
Google Hangouts temporarily won’t support phone/video calls on Firefox - raphinou
https://gsuiteupdates.googleblog.com/2017/02/google-hangouts-temporary-issues-with-firefox.html
======
nachtigall
I'll just leave this:

Choose Firefox Now, Or Later You Won't Get A Choice (2014)

[http://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-or-
la...](http://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-or-later-you-
wont.html)

~~~
ajross
That seems uncharitable. The issue at hand is that Mozilla is dropping support
for plug-ins, and hangouts' implementation of media streaming uses a plug-in.
Google didn't do anything to break Firefox here except fail to develop an
alternative in time. The actual software change being pushed to break the
functionality is on Mozilla's end (which I don't disagree with, FWIW).

Lots of other stuff is breaking because of this Firefox change too, and it's
not a conspiracy.

~~~
hackuser
> The issue at hand is that Mozilla is dropping support for plug-ins, and
> hangouts' implementation of media streaming uses a plug-in

Every time two systems need to integrate, the vendors always can and often do
point the finger at each other. In this case, Google had since October 2015 to
fix this, didn't do it, and now attributes the problem to Firefox.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13764449](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13764449)

~~~
bpodgursky
> Google had since October 2015 to fix this

Sorry, but I don't really believe in an internet where the default assumption
is "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken
it is your fault"

Hangouts relied on browser support which worked. It's crufty, I get it, but it
was supported.

If this was Microsoft pulling support for old Windows 98 API calls, everyone
on HN would be appalled that their old-but-reliable software no longer worked
on a new OS. But then for some reason, they give Mozilla a complete pass on
the exact same behavior.

Finished webapps should not require a constant refactoring and fixing to keep
them usable. We're only hearing about this because it is Hangouts and Google.
Sure, Google _could_ throw a bunch of money at it and fix it, but there are
thousands of other little sites which will just silently die forever, and I
don't believe Google should _have_ to update this.

~~~
hackuser
> I don't really believe in an internet where the default assumption is "you
> have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is
> your fault"

In a way I agree; the lack of stability is costly for users, especially in
managed environments where changes needs to be planned and tested thoroughly
before deployment. Frequent updates do seem to greatly improve quality, but
the lack of support for old versions is painful. It's a way of shifting the
cost of old versions from the vendor (who would have to maintain them) to the
user (who has to deal with the updates).

On the other hand, Google does the same thing and it seems like the norm now
for software, especially web and Internet-based applications. I've come across
many web apps that will only support the latest (or two latest) versions of
browsers. It's also far better for security.

Arguably nobody has less reason to complain than Google: It's their own
practice, and possibly nobody has better resources for keeping up - money,
personnel, talent, and expertise - they make browsers themselves.

~~~
digi_owl
Frankly it was Google that set the ball in motion, by frequently, and quietly,
downloading Chrome updates in the background. Next time you launched Chrome,
whole new version etc.

Mozilla felt they had to jump on the bandwagon or come across at lethargic.

To me this is the web dev "push to prod" mentality encroaching on the desktop,
and i am not really sure it belongs there.

------
tyingq
This makes it sound like they only received notice last October.

Not true: [https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/10/08/npapi-
plu...](https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/10/08/npapi-plugins-in-
firefox/)

~~~
tiles
It also doesn't say when they intend to restore support for Firefox builds.

Also, they recommend installing IE. So I'm assuming Edge isn't supported
either? This is a horrible approach to browser security coming from Google.

~~~
ungzd
For IE it's not even npapi, it's ActiveX (!) plugin[1]. Yes, Edge does not
support neither npapi nor ActiveX.

[1]
[https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/1361676?hl=en](https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/1361676?hl=en)

------
ungzd
\- Both Chrome and Firefox remove npapi plugin support to move web forward

\- But Chrome leaves few plugins, including Hangouts, and makes them builtin

\- Now Hangouts does not work in Firefox, users think that Chrome is superior

Party like it's 1999.

~~~
rv11
I don't think they use any specific plugin, but use webRTC instead for
hangouts

~~~
ungzd
Seems that extension is involved:
[http://imgur.com/a/HLpLf](http://imgur.com/a/HLpLf)

~~~
cpeterso
Hangouts on Chrome uses NaCl for some visual processing (like hats), or at
least it used to. So the NaCl code may show up as a plugin process.

[https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-
hancke/](https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-hancke/)

------
jonchang
I can think of 3 possible explanations for this "temporary issue" (that Google
should have seen coming literal _years_ ago):

1\. Google is swinging its market share around in the desktop browser market
to further squeeze Firefox, a much smaller competitor

2\. Google hasn't allocated any resources to porting Hangouts away from NPAPI
plugins presumably because it has already put Hangouts for the desktop on life
support, focusing resources on a similar initiative like Allo or whatever the
flavor of the month is

3\. Mozilla somehow dropped the ball on writing a sufficiently capable WebRTC
implementation despite having implemented a Hangouts / Skype competitor in
Firefox Hello

Any others?

~~~
cpeterso
> 3\. Mozilla somehow dropped the ball on writing a sufficiently capable
> WebRTC implementation

Hangouts on Chrome uses NaCl (for video processing like hats) and non-standard
features of WebRTC that are not available in other browsers:

[https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-
hancke/](https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-hancke/)

------
ravenstine
Yet another reason for me to continue a divorce from Google. I may even leave
Gmail at this point. So far, I have switched to Duck Duck Go for searches,
switched to Chromium, use NewPipe instead of the YouTube app, and have
disabled all Google software on my phone. I will still have to use Docs at my
work, but my personal life will be almost free of Google when I get a viable
alternative to Chromecast. I just can't continue to support a company that has
morphed itself into Ballmer-era Microsoft and actively tries to destroy the
web with abominations like AMP.

