

Facebook Will Launch In-Browser Video Chat Next Week In Partnership With Skype - amirmc
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/01/facebook-will-launch-in-browser-video-chat-next-week-in-partnership-with-skype/

======
r00fus
Wow, Google+ really got the timing right.

Facebook looks to me like they're on the defensive... if FB aren't directly
reacting to Google+, I hope they've had time to get the kinks worked out.

This is getting very interesting.

~~~
brudgers
There seems to be more evidence of a cohesive strategy on Microsoft's part
given their investment in Facebook and purchase of Skype.

On the other hand, given the invitation only rollout of Google+ it looks more
like Google was forced to do something quickly before they were ready. Being
first out the gate is a tactic, not a strategy.

As for Facebook having the kinks worked out - with the better part of a
billion users they've got the big one solved.

~~~
danjones
@brudgers Google typically releases new products to the market slowly whilst
announcing them, look back at services like Gmail, that was initially invite
only and in beta for a number of years.

I doubt this is actually Facebook's answer to Google+ most likely something
they've had on the cards for a while. They've still got plenty of time whilst
G+ is in it's infancy.

~~~
brudgers
Google also releases new products slowly and then lets them die. Gmail as a
commodity product doesn't have the chicken and egg problem that a social
network does - and there's no good example of Google solving a chicken and egg
problem which depends on brand loyalty rather than technology (qualifications
due to the possible argument that advertising revenue based search was a
chicken and egg problem albeit one which was solved based on technology rather
than consumer loyalty).

I don't think that Facebook/Skype is a response to Google+'s rollout. I think
Google+ is a tactical response to a strategy has been developing for a long
time (measured in internet years).

On the other hand, Facebook's announcement probably is a tactical response to
Google's timing given the massive investment in buzz creation which has
manifested itself in the last few days.

~~~
redthrowaway
Android was successful because it was attractive to carriers and handset
makers, but consumer faith in the Google brand had a lot to do with it, as
well. I wouldn't say it was the deciding factor, but the fact it was made by
Google rather than random company x probably influenced buying decisions.

------
zaidf
I'm underwhelmed. May be facebook should first get their text chat right
before moving to video.

~~~
statictype
What's wrong with their text chat?

~~~
5l
It's horribly unreliable in comparison to Gtalk.

------
marcamillion
Well...so I might as well do a mea-culpa and confess my shortcomings to Sir
Gates and the MSFT team. I must admit, at first, the $8.5B price tag seemed
astronomical and it seemed that you were throwing shareholder's equity at a
problem that needs to be solved with innovation.

But now, with the prospect of doing 'deep' integration with Facebook, your bet
seems very prescient. Even if it was non-intentional, i.e. if you guys had no
idea that Google would release Hangout, but talk about great timing.

If Microsoft can successfully integrate Skype into Facebook and expand their
userbase even 2X, that's kinda staggering given the baseline number of 130
million they would be starting from.

All of a sudden the price seems like a bargain, if they can pull off something
like this.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Huddle is the group texting. you meant hangouts.

~~~
marcamillion
Sorry...you're right. I apologize. Fixed.

------
nostromo
Random thought: Apple could now play the kingmaker in video chat.

They could connect FaceTime with either Facebook/Microsoft/Skype or Google+ to
give either a lot more penetration in the non-tech US market.

More likely, they will just ignore both and just keep doing their own thing.

~~~
shazow
Does FaceTime have any kind of momentum behind it right now that Google,
Facebook, or Skype/Microsoft would care?

Especially since Apple decided to replace Facebook Auth with Twitter Auth for
native iOS integration, I think we can disqualify that relationship at this
point.

Personally, I've used FaceTime twice: Once when it first came out to try it
out, and once more this week (4 months later) to surprise my girlfriend while
I'm travelling because I know she had FaceTime installed on her Macbook and it
pops up unexpectedly when you call.

Do other people use FaceTime a lot?

~~~
rkudeshi
I do. Ever since finishing college and traveling frequently, I use it all the
time to call family back home. It's more convenient than any other videochat
solution and infinitely more personal than a voice call.

After visiting family in another state, they also picked up a FaceTime-
compatible device (iPad 2) to easily videochat with my family back home.

The fact that you DON'T have to create an account (other than your Apple ID)
or maintain "status" (a la IM) makes it much friendlier for my Luddite-
inclined friends and family.

------
headShrinker
Skype? That's what they are offering as an answer to google+? Yikes... No
thanks.

