
Facebook Video Chat v. Google Hangouts: It’s No Contest - tathagatadg
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/06/facebook-video-chat-google-hangouts/
======
rottencupcakes
> _If you want to have a one on one video chat, and your friend list is hosted
> at Facebook, the new Facebook video chat is a near perfect product._

Michael seems to be ignoring the fact that GTalk has better video chat than
skype (and has for years).

~~~
alexsb92
Yes, but I also have quite a number of friends who do not use Gmail for one
reason or another, so FB's video chat is a welcomed.

I also don't understand what's with all the hate towards FB because they are
implementing something other services have.

~~~
melvinmt
I've been able to video chat with EVERY contact I have through a range of
services (Gtalk/Gmail, Skype, MSN Messenger, iChat and even my Nokia N95) for
years now, and I still don't feel the incentive to do it - so that's why I'm
not too excited about the announcements from FB today.

Group video chat, however, is another beast. You can hangout with multiple
friends together or do team meetings with your colleague from home. I can see
that work.

So, for now, G+ has the advantage here. I'm still waiting for Skype to drop
it's ridiculous pricing.

~~~
alexsb92
I definitely understand that, but I think that's only one use case. The case I
am most familiar with is mine. I moved to Canada 4 years ago, right at the
beginning of high school, and right at the beginning of FB going big
mainstream. This meant that I met a lot of people since then, and since it was
the period when FB was getting big, I would just friend people on Facebook.
Before FB chat came out, if I needed to chat with them afterwards, I would get
their email from their profile, or if it wasn't listed I'd ask around. When
Chat came out, I stopped doing that and I would just chat with the people I
didn't have on MSN/Gtalk on FB. I'm sure there's tons of people in the
same/similar situation that I had.

------
Shenglong
I'm wondering if it's the Skype technology itself has a problem. I haven't
looked into it too extensively, but through experience, group calls (without
video) in Skype tend to be choppy, and filled with problems (people dropping
off, etc).

In comparison, I've paid for a 200 slot Ventrilo server for the last 3 years.
While this is centralized, it's on a shared server, and I doubt the majority
of NA/Euro connections wouldn't rival at least a 20-slot Ventrilo server in
terms of hardware and bandwidth. Ventrilo GSM 6.1 44khz codex transmits
_amazing_ quality, regardless of whether I'm speaking to 1 other person, or
199 other people.

Does anyone actually know the reason for this?

~~~
timdorr
Skype one-to-one is peer-to-peer. Your video data goes straight to the other
person.

Skype group video chat is run through their servers. The aggregate the video
sources on their side and send those back out to each participant. So, there's
an inherent cost of that much data (n*(n-1), I believe) and the server itself
that Skype needs to pay for.

Audio group chat is easier because the resulting audio streams can be overlaid
on top of each other for everyone in the same group. So, if 3 people are
talking in a 10 person chat, it's 3 inbound streams and just 10 outbound
streams, not 30 outbound. Video can't be overlaid like that (at least not
without it looking weird :P)

------
rwolf
The conclusion is that there is no overlap? To paraphrase "A Princess Bride":

You keep saying "It's No Contest." I don't think it means what you think it
means.

------
cdcarter
But once again, all my friends who I'd ever want to video chat have Facebook,
and I still can't get my + invite to work. For a majority of users, Facebook
will have done it first, even if + really did.

------
toddy
If there is no group chat on FB then I think they are loosing by a point.
People don't use Skype's because it is not free while for example iChat allows
you to do video chat for free (for limited number of people). Now Google will
allow it for free, and my expectation is that people will start using it. This
may be one big plus for Google+, and a way for them to attract more people.

------
Sapient
With Facebook and Google racing to beat each others free products, could this
mean Microsoft may have just wasted $8.5 billion?

This is a real question, I don't really use video chat much at all.

edit: Or at least massively devalue their investment.

~~~
fluidcruft
Giggles's just angry about losing the Nortel patents.

------
doron
The pairing between Microsoft and Facebook is getting tighter.

~~~
ditojim
Microsoft - the dominant tech behemoth who everyone loves to hate & Facebook -
the worlds current social network crack that everyone hates to love.

------
make_lemonade
So...how long has Facebook been withholding video chat from their users? Sad
and sorry. Thank you Google for giving everyone a superior product. Keep it
up!

~~~
drivebyacct2
Not sure why that's a fair assumption. I'd have an easier time believing that
they've been working on this and rushed it out the door because of Google+,
but even that's just conjecture. You don't drum up a partnership and
integration like this in two or three weeks.

