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

Firefox Hello

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 239 posts

Re: Firefox Hello

#181

Post by vidarh »

zanny wrote: post #98
windlep wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WebRTC was "generically" added to Firefox in 2013, ie: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/06/webrtc-comes-to-firefox/ Of course, with it being added generically, tons of websites immediately started using it..... nope. Ok, well, lets go back before that blog post... https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/02/hello-chrome-its-firefox-c... Ah ha, isn't that neat. WebRTC in Firefox and Chrome and a demo of it! Wait, still pretty muc…

I've had good experiences with talky and I know hangouts uses webrtc. I think the biggest problem is the lack of accounts, chat, logging, and persistence in webrtc. Thats what keeps it from being a p2p communication protocol in general whereas now its just a toy for video calls. I mean, when you cannot share links during your video call easily, somethings wrong.

It may be "something wrong" for you, but for me it's exactly what I need to let my mother video chat with her grandson after Skype became useless (breaks more often with every passing release, it seems; we've given up on it).

Sharing links, accounts, chat, logging and persistence are all irrelevant for my use, and they in any case don't belong in webrtc - webrtc is a component for people to use to build services like what you appear to want.

Re: Firefox Hello

#182

Post by 72deluxe »

tormeh wrote: post #108
vertex-four wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telefonica run O2 in the UK, which is a decent mobile network (and the only one which covers my house).

O2 in Germany sucks, though. You actually have to snail-mail them your resignation letter, there are frequent brief outages in the night and they are often slow at setting up your service. I mean, they do deliver decent internet, but their customer service is awful.

I would prefer to send them written notice about resignation rather than a call where they try and talk you out of it. I do the same with credit cards because you always get put through to the "please stay with us, keep your card, just don't use it" people who I don't wish to argue with.

Re: Firefox Hello

#183

Post by MichaelGG »

jonchang wrote: post #164
MichaelGG wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a like a case study in how to [not] handle messaging towards technical users. There's no issue here, but it just appears like Firefox is now shipping apps or something, rather than essentially a bookmark.

What led you to believe that the linked page was targeted towards technical users?

Not saying it was. Just that FF has a lot of sensitive, technical, users, so Mozilla has to deal with this insanity it looks like. Thus, they might consider having a "how it works" or "why" section to calm such users.

Re: Firefox Hello

#184

Post by 72deluxe »

mattmanser wrote: post #63
jlebar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. Exactly. Firefox doesn't include "Firefox Hello" anymore than it includes "Gmail". Instead, Firefox (and other web browsers) include XMLHttpRequest and WebRTC, which can be used to implement whatever you want. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing this trope ("teh bloat!") anytime a browser announces new functi…

My parents had an uncanny knack for always buying slightly the wrong thing when I was a kid. Betamax, Amigas, minidiscs. I used to have a cassette player that had a tape recorder on it. It made it bigger and heavier, and probably more expensive and I never used the record feature. Just because part of the product works well, doesn't mean the rest of it is good.

My parents had a Betamax too. Massive top-loading device. My dad's still got it in his loft along with his BBC A, B, B+, Master.....

Weirdly just the other month my brother bought a stash of minidiscs and players instead of just using a cheap MP3 player. I don't understand why.

Re: Firefox Hello

#185

Post by Sir_Substance »

reidrac wrote: post #178
Sir_Substance wrote: post #107

It seems there is a lot of confusion going on here. Firefox hello is a website that implements webRTC based video conferencing in a browser agnostic way. The "firefox hello" button that has shown up in recent versions of the browser is a bit of UI magic over an API to this website. The video conferencing code is not implemented in the browser. If you send a firefox hello link to a chrome user, it opens the webpage wh…

I have a success story with that. I moved abroad and I have a chat with my parents using Skype from time to time. After the Microsoft acquisition Skype had to be upgraded and the old version stopped working. My parents aren't tech-savvy really and I failed to diagnose their problem remotely, so I tried https://talky.io/ (just because I watched Sam Dutton talk about WebRTC and he used that web for a demo). It worked (…

This is exactly the sort of thing it is fantastic at. Being able to email or SMS people link and have it Just Work without passwords or accounts or port forwarding is actually really nifty, and exactly what you need to start a chat with grandma.

For the record, my experience has been that firefox hello is superior in quality to skype.

Re: Firefox Hello

#186

Post by 72deluxe »

orangecat wrote: post #113
criley2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just call it the "Chrome-ification" of Firefox. Chrome is automatically updated to be jam-packed full of browser-specific APIs and functionality. Like when Chrome automatically updated and registered itself as a background service without permission. Or when Chrome automatically installed a microphone listening service for always on "OK Google" hotword detection. Or the fact that Chrome Apps are less and less "webpag…

It's a shame what's happening to the web. We've apparently decided that we should use "the web" for everything, whether or not it's a good fit. So yeah, browsers are unavoidably going to accumulate features that used to be the responsibility of apps or the OS. And there will be lots of browser-specific functionality unless you're willing to wait 5 years for W3C or WHATWG or whoever to finalize a standard.

That's a good point. The net is great for shoving data backwards and forwards but for the web it doesn't necessarily mean that the browser should be expected to do EVERYTHING.

There used to be a time when most of the posts here on HN were "something native IMPLEMENTED IN JavaScript in a BROWSER" but thankfully those times have passed to the most part.

The Internet was heralded as solving cross-platform problems (hurray for XML?) but it seems that writing a native app actually involves less testing. You now have to test in 3 or 4 browsers per platform, not including mobile devices and changes between different versions. The relentless shoving of features into browsers is no different to what they've been doing for years but I can see why people would not enjoy it, particularly with the repeat of "only works in IE" that you see ("only works in Chrome").

Re: Firefox Hello

#187

Post by 72deluxe »

suyash wrote: post #17

Now the question is can you enable 'Screen sharing' utility to it? It could then be a killer app for meetings and conferences getting rid of all the expensive external software applications? When I say screen share, I mean not just the browser's screen but the whole computer screen?

I am not sure giving the browser permission to poll your entire screen via an API is a good idea - think of the possible abuses.

Re: Firefox Hello

#188

Post by 72deluxe »

Shivetya wrote: post #30

and here I remember the day this all started because browsers had become bloated.

I used it when it was named Firebird, and it was buggy. I remember being amazed when Google released Chrome, and Safari was available as a buggy mess on Windows.

I still miss Mozilla Composer and Microsoft Frontpage for writing abysmal HTML with everywhere.

Re: Firefox Hello

#189

Post by _nedR »

jfoster wrote: post #65
nolok wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I somehow hoped Mozilla would never employ these kind of business models where is user is the product. Then you must be naive, given that this has been Mozilla's main source of income for years.

That's true. Their business model is essentially selling users to search engines. That said, they have always done it quite softly by selling users to the search engine that most of them want to use anyway, and making it very easy for users to opt-out of that arrangement.

> they have always done it quite softly...

That would be because they're a non-profit working for the benefit of said users.

Re: Firefox Hello

#190

Post by chriswarbo »

yarou wrote: post #137
thesumofall wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually shocked by seeing Telefonica being able to so obviously placing their brand inside Firefox. I think it will seriously undermine peoples' trust into what is supposed to be an "independent" browser. Yes, people on HN know that Mozilla is since many years dependent on the sponsorship of Google et al. but having such obvious advertising?? Come on, Mozilla!

I think you misunderstand the point of FOSS. It doesn't matter if government funds it (Tor) or if private interests fund it (entire GNU ecosystem). It's about freedom to distribute and modify the source as one sees fit.

Also, advertising and sponsorship don't have to be one-way streets.

For example, by funding Mozilla, Google helped to remove Microsoft's browser monopoly. Since Google's business relies on the Web, that made perfect sense. Now they have their own browser too, which makes things complicated :)

Likewise, Microsoft currently has a dominant influence in video chat, thanks to Skype. It makes sense for Telefonica to erode that dominance, since they have more business opportunities in an open, many many ecosystem compared to a Skype-only one.

Too many companies base their business model on becoming a monopoly in their field ("the next Microsoft", "the next Google", "the next Facebook", "the next Twitter", etc.), rather than allowing interoperability and having to succeed on merit. When this inevitably fails, they leave behind nothing except useless, incompatible APIs. Hopefully this is different :)

Post reply on HN