

Google open sourcing voice and video engine for the web - gaika
https://sites.google.com/site/webrtc/blog/introducingwebrtc-anopenreal-timecommunicationsproject

======
zmmmmm
Is this Google's response to MS purchasing skype? Seems like the classic
strategy of commoditizing your competitor's business (and they get a 2-for-1
deal since Apple is also wielding FaceTime).

~~~
rryan
Hm, I don't think so. This post is dated May 3rd, which predates the Skype
deal's announcement by 7 days. Also, the WhatWG group for RTC's mailing list
was first posted to April 12, 2011. So that potentially indicates this was in
the works beforehand. Since Google purportedly put in a bid for Skype they no-
doubt knew Skype was on the market, though.

I would guess this is more likely a response to FaceTime. Apple's core
business is around getting people to buy iPhones, and FaceTime is exclusive to
the iPhone and other Apple products.

~~~
rdtsc
There is an IETF realtime-web working group :

<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/charters>

and this is part of Google's involvement with that.

However the original question is still valid, as this release might have been
accelerated quite a bit because MS bought Skype.

------
r00fus
Apple, where is the Facetime open spec that you promised? Google may just beat
them to the punch.

~~~
baconface
does Apple really intend to do this?

~~~
durin42
I remember the facetime announcement including that they were going to publish
it as an open standard, and I'm not the only one:

    
    
      "The company said it plans to make FaceTime an open industry standard, potentially allowing 
      communication with other devices." 
      -- http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/07/apple_announces_open_standard_facetime_video_chat_for_iphone_4.html
    

and it's not just AppleInsider - that's just the first non-wikipedia hit for
the search "facetime open standard". That said, they never (to my knowledge)
delivered, which is a shame. At least now there's something, though it's a
pity that FT users will likely be left out.

------
angusgr
Does anyone have any ideas what the timeline for browser support is likely to
be?

The website currently says they've been _working closely with Mozilla_ and _we
expect to see WebRTC support in Firefox and Chrome soon!_.

~~~
rryan
I wonder when Safari will get WebRTC support?

~~~
grimen
Isn't that about survival of the fittest? Why use a browser that don't support
shit when there is a few that does. Might work for now, but not in the future.

------
yblokhin
Finally we know what's going with iLBC codec. For more than a year it's been
in a limbo.

~~~
cdibona
Yep, sorry about that. You can still use the old code under the old license,
but you can also use it under the new (and more permissive and favorable)
license.

------
car
Very nice, thank you Google.

Glancing over the API docs, I'm not clear what will be used for signaling. It
appears to be based on XMPP/Jingle, am I right?

What about SIP?

~~~
walexander
From the FAQ: Builds on the strength of the web browser: WebRTC abstracts
signaling by offering a signaling state machine that maps directly to
PeerConnection. Web developers can therefore choose the protocol of choice for
their usage scenario (for example, but not limited to: SIP, XMPP/Jingle,
etc...).

------
jbk
How do iLBC and iSAC compare to the (also open source) Celt, Silk and Opus
(Silk+Celt) codecs?

------
zokier
What does this mean to existing SIP/Jingle based systems? Are they now
deprecated, or is there some kind of interoperability planned?

------
dblock
One way to decimate adversaries is to open-source your entire competitive
advantage. Unfortunately that only works when you’re the market leader.

So nobody cares about open-sourcing WebRTC. Something that would be actually
noticeable in this field right now would be Microsoft that open-sources Skype
and gives everything away under the BSD license.

~~~
bad_user

         So nobody cares about open-sourcing WebRTC
    

Except the people that would want to use it? Think of Chatroulette.

    
    
         Something that would be actually noticeable in this 
         field right now would be Microsoft that open-sources
         Skype
    

Noticeable yes, but useful, not really.

What would be useful is for Skype to become a standard that allows
interoperability with other services and protocols, such that you could build
a client, like a website, that would allow users with a GTalk account to
video-call Skype users. Now that would be something.

------
tobylane
If Pidgin (the cross platform IM framework that Adium/others use) doesn't get
this, I'll be sad/grumpy.

------
reustle
Not long until I'll be able to video chat on my Android via Google Talk, woo!

~~~
natrius
This is already possible on Gingerbread phones.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Actually the GTalk update that was released with 2.3.4 uses Neon-specific code
rather than the actual video API that Google wrote themselves. It makes no
sense and it's the reason that GTalk doesn't have video chat on other
Gingerbread phones.

------
odiroot
So is this another segment of HTML5 block or a completely novel idea?

It looks like a <device> element with streaming but they don't mention it at
all.

------
chopsueyar
Good work, Microsoft!

Embrace and extend.

