'Hello? Hello? Yes, I'm calling you on my WEB BROWSER' Mozilla says it will soon begin experimenting with a new streaming video communications system that users can access using only their web browsers. "And that's all you will need," Mozilla's Chad Weiner said in a blog post on Thursday. "No plug-ins, no downloads. If you have a browser, a camera and a mic, you'll be able to make …
"Does the word BLOAT mean anything to you Mozilla?"
Exactly this. The main reason I started using Firefox in the first place was because of its speed, efficiency and simplicity. And I don't get why they think having this feature as a plugin or addon is such a bad thing.
The whole reason the plugin/addon system was originally implemented was so that users could customise the browser with the features they wanted. That way, it only took up the minimum system resources required to implement the desired feature set, and gave the user freedom of choice.
Mozilla have lost their way in this regard: the ability to make video calls is not something every user is going to want and embedding it into the browser instead of releasing it as an addon simply adds bloat, slows it down even more, reduces user choice and undermines the entire philosophy of simplicity and customisability that made Firefox great in the first place.
If it's that they're concerned that by making it an "extra" to be downloaded that people won't take it up, why don't they simply include it as an addon with an update and with new installs of the browser? That way, those who don't want it can uncheck it or uninstall it, and Mozilla still gets the "wider take-up because it's opt-out not opt-in" effect.
True. However, simple video calling is a bit of a FLOSS gap. For the most part, its skype or nothing. I know ekiga is in there but that requires SIP which is a good idea, but generally too hard for many people. Inbound video streaming is already catered for in HTML5 so its just the organisation of the webcam-outbound link.
WebRTC hopefully is the start of moving away from obscured protocols while maintaining simple end-user setup.
Personally I'd prefer ISPs to provide SIP registries by default, but it hasn't happened.
It does seem a bit of a puzzle to me that Mozilla keep changing stuff in the core browser then expecting add-ins to make it behave like it used to if folk don't like it, rather than the other way round. It would seem to make more sense (to me) to use add-ons to try out a new behaviour/style/skin and then if it is widely adopted, incorporate it into the main browser and dispense with the add-on, rather than the other way round.
In this case, adding what is essentially an extra service, but not adding it as an add-on appears wrong to me, and increases bloat for users who don't need it.
I like firefox and have used it for years, and love the customisation it offers, but I am finding the changes a bit tedious at the moment.
I accept I am only me, and my opinion is just that, but there it is.
Sure video calls have been part of the sci-fi vernacular for decades, but I've never seen any appeal in that degree of privacy invasion every time I answer the phone. So I hate knowing that this will in time likely become as pervasive as Facebook, probably even more so.
However, if on the road to that particular hell, the herd finally moves off IE before they catch up and support it then at least some good will come of it.
Simple solution. Two answer buttons.
One shaped like a phone handset for voice only, one shaped like a video camera for voice 'n' video.
Or just some tape over your webcam, you know, whatever's easiest to implement, or faster to activate when you're trying to get out of your pants and t-shirt and put on some people clothes.
(that's not a dig - if I go out on a Friday night and expect to spend the next day feeling sorry for myself, it's a t-shirt and boxers day in Châteaux Raith. I have, on occasion, had to flip the camera back while making myself look respectable. Ah, living alone....)
Steven 'he thinks he's people!' R
"One shaped like a phone handset for voice only, one shaped like a video camera for voice 'n' video."
What does a phone handset look like? We need an icon that looks like a phone which people born in the last 20 years will recognise but which will not attract an iDevice sueball.
I suggest an ear for audio and an eye for video. Or just use, you know, actual words. Icons are rarely obvious or intuitive. You have to learn what they mean. Then a new version of the program or OS comes out and they changed them all again.
While I agree with your sentiment, even ten year olds these days equate a 'floppy disk' icon with 'save'.
I can remember when you used to rent your handset from BT. People who know how old I am (hint - turning 32 this year) will also remember this, I imagine!
I expect the telephone handset will live on, although I do like to keep a floppy disk floating around to remind the ten year olds who's boss...
Steven R
...there is a "service provider" required. Chad Weiner is a bit of wiener to have said, "And that's all you will need." No. You will also certainly need a NIC. If that was it, it might be of some value. But if you have to sign up for some kind of service, then, no thanks and fuck off!
<sarcasm>Well, generally to get any kind of internet access you do in fact need to sign up with an ISP, aka Internet Service Provider. I'm assuming you already have an account with an ISP or similar carrier in order to be able to post your comment. </sarcasm>
Given that the protocol behind this is W3C approved, I'd say it's pretty much odds-on that it'll work directly over your internet connection. You'll likely need the IP address of the person you wish to call, and there will be a protocol to specify when linking it (similar to the tel: protocol I'd say), but that would be the extent of it. I can't see why you'd need any additional "services" to implement that, any more than you'd need an additional service to use IRC or FTP.
> I can't see why you'd need any additional "services" to implement that, any more than you'd need an additional service to use IRC or FTP.
Indeed, it's likely similarly analogous, in that neither IRC nor FTP are peer-to-peer protocols, and so require a (usually third-party) server(/"service") to mediate at least the initial connection (and more if you want group communication). Have you ever heard of firewalls and NAT?
From what I can tell, TokBox is a provider of such intermediate servers, so I assume Mozilla will be using their service as a back-end. Unless Mozilla have some sort of agreement that they host their own back-end infrastructure for it (and even then), this move concerns me with regard to long-term sustainability.
Not to mention that I'd much rather Mozilla concentrate on implementing the standards required to do this, and leave such applications to third parties. I have been very impressed by Jitsi Meet recently, but unfortunately it doesn't work on Firefox, due to Mozilla having not yet implemented everything it needs.
I remember when Firefox was a glimmer of hope in a world of chaos.
It used to be small, fast and fabulous. I owe a lot to Mozilla. They saved me hours and hours of time cleaning infected family/friends' PC's. Convert an IT illiterate from ie to ff with abp and watch the malware and toolbars vanish...
But those days are long gone. She let herself succumb to peer pressure. Now she lives in a trailer with 6 kids from 7 different daddys and a heroin addiction.
The turning point was version 4. Now what's it up to?,30,odd?
Firefox already has WebRTC and I can't really think how it could be made simpler than this.
Seems pretty obvious this is more about creating a revenue stream than providing some kind of useful feature.
They're a bit over-reliant on Google fees at present and need to diversify. Sad fact of life is that people won't pay for a browser, so unless you've got deep pockets like Google and Microsoft, you've gotta raise money somehow. I wonder how many FF users bitching about this have ever donated?
"Hi, I see you are looking at products on our web page. Have we got a DEAL for YOU!"
Don't forget to check that adblock, noscript, flashblock and any other blocker you can think of is installed an operating.
My wife managed to accidentally switch off one of her ad blockers the other day. She and I were quite surprised when a pop up window appeared with a full audio/video ad for something or other. I didn't even know those type of pop-ups existed before now.
I suspect "going naked" on the web must be a quite frightening experience these days and the last thing we need are sales people or scammers popping up video windows while we are web browsing. And you just KNOW there will be bugs or workarounds which will allow this.
This post has been deleted by its author
.deb packages The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
