsoft, then they will be responsible for a world where Microsoft controls everything. Is that really what you are looking for here?

Anyway, these days Microsoft has shifted more support away from things like Silverlight, so I think there is a good hope that things will not be just like the bad old days.

Re: WebRTC is almost here, and it will change the web

#86

Post by Ralith »

StavrosK wrote: post #52
Ralith wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The frequency of security updates over the last decade is a disgrace. Would you have preferred they only released security updates once a year?

I'm guessing he would have preferred it if Flash didn't have more bugs than an entomology lab.

It's important that rapid, even numerous, security updates are never seen as a bad thing, because that would provide incentive to choose the obvious alternative for the sake of appearance, despite the actual reduction in security.

Re: WebRTC is almost here, and it will change the web

#87

Post by novalis »

sp332 wrote: post #71
novalis wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the sort of PR that doesn't get held back by facts. Also, to pretend that Steve Jobs was some sort of unilateral source of fair reasoning on the matter is either disingenuous or very short sighted. I hope it isn't both. But please, do not take my word for it: http://truegryc.blogspot.pt/2010/05/response-to-thoughts-on-...

Look I'm not claiming Steve Jobs is exactly unbiased :) But the "real" reason given in that article can't be right: Apple's stance appears driven by their business need to protect the iPhone platform against the threat of a cross-platform competitor. Remember the first iPhone didn't have an app store! It had a full(ish)-featured web browser that people were expected to write "apps" for. Apple continues to encourage d…

I see your point but when the text was produced, the app store was already going at full steam. The app store locks in the consumer when there isn't another clear path to that sort of content. The sort of content they pushed out of the plat by referencing the lack of capacity to use "touch"... give me a break, stuff like that was repeated ad infinitum. That and the other stuff on there doesn't qualify as "real" either, does it.

To the downvoter, you are a pitiful fanboy.

Re: WebRTC is almost here, and it will change the web

#88

Post by StavrosK »

Ralith wrote: post #86
StavrosK wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing he would have preferred it if Flash didn't have more bugs than an entomology lab.

It's important that rapid, even numerous, security updates are never seen as a bad thing, because that would provide incentive to choose the obvious alternative for the sake of appearance, despite the actual reduction in security.

I completely agree with you. However, the updates are the symptom, and the OP was remarking upon the disease.

Re: WebRTC is almost here, and it will change the web

#90

Post by Ralith »

StavrosK wrote: post #88
Ralith wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important that rapid, even numerous, security updates are never seen as a bad thing, because that would provide incentive to choose the obvious alternative for the sake of appearance, despite the actual reduction in security.

I completely agree with you. However, the updates are the symptom, and the OP was remarking upon the disease.

I merely intended to point out that if he intends to remark upon the disease, he should do so.
Post reply on HN