New Trial Brings Skype to (Some) Browsers 55
Ars Technica reports that Microsoft has begun giving some users a taste of a new version of Skype, with a big difference compared to previous ones: the new one (tested by users on an invitation basis) is browser based. Rather than using the existing WebRTC standard, though (eschewed as too complex), Microsoft has developed a separate spec called ORTC (Object RTC), which is designed to offer similar capabilities but without mandating this same call setup system. Both Microsoft and Google are contributing to this spec, as are representatives from companies with video conferencing, telephony, and related products.
ORTC isn't currently blessed as a W3C project, though the ORTC group has proposed integrating ORTC into WebRTC to create WebRTC 1.1 and including parts of ORTC into WebRTC 1.0. For now at least, video or audio chat therefore requires a plug-in, and requires Internet Explorer 10, or recent Firefox or Chrome browsers, and a current Safari on Mac OS X.
Also at TechCrunch, among others, which notes that text chat (though as mentioned, not video or audio) will work with the new Skype under ChromeOS, too.
just a few words about that (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Hi, APK!
Whereas you're just a clown [slashdot.org]...?
hugs,
Jeremy.
Why... (Score:2)
Why would I want this in my browser? What's not sufficient about the experience I get in the native apps? In what way is this better that I need a heavy weight piece of rendering technology sitting open, a GUI that's wrapped in my browser's window, and more latency between clicking things and stuff happening?
Seriously... Why would you implement this?
Re:Why... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best reason I can think of is portability. Visiting your parents and using their computer? No need to install a native app, just open the web page (hopefully in the future at least, this says you still need to install a plug-in). Want to use it on Linux? No need to wait for Microsoft to update the Linux app (if they ever bother to update it), just use a standard-compatible browser to open the web page. Microsoft wants to add features? No need to make sure it works on a bunch of different OSes and versions, just make sure the web page is still compliant with the standards (you still need to make sure the browsers handle the standards correctly, but this should be an easier target).
Not that this is perfect by any means. But nowadays computers perform well enough that most users won't even notice the problems you mention, and the other advantages more than make up for the problems.
Re: (Score:1)
The best reason I can think of is portability. ... Want to use it on Linux? No need to wait for Microsoft to update the Linux app (if they ever bother to update it), ...
Two problems with this. First, codecs and patents are still an issue. The latest working draft of ORTC contains this example of a connection, notice how often it says "common": // Steps to be followed: // 1. Determine the RTP features that the receiver and sender have in common. // 2. Determine the codecs that the sender and receiver have in common. // 3. Within each common codec, determine the common formats, header extensions and rtcpFeedback mechanisms. // 4. Determine the payloadType to be used, based o
Re: (Score:1)
No pre tags anymore? WTF Slashdot?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
or cellphone texting
Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, goodie, I can only hope this new browser-based version of Skype works as well as the new browser-based version of Lync does, especially with Microsoft rebranding Lync as Skype for Business [theregister.co.uk].
I remember when I used to be able to use my USB headset with Lync, prior to corporate moving to the new browser-based version of Lync. Now I can only use the built-in speakers and microphone because Lync manages to completely ignore the global sound settings somehow! I sure hope they manage to bring this feature to the new browser version of Skype.
Granted, this was still a step up from the Lync client which routinely crashed if the network hiccuped in any way, but still. I can only hope the Skype team is taking over the Lync team and not the other way around.
I will give Lync some credit. It makes a great excuse for blowing off a meeting. "Oh, sorry, I tried to attend your meeting, but Lync blew up." "Oh, yeah, it does that to me all the time. We'll try again tomorrow."
Re: (Score:3)
Oh god you bring back bad memories.
I can see why MS bought Skype. Lync is a special kind of terrible. Seriously, using Lync and trying to actually get sane inputs and outputs actually made me wish for pulse audio. Now, that's fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky git.
Sometimes it does sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes (and this is my favourite) it won't let you have the input and output from the same device. WTF is that about? What do I even have a USB headset for anyway?
Like the other guy, about half the lync meetings involved one or all participants signing out and in again since sometimes it only lets you change the settings while disconnected. Oh sure it pretends to be OK, but it lies. WTF was THAT about???
Re:Based on my experiences with Microsoft Lync... (Score:4, Informative)
Lync can be used with communications headsets. UN-checking the option to use the sound device only for communications permits using the headset for Lync as well as for all other PC sound playback.
The best option in my opinion is to use a desk phone for Lync calls. Polycom makes some nice ones as well as Snom. Alternate firmware can change the SIP phone into an OCS VOIP phone able to integrate with your Lync account. Search for Snom OCS firmware for more info.
Desk phone, speaker phone, or headset is your choice.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're talking about Lync in general (that is, the desktop chat/VoIP app). I'm talking about the new Lync webapp that's used for Lync conferencing. For some reason I can't figure out, at least on Mac OS X (which is what my work laptop is), the Lync webapp refuses to use anything other than the internal speaker/mic or the speaker/mic port on the side. It doesn't matter what audio device you have set up in Settings, it just ignores it and uses either the internal speaker/mic or the ports, although you
Re: (Score:3)
If MS drops support for all the Polycom Lync devices including conference speakerphones and desk phones, Bluetooth Lync headsets, etc, Corporate will be a hard sell.
Best of Lync and Skype should not obsolete all the business telcom hardware products in use by corporate users. That would be dropping the most useful parts.
I don't wear headphones all the time. I don't have disruptive speakers, and I can still hear my phone ring, and answer it, even while the PC is in a locked screensaver, in hibernation, or
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is this, then? [microsoft.com]
The Lync thing I'm talking about it only for online meetings. It's a part of Lync implemented as a web app and for some reason if you aren't on Windows it's your only choice if you want to see what other people are presenting. The place I work at doesn't actually use Lync for generic telephony. (Although they do have some form of half-assed integration where someone calling my office phone will, in fact, cause a Lync desktop app notification to appear. I just can't answer the cal
Re: (Score:2)
Then use IE 6.
Html 5 is more than about text viewers with pictures. It is a standard for applets and guis
Re: (Score:2)
As if Google ever gets anything right. Fail after fail. Their only successes are their acquisitions (Maps, YouTube). It's a wonder how they're even still in business.
Same reason as why Microsoft is still the king of the OS market with their crusty software: for new companies the barrier of entry to the field is too high.
Tried on IE 6 (Score:2)
The page doesn't look right and it doesn't work. How can the Web Development guys be so incompetent? I am filling a bug report and expect a fix by the end of today. Thanks -phb
Solaris (Score:1)
New efficiencies. (Score:1)
Rather than using the existing WebRTC standard, though..., Microsoft has ...
So they're simply skipping their traditional embrace, extend, extinguish [wikipedia.org] process. Efficient.
Re: New efficiencies. (Score:1)
Except that their gripes with WebRTC are legitimate. Witness the issues poping up just getting it properly implemented.
too late (been there, done that) (Score:1)
https://appear.in/
one click browser-based audio/video. bandwidth issues aside, it works.
(/me not affiliated in any way, just an happy user)
skype as always been horrible (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft at it again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They haven't even "opened" the .NET framework. As usual that was a bunch of misleading bullshit on the part of the editors...and Microsoft, but mostly the editors. Every other article posted on the subject has been more clear, but hey..this is Slashdot, land of product placement and incompetent, troll editors.
Oh, they've opened _part_ of it. The server-side part of it. Which is utterly pointless considering that there's already a server-side implementation of C# that's cross-platform, Mono, the one they'll
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
hardly, this is an example of Microsoft AND others like google working to fix the bad standard that was created. Not all standards are good and WebRTC is an example of one that sucks.
ORTC is a W3C standard (Score:2)
W3C ORTC [w3.org]. Before you complain please research the standards. blog.webrtc.is/ [webrtc.is] is a great place to start.
Resurrecting a zombie project... (Score:1)
I remember the beta test of a browser based Skype application about six years ago.... FUBAR!
It worked about as well as java based real time chat applications, poorly if at all.
If you have tried the Win8 version of Skype and had to tunnel through layers of M$ non-help screens to find out how to get rid of the "App" and bring back the Skype application client; you have my commiseration.
I've had a Skype account for a decade now. Including an incoming number for a side business of mine. It was reliable, inexp