
Google Hangouts adds remote desktop support - dkhenry
https://plus.google.com/104749322414399121544/posts/Ym4KfErdvnc
======
Ralz
Am I the only one who prefers regular gchat to google hangouts? It's super
difficult to figure out who on my contact list is online or not. I also
mistake old msgs as new ones because of the lack of time-stamps. Maybe I'm
missing a check-box or something that could fix all this but I gave up and
switched back to gchat almost immediately.

~~~
clarkm
I complained about this for a while, but then I saw someone use Hangouts on
mobile. I suddenly realized why Google designed it this way. Of course the
designers noticed that it was hard to determine who was offline and who was
online. In fact, _that 's the whole point._

Google is incrementally eliminating the distinction between the online and
offline world. Pretty soon, the concept of offline won't exist anymore --
everyone will be thought of as online all the time.

But there's no place for old-style instant messaging in this mental model. So
they're moving away from it. But they can't make this change all at once, so
they're doing it slowly. When the distinction goes away, Hangouts will be just
like SMS. If you think about it, Apple already beat them to this with
iMessage, and Google is playing catch-up. But instead of launching a new
product, Google is just extending their existing IM ecosystem to take over the
SMS space.

~~~
timdorr
In fact, they will be integrating SMS "soon":
[http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/16/google-hangouts-sms-
integ...](http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/16/google-hangouts-sms-integration/)

~~~
aroch
And yet GVoice probably still won't support MMS, it'll be forced to the
hangouts protocol and you'd be screwed if you want to send an MMS to a non-
Android phone.

------
ISL
Can anyone comment on how a browser plugin gets access to the desktop? (even
if hangouts doesn't do it, there's a remote desktop plugin)

I'm a curmudgeon, but it seems like it's like designing a washing machine
attachment that serves as a home security system and pasta maker.

Are there OS or X11 permissions that can restrict userland apps from deviating
far from their original use case?

~~~
zanny
Not X11, any app can see or manipulate any other apps screen buffer. It is one
reason Wayland is nice.

If your system has MAC you can restrict its file access, but in general you
have library support for this stuff built in.

It is also why in most cases it is a PITA to stream 3d rendered screens.
Opengl / directX don't provide easy ways like X11 to look at a completed
framebuffer and store / broadcast it.

~~~
dman
In OpenGL this is fairly easy using FBO's -
[http://www.songho.ca/opengl/gl_fbo.html](http://www.songho.ca/opengl/gl_fbo.html)
. I have never used DirectX but I would be surprised if it did not allow you
to read the framebuffer.

~~~
Zergy
It does. That is how a lot of bots and other cheats are made.

------
sergiotapia
The best remote desktop software I have used is -
[http://www.join.me](http://www.join.me)

Just have the other person click 'Share', wait a bit for it to load, then have
them copy and paste their share URL. It works right in the browser and is
free.

If Google Hangouts make this easier for me to fix my mother's laptop I'm all
for it!

~~~
lelandbatey
Dang it, I'd been looking for something just like this very recently, and my
Google-fu had failed me.

Man I wish I'd been able to find this.

~~~
hobs
Been using it for about a year, its amazing. The way it is going the free
version may be sunset fairly soon.

------
codereflection
And Google continues killing off niche application vendors... WalMart of the
Internet.

~~~
ajross
Screen sharing is a Skype feature. If having a broadly available free tool
with deep-pocketed corporate support was going to kill off that "niche", then
it's surely been dead for years already. This is just Google achieving feature
parity with the existing players.

I mean, I'm as much a cynic as anyone, but I swear that these days it seems
like Google can't catch a break on this site.

~~~
pisarzp
I thought Skype offers only screen sharing, but doesn't allow to control other
person's desktop. I might be wrong though.

