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.
I suppose I wouldn't care if I didn't have gchat on 100% of the time I'm on a desktop but I dread the day Hangouts replaces Talk.
I definitely prefer the look of Hangouts. I don't see much difference between it and GTalk utility-wise.
You see online/idle/offline/mobile/mobile-idle icons and status messages in hangouts?
Also, I understand that they are trying to make things minimal and look cool but it's not something that's very intuitive or noticeable. I thought it might have meant that I have a chat window open with that person.
The real shame is that Google already had a fantastic offering and they killed something beautiful: an integrated product that included a real time communication client (gchat), a messaging service (gmail), and a group/community based social network (g+).
That's what Google Voice will give them. You call them from the Hangouts app and they pass it through Google Voice if they're not signed into any Hangout machines. It roughly works this way already for existing GV users.
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?
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.
Edit: never mind, I was thinking of chrome app, not the local plugin that we install for voice and video.
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!
Man I wish I'd been able to find this.
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.
Maybe there is something to soaking up a market (RSS) then dropping it (though it seems the ball is being somewhat picked up there), But, maybe unlike walmart?, there is little reason to believe that was malicious. People (Kevin Rose, for example) were making fun of RSS being super dead in 2011. I am no expert, but I doubt it is a google plus play as much as a twitter defeat. Note: I personally love RSS, but if I was not a tech news junkie, it might be of little use to me.
Hangouts is becoming a nightmare of a proprietary locked in mess that is destroying decades of progress in FOSS space towards open standards for communication. They are killing Jingle and XMPP by depreciating Talk, and they are now killing VNC. They may not have played nice together, and they may be painfully outdated, but it isn't an excuse to take your toys from the community sandbox, go home, and build yourself a space rocket in your back yard and fence it off, because very few people will pay to get in your back yard and will stay in the sandbox with Tonka Trucks.
As of two or three weeks ago, the Hangouts videoconferencing code used WebRTC, Jingle, and a variety of video and audio codecs (among which one could find Opus.).
If you run the software on a *nix system, you can verify my claims by checking the contents of /tmp/gtalkplugin.log while you're in a video call with someone. Note that that file seems to be flushed to disk at irregular intervals, and that it is removed after the call is terminated.
Um, no. This feature substitutes for one small VNC use case -- a use case already largely controlled by commercial products like TeamViewer and Copilot anyway.
VNC has much broader uses than this.
There is still room for others, especially in the spheres where using Google products is not an option.
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.
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.
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.
Did I mention that I use two-factor authentication?
Show me another Remote Desktop software that enforces two-factor authentication.
That's 4 factor :)
Pain to remember, but it's definitely secure.
That's one-factor authentication.
Two-factor means you need two things, not just the passwords, but for instance also a device.
You mentioned a remote key, so yes, it sounds like you have two-factor. But not four.
Fair point about the keylogger. I didn't consider that - it's not my network to worry about :)
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.
Note the date, things are very different now.