~~~
walexander
Grandmas use facebook. Grandmas use skype.

This is an excellent pairing and will make it even harder for Google+ to get
the non-HN crowd types off of FB. Great play, i'd say.

~~~
rryan
What about grandpas?

[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/So_simple,_your_mother_co...](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/So_simple,_your_mother_could_do_it)

~~~
walexander
/me rolls eyes

As didactic as that comment was, I suppose I could have said grandpa. I did
use grandma, however, because I don't personally have any grandpas on my
facebook, and in my own experience (and evidenced from this link) there are
many more grandmas than grandpas on facebook:

[http://www.kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-
revi...](http://www.kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-
revisited-2011-statistics-2/)

Even then, however, I disagree that saying "grandma" in such a context is
really that damaging. Maybe there's some point to this, but it seems
unnecessarily politically correct to me.

------
pavpanchekha
Good thing Google+ came out. I know too many people who consider Skype's video
chat quality a joke.

~~~
Aqwis
Google+'s video chat barely works for me at all. Maybe it's because I'm in
Europe, but the video chat is basically a big blurry mess. Skype is worlds
better.

~~~
hugh3
There's video chat in Google+? I hadn't even noticed.

~~~
r00fus
Hangouts? It's not like they didn't market that as feature #1 or #2.

~~~
hugh3
Well, the word "hangout" doesn't really jump out as meaning "video chat" to
me.

~~~
muuh-gnu
You mean, like "Skype" does?

Gmail has also been offering a cross-platform "Google Voice & Video Chat" for
some time now. Hangout will probably be a rebranded version extended to
include video conference support.

------
joejohnson
Wow. This is the something "awesome"? Google+ is looking better and better.

~~~
hugh3
If you were a teenage girl, you'd think this was the awesomest thing ever.

(Or, y'know, whatever the translation of "awesome" into teenage girl at the
moment.)

~~~
StavrosK
I don't think teenage girls haven't heard of Skype, though...

~~~
kmfrk
God I feel old. And I'm in my bloody twenties.

~~~
StavrosK
Why is my comment making everyone feel old or young or whatever it is? All I
said is that teenagers have probably heard of Skype, what's the fuss?

~~~
kmfrk
Ah, I missed your pesky double negative. Guess I'm back to feeling like a
twenty-year-old again. :)

Now, if you ask about the founders' previews venture, Kazaa ...

~~~
StavrosK
Hey, even I barely remember kazaa :p

------
floppydisk
It will depend greatly on how Facebook actually does this "deep integration"
the article mentions. If they are just going to plug into skype and let your
FB info become your skype username and pw, then adoption might not take off as
much due to having to open and run a separate application to do anything. On
the other hand, if they make each facebook chat a virtual skype call and
incorporate skype sessions onto the backend, then I could see this improving
chat and make adding video capabilities fairly easy. As for it taking off, if
it requires no extra work then sure, their userbase might grab it and go. If
it's just a plugin for skype the application, then I'm not so sure.

~~~
ceslami
I don't think they are going to "just plug in to Skype" -- sources seem to
suggest that there will be some sort of browser based experience. That said,
they can definitely get a leg up on Google+ if they don't require you to
download a plug-in.

------
eneveu
This is just the beginning... I bet we'll soon see Facebook's own "Circles"
feature.

As I wrote two days ago ( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2707775> ),
Paul Adams, previously social research lead in the Google UX team, left Google
for Facebook in December: [http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/20/paul-adams-
googler-whose-pr...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/20/paul-adams-googler-
whose-presentation-foretold-facebook-groups-heads-to-facebook/)

~~~
kin
There's already group chat and groups. It's a nestled feature but it's there.

~~~
eneveu
Facebook indeed has similar features. But we should not simply compare
features when comparing social platforms. Philippe Beaudoin made a very
insightful post about this:

 _"For a social platform, the implication of turning a feature into a core
part of the user experience cannot be overstated. It's because the real
feature of social platforms are the way its user base exploits it. If only a
few users rely on friends lists as a filtering feature, the feature might as
well not be there. But G+ says: "Hey! Welcome! The first thing you should do
is setup some filters!" Add a few thousand users and the bandwagon effect will
turn G+ into a much different place than Facebook."_

[https://plus.google.com/107988469357342173268/posts/eHccmEr4...](https://plus.google.com/107988469357342173268/posts/eHccmEr4oW1)

------
dhughes
Is video chat really popular? Other than for porn and families - sorry for the
disturbing examples.

I remember when Yahoo! IM chat had video chat and it was all porn and even
then only the really outgoing and pervs seemed to use it. This was in the days
of Connectix quick cam "eyeball cam" and it was that was b&w, or at least the
first ones were.

For some reason live video hasn't really caught on and even now it's not used
that much at least by people I know. Is Facetime or Skype video used much?

~~~
shazow
Everyone has families, so that's a pretty big "other than". I live in a
different country than my family, so I call them on Skype video 2-4 times a
week.

------
instakill
Surely TC would have had an embargo on this story?

~~~
amirmc
Arrington: "We’ve never broken an embargo at TechCrunch. Not once. Today that
ends. From now our new policy is to break _every_ embargo. We’ll happily agree
to whatever you ask of us, and then we’ll just do whatever we feel like right
after that. We may break an embargo by one minute or three days. We’ll choose
at random."

<http://techcrunch.com/2008/12/17/death-to-the-embargo/>

~~~
StavrosK
> From now our new policy is to break _every_ embargo.

> We will honor embargoes from trusted companies and PR firms who give us the
> news exclusively

Bleh.

------
krashidov
Is the video-conferencing going to be free? Is it free on Google+ (I have not
used it yet) ?

If there is free videoconferencing on facebook, what are the advantages of
paying for it on skype?

~~~
Johngibb
Videoconferencing is free on Skype as well... not sure what point you're
making?

~~~
18pfsmt
To clarify, G+ allows for video conferencing with a maximum of 10 people[1].
Skype requires payment for multi-party video conferencing.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B#Features>

Edit: Added citation.

------
danfitch
I wrote www.squarechat.com a while ago as a pet project, but it just seems
like there isn't a good way to accomplish this without using flash or a
plugin.

------
schiptsov
Silverlight installation required? ^_^

------
Calamitous
_yawn_

------
odiroot
It's a really good moment for Google to completely open up Plus. Hype wears
off fast.

~~~
stanleydrew
Hype does wear off fast. Luckily for g+ the hype is backed by substance, which
isn't so quick to wear off. I think they're doing fine with the limited invite
system and they have no reason to open it up faster than they can handle the
load comfortably.

------
brudgers
If this is true, Google+ with limited availability and limited geographic
reach is essentially still born as a Facebook killer because there is no
reason for your mom to switch.

Sure Google will mine some meaningful user data and Google+ will almost
certainly be a success in terms of generating additional advertising revenue.
But it's now even less unlikely to take off with consumers.

The problem is that Google+ is an attempt to solve Google's problem -
shareholders' demand for a presence in "Social Networking," rather than
solving an actual problem experienced by social networking service consumers.

~~~
nostromo
I personally think Google's killer feature here isn't really a feature at all.
It's the notifications on all Google properties.

As I'm using Gmail, search, documents, finance, whatever -- I get +
notifications about friends, their updates, and photos. It's very distracting!
But it also gets me to use the service more than I use Facebook -- and it's
just started.

~~~
brudgers
Ironically, I have a Gmail account which I made exclusively for all that crap
Facebook spews forth just to keep it all out of my inbox.

~~~
nostromo
You know you can turn them off right?
<https://www.facebook.com/editaccount.php?notifications>

~~~
brudgers
Facebook changes stuff all the time, and thus I would have to keep tweeking
the settings. Instead, it all just goes into a circular file at Google which I
empty from time to time.

And that's why Google+ circles don't aren't really a game changer - it doesn't
significantly reduce the friction of managing notifications except for the
small segment of people who are already interested in managing those
notifications.

~~~
hucker
Not the mail stuff they don't. I have not received an email from facebook
since 2006, so no worries really.

~~~
edkennedy
I had all e-mail notifications turned off from when I first logged into
facebook. When they added the new groups I started getting e-mails again. I
have to go into settings about once a month to turn off the e-mails in some
different part of facebook.