------
clauretano
Ok Google, now do this using the webRTC data channel instead of a plugin
(using Vidyo's H.264/SVC)

webRTC is going to be really exciting in the next year or so. Google is
pushing it, but it'd be great to see them actually using it. I was hoping New
Hangouts would be on webRTC, but it is still a bit early.

~~~
simoncion
Hangouts currently seems to use WebRTC behind the scenes. See my comment here
for more details:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5949188](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5949188)

------
watterso
This is great news! After instant-upload/auto-backup got my parents hooked on
G+, now I can easily provide them with tech support! Solid user conversion
practice imo.

------
shmerl
When are they going to publish their protocol, or return support for XMPP
federation? Users should avoid them until they do either of those.

~~~
simoncion
ATM XMPP federation is still up and running. If enough people approach the
Messaging folks at Google with coherent, well-reasoned reasons for leaving it
up (and perhaps securing it with TLS!), then it might get left up for good.

~~~
ralphm
Sorry, but the new Hangouts does _not_ support federation. The old GTalk
network, though, does. If a message comes into the latter from non-Google
servers, they only show up in connected XMPP clients, not on Android or GMail
after upgrading to Hangouts. If the intended recipient does not use a 3rd
party XMPP client and has fully upgraded, he will never see the message!

For outbound traffic some odd stuff is going on. Presence from all Hangouts
endpoints still propagates to GTalk and thus federates. Messages can also be
sent. But again, that's one way and replies are not delivered to Hangouts.
Additionally, XMPP iq-type requests to Hangouts endpoints are not responded
to, violating the core XMPP spec.

------
Legion
Slightly off topic, but does anyone else experience poor audio echo in Hangout
video conferences?

At work we would kill to replace Skype with Hangouts, but with the same
computers and the same microphones, everyone in Hangouts constantly hears
themselves, while Skype reduces hearing yourself to a very rare event.

~~~
mcrittenden
I've only ever had this issue when someone on the hangout uses speakers
instead of headphones and forgets to mute.

------
alexhawdon
Apparently old news, but I didn't know about it and it looks pretty useful.
Another point towards steering my parents towards a Chromebook. Though, almost
ironically, the lack of Skype support (on the ARM-based ones, unsure about
x86) is one of the negative points.

------
kryten
Now the NSA can watch your screen! </sarcasm>

~~~
Spearchucker
That's valid. Remote desktop opens up some interesting attack vectors, whether
used by the NSA or just some hacker with malicious intent. There's nothing I
can see about security mitigations...

~~~
drivebyacct2
"valid" aside from the fact that there's no way in this world or the next that
all of that video and remote desktop traffic is going though Google's servers.

~~~
MichaelGG
So, two users behind a proper NAT or firewall won't be able to use this
feature?

~~~
mparlane
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_punching](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_punching)

tada.

~~~
MichaelGG
Yeah that's not a general solution, that's just exploiting problems in
particular NAT implementations.

~~~
mparlane
Skype did just fine with it.

~~~
MichaelGG
Incorrect. Skype relays media via other users when two users cannot directly
connect. So if you and I are behind proper NATs, and no negotiation works,
then we agree on a nearby (super?)node that _is_ accessible, and relay media
through there.

Hole punching _can_ work, but again, it's exploiting implementation quirks in
NAT devices and isn't a general solution (though it might do pretty well).

The only standard way (AFAIK) to open up NAT is via UPNP, which the client
software (and NAT device) needs to support. The client then talks to the NAT
device and tells it to port forward. It seems pretty common nowaday, and is
more elegant and secure than the hacky "poke around and see what works"
implementations.

~~~
mparlane
[http://www.h-online.com/security/features/How-Skype-Co-
get-r...](http://www.h-online.com/security/features/How-Skype-Co-get-round-
firewalls-747197.html)

Note the date, things are very different now.

------
DEinspanjer
I need to go RTFA, so please forgive if it is already in there, but I hope
this means there will be some progress to enabling remote assistance / remote
control of a Chrome device a like a Chromebook. Two years that issue has been
open with hundreds of users complaining and no word. :/

------
donniezazen
Will this require Chrome Remote Desktop and or Hangouts extension to work?

------
omniwired
ancient "news" by now. The site is called hacker _NEWS_ :)

~~~
skeletonjelly
_NEWS_ to me ;)

------
tikums
It's 2013. Are we supposed to be amazed by this?

