This looks interesting but when I scrolled down I saw the message "Built for Chrome" and I'm left with the impression that this software is for Chrome only. Is that correct? I use Firefox so won't be able to use it.
If the notice is just about the website, I'm left wondering why they would include an advertisement for a browser from an advertising company on the site?
Users that are okay with ads and vendor lock-in already have plenty of bigger and more established options, so I'm still trying to figure out how this service might appeal to me - maybe not at all?
Okay, well good luck with the project then. I think I'll stick with Firefox Hello for