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

FaceTime is coming to Android and Windows via the web

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 352 posts

Re: FaceTime is coming to Android and Windows via the web

#161

Post by yhoneycomb »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #91
kwanbix wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a honest question, so, what is so good about FaceTime? I have not used an iPhone since version 3GS, so it has been a while, but I understand it is just something similar to whatsapp video calls, google meet, or even zoom?

In my family, it was the best video calling option back in 2010-2012 or so, and there was no competition. So all the older people only know how to use Facetime, and no one is going to go through the trouble of teaching them anything else. I also have been embarrassed trying to teach Google's solutions and then Google messing with them over and over, so I won't ever try to introduce a Google service again.

Seriously why are Google video calls SO confusing and why do they change every year?

Re: FaceTime is coming to Android and Windows via the web

#162

Post by SilverRed »

floatingatoll wrote: post #108
kevincox wrote: post #18

Wow. That is unexpected. I have to say that FaceTime in a browser sandbox is one of the few Apple products I would consider using. I wonder what made them take this path? I also wonder if someone could build a Matrix bridge if it is available via web, that would be fairly cool. Some questions: - Is it phone-number based IDs? Or can I pick a username or get a random ID? - Is spam going to be a problem? Previous Apple…

My theory is that FaceTime calls can only be initiated/scheduled from an Apple device. That prevents most of the spam problem, since you won’t be able to initiate a call through web.

This also boosts value for ios users more than the rest. It means an ios user can facetime anyone rather than only ios users while an android users still has to rely on an alternative solution.

Re: FaceTime is coming to Android and Windows via the web

#163

Post by SilverRed »

madeofpalk wrote: post #153
Someone1234 wrote: post #44

A lot of Apple's previous attempts at "web apps" have been pretty half-arsed. Including Apple Music currently. Let's see if this is any different. I'm currently using Signal on Windows/Android/iOS and apart from two annoyances it is fine. - No gif support on Windows (Android/iOS only) - Cannot add a second phone but can add a tablet. As soon as it detects a SIM card slot (with or without SIM in it) it only allows you…

> Including Apple Music currently. Oh god. The Apple Music web app is so incredibly bad. Hands out the worst web experience I've ever had. It flat out cannot do its function (play music) reliably at all. I’m so confused why they thought it was shippable - they should be embarrassed that this is something they released to paying customers. It’s terrible . It made me switch to Spotify.

Identical experience. It was so buggy that clicking the play icon on a song would play a random other song in the same list. As well as being insanely slow. Switched to spotify and it has worked well.

Re: FaceTime is coming to Android and Windows via the web

#164

Post by SilverRed »

Y-bar wrote: post #121
someonehere wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want half assed? FaceTime when it was announced by Steve Jobs, he himself up on stage said it would be open source. The developers in the front rows looked at each other and said, “did we say it would be open sourced?” It’s still not open sourced to this day.

You are correct that the idea to make it open source was a spur of the moment that took the developers by surprise. But the reason why it never happens can be spelled VirnetX

> VirnetX has been described as being a patent troll, accused of marketing no actual products or services and instead earning its revenue through licensing patents

I'm so glad we have the patent system around to promote innovation and protect creators!

Re: FaceTime is coming to Android and Windows via the web

#165

Post by derwiki »

yhoneycomb wrote: post #161
lotsofpulp wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my family, it was the best video calling option back in 2010-2012 or so, and there was no competition. So all the older people only know how to use Facetime, and no one is going to go through the trouble of teaching them anything else. I also have been embarrassed trying to teach Google's solutions and then Google messing with them over and over, so I won't ever try to introduce a Google service again.

Seriously why are Google video calls SO confusing and why do they change every year?

Google video engineers gotta justify that promo to Senior Staff

Re: FaceTime is coming to Android and Windows via the web

#166

Post by SilverRed »

swiley wrote: post #72
bilal4hmed wrote: post #5

Its only 1 way which means an Apple user can send a link to a non ios user to join in. I as an Android user cant do that. Cross platform like whatsapp, duo or signal still win here

>forcing someone to create an account that uses their phone number and installs an app on their device If I had any choice I would decline to join a whatsapp or signal call.

Phone number authentication is pretty nasty but it seems to be the only somewhat reliable method of spam prevention. It seems to be next to impossible to get extra phone numbers without government ID and large costs.

These days even most email providers require phone number authentication to register.

Re: FaceTime is coming to Android and Windows via the web

#167

Post by SilverRed »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #129
542458 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heck, domestic SMS costs money for lots of people!

That would be amazing to me in the US, I assumed everyone had unlimited SMS/MMS/within the US phone calls. I have not shopped for mobile plans in over a decade though.

It varies by country. In Australia basically all phone plans have unlimited SMS but in places like south america and africa it seems common to charge huge rates for sms which is why whatsapp is so big over there.

Re: FaceTime is coming to Android and Windows via the web

#169

Post by commoner »

joecool1029 wrote: post #117
commoner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal: developed by a non-profit organization, free and open source, end-to-end encrypted in all regions, no encryption key hosting arrangements with any government-owned third party firm

> no encryption key hosting arrangements with any government-owned third party firm Not really needed when your IME is spying on you. Signal in such an arrangement becomes security theater. They acknowledge this is a problem on their support site but never make any attempt to educate new users to the app: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360055276112-In... . It is arrogant to dismiss concerns about common…

My point is that Signal is preferable to Apple Messages for privacy and security. I am not claiming that Signal is the best solution for every use case. (For instance, Matrix is superior if you do not want to be tied to a phone number.)

> Not really needed when your IME is spying on you.

Users can choose an open source keyboard on Android, such as AnySoftKeyboard or the default Android Keyboard (on AOSP installations). I don't know of any open source keyboards on the App Store for iOS, but the lack of an open source keyboard on iOS does not justify compromising encryption keys for Apple Messages users in certain regions.

Signal is not responsible for the security of the rest of the user's system, and if a user is using a keyboard that leaks information, then that also affects Apple Messages and any other app they are using, not just Signal.

> Want to also point out that months go by without server code being published

The Apple Messages server and clients are completely proprietary, so Signal is still preferable even though it had previously released server source code with a delay.

> Also, when users protested reliance on Google's store, analytics, and play services...

Apple Messages is only available as an app on iOS, iPadOS, and macOS, with no option to fork because it is closed source. FaceTime is the same, but now also has a web app with limited functionality. On Android, Signal is still preferable in this area because it is fully available, can be used without Google Play Services, and can be distributed independently of an app store.

Re: FaceTime is coming to Android and Windows via the web

#170

Post by rOOb85 »

joecool1029 wrote: post #117
commoner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal: developed by a non-profit organization, free and open source, end-to-end encrypted in all regions, no encryption key hosting arrangements with any government-owned third party firm

> no encryption key hosting arrangements with any government-owned third party firm Not really needed when your IME is spying on you. Signal in such an arrangement becomes security theater. They acknowledge this is a problem on their support site but never make any attempt to educate new users to the app: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360055276112-In... . It is arrogant to dismiss concerns about common…

> Not really needed when your IME is spying on you. Signal in such an arrangement becomes security theater.

This is not a signal issue. Literally every single app that gets user input from a keyboard suffers from this issue. Saying this is a signal issue is like saying flat tires are a ford issue.

> >free and open source > Want to also point out that months go by without server code being published:

Is there some unwritten rule that a open source project must publish code every x days to be considered open source? All of signals code has always been open source and always will be.

> Also, when users protested reliance on Google's store, analytics

Analytics? Care to show me where they ever used them? 99% sure they have never used them.

> Moxie chose to attack the forks

It takes a lot of money and man hours to maintain the servers and infrastructure for signal, why should OWS pay for other projects to use it? Signal is 100% open source, if someone thinks they can create a better replacement... They are free to take all of signals code and make their own app. But don't expect OWS to pay for the infrastructure and let them leech.

Post reply on HN