Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Aug 2013 15:43 UTC
Google

Noticed any differences when using Google's Hangouts video chat lately? If you did, then you may be one of the lucky users who has already received an upgrade to 720p HD video. The company quietly started to roll out HD for Hangouts to a subset of its users in the last few weeks and hopes to complete the rollout soon. But the change isn't just a quality upgrade - it's part of a bigger move towards open standards that will eventually bring us video chat in the browser without the need for any plugins.

To enable HD, and prepare for this plugin-free future, Google quietly started to transition Hangouts from the H.264 video codec to VP8, an open and royalty-free video codec the company released back in 2010. Google's Vice President of Engineering Chee Chew told me during a recent interview that the switchover from H.264 to VP8 should be more or less invisible to consumers, with some possibly noticing a little less choppiness. "It will be cleaner, better video," Chew said.

Good move.

On a related note, whatever happened to Apple's promise to make FaceTime an open standard?

Thread beginning with comment 570837
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[17]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Aug 2013 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[16]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

You are not explaining because you can't explain it without saying "go implement your own signalling / messaging and you'll know".


No. I've actually worked with the technology and I had skype like experience in my home office.

All I needed was socket.io (which isn't a messaging protocol, it an abstraction over websockets) and a few other bits of JS to hook it all together.

Persisting JavaScript objects between node and the browser isn't a message protocol.

That was my point all along. Everyone will implement the heck differently, and have good luck connecting all those clients and servers with each other, while being very proud they all use WebRTC.


Well you don't know how the tech works.

It is irrelevant the message protocol because once it gets to the browser you deal with it using JavaScript. Existing Web-services fill in the rest of the gaps.

Here is an existing app as an example:

http://twelephone.com/

Edited 2013-08-28 19:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[18]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 28th Aug 2013 20:01 in reply to "RE[17]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

You got it all wrong, since client can't be restricted to the browser. If you tie your communication to browser only, the service is junk. The service should have a clear protocol defined, so the client can be built anywhere. In the browser (using WebSockets + WebRTC to route your protocol), as standalone client using whatever and etc. JavaScript should not be a requirement for building a service. It's ridiculous.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[19]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Aug 2013 20:17 in reply to "RE[18]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Anything can implement web sockets, and pushing JavaScript objects or more likely JSON can be done to pretty much any programming language and platform pretty simply.

Again you lacking imagination and any clue as to what you are arguing about.

Edited 2013-08-28 20:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[18]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Thu 29th Aug 2013 00:46 in reply to "RE[17]: Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,


"Well you don't know how the tech works.

It is irrelevant the message protocol because once it gets to the browser you deal with it using JavaScript. Existing Web-services fill in the rest of the gaps."

shmerl is actually right though, I think you are missing his point. It's not enough that two solutions use WebRTC to be compatible. They actually have to use higher level messaging protocols that are not defined in the WebRTC spec. It's not enough that they both use javascript.

Reply Parent Score: 5