~~~
mi100hael
Agreed. About a year ago I began the process of migrating away from
Google/Apple/Microsoft/Dropbox services. It's important for the web to remain
a decentralized network of servers, not a few walled gardens.

~~~
cookiecaper
The most important part of making this happen is revising the Soviet-era CFAA
and the Copyright Act for the digital age.

------
tlogan
For me, this pretty much tells me that Google Hangouts is scheduled for
deletion :(

I do understand that some google services work only on Chrome but certain
systems need to be cross-browser / cross-platform to become successful. For
example, in early days MS Word could save documents into WordPerfect format -
not because MS liked WordPerfect but because that was the easiest path to
conquer the world.

So as soon as a product starts dropping support for very popular platforms
that can mean only two things: 1) the product rules the world in that segment
or 2) company plans to sunset that product.

~~~
mi100hael
I think it's just the opposite. Looking at Chrome's market share, I think
they're banking on _that_ product ruling enough of the world that the majority
of users will force the minority on other browsers to switch.

------
midgetjones
Did it ever? I normally find with most Google services I have to open up
Chrome, and figured it's probably just them trying to get me to switch
browsers.

~~~
vikeri
Weirdly enough I find that Firefox works better than Chrome with Hangouts a
lot of the time

~~~
wffurr
Yeah Hangouts on Chrome forces webp, even if you have hardware h264 support,
whereas Hangouts on Firefox / Safari will happily use your hardware h264
support.

This is also why Macs get scorchingly hot when using Hangouts on Chrome.

~~~
slhck
By "webp", you mean VP9?

But yes, it's generally Google forcing their own products, just like what
they're doing with YouTube, where you also get VP9 on Chrome and H.264 on
Firefox.

------
dandelion_lover
Why use hangouts if [https://meet.jit.si](https://meet.jit.si) works in
Firefox flawlessly?

~~~
abeyer
I'm not sure about firefox, but in chrome it requires you to install an
extension with all sorts of unrelated permissions to share your screen. I
nope'd out when I saw that.

~~~
Arkanosis
All you need in Firefox is an URL: no plugin, no addon, no account, then give
only the permissions you want.

------
obeattie
Regardless of how you feel about Google's motivations, this is a pretty dismal
commentary on the state of browser interoperability.

~~~
kbrosnan
Google hangouts in Chrome uses Native Client. Which no other browser vendor
has any interest in supporting. Webassembly is the path forward for such code
as it is supported/planned support in Firefox, Edge, Chrome and Safari. They
have had 18 months of notice that the end of plugins was coming.

------
simplehuman
Just a few days back a projectzero post informed us how Google had told the
proxy companies about upcoming TLS 1.3 change months back and that company
didn't do anything about it. Google does the same now, ignoring something
important known for months ahead.

~~~
witty_username
The proxy companies behavior for TLS 1.3 is a bug and it's easier to fix; they
just need to respond that they only support TLS 1.2 and below.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Surely Hangouts can work over WebRTC?

Is it using a plugin in Chrome also?

~~~
ungzd
I see "Extension: Google Hangouts" in Chrome Task Manager[1], but I don't see
anything Hangouts-related in chrome://extensions/. Seems that it's good old
npapi plugin, but built-in into chrome, like Flash and NaCl.

[1] [http://imgur.com/a/HLpLf](http://imgur.com/a/HLpLf)

~~~
vbernat
You can use "\--show-component-extension-options" flag to display hidden
extensions.

------
omash
The power of the monopoly to crush competitors and remove user choice.

~~~
fixermark
In what sense? If you want to use Hangouts but not Chrome, just install Chrome
for the sole purpose of using Hangouts and use Firefox for everything else.
Think of it as a heavyweight application that you only use one feature of.

------
cryptarch
What's a good open-source alternative to Google Hangouts and Skype?

I'd really love a video call tool the quality of Mumble; a few basic features,
reasonable call quality, low-latency and fast reconnects. Skype and Hangouts
never came close to that for me.

~~~
hackuser
Some commenters recommend Jitsi:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13765289](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13765289)

------
dikaiosune
I am betting that there are Chrome devs who feel that Firefox didn't
deprecated NPAPI quickly enough - it was something like two and a half years
ago when Chrome did the same.

------
jraines
Hangouts is completely broken for me right now when trying to join a hangout
via link. As far as I can tell, it's always trying to join calls with the
wrong Google Account, and the control that used to be there for switching
accounts is gone.

~~~
acomar
You can fix the account in the URL by changing the authuser parameter. You'll
need to remember the order you signed into accounts and enter the right
number, but at least it's a workaround. The account is controllable from the
URL for all Google services. It's horrible UX but it's there.

------
ptrptr
Well then, this absolutely doesn't reflect badly on Google at all, does it?

~~~
65827
Nope, they are a perfect company who can do no wrong on HN. Just try to point
out something they screw up, an army will show up to obliterate you
immediately. I guess this is the new phase of marketing, just make sure you
dominate discussions everywhere, all the time.

~~~
chc
Are you kidding? Google can barely throw away a cardboard box without a flood
of HN comments exclaiming "embrace, extend, extinguish!" and calling them "the
new Microsoft."

~~~
jrockway
It seems that both sides are well-represented here. That's true on a number of
issues, and is what makes HN pretty unique among discussion sites.

------
Fej
How long is "temporarily"?

------
Animats
What's a good alternative to Hangouts, then?

~~~
jbclements
Looks like another poster mentions
"[https://meet.jit.si"](https://meet.jit.si"). Ran a 10-second test, and it
looks like it can successfully display my face. Haven't tried it for actual
communication.

------
65827
Really disappointed with Google more and more everyday. AOL 2.0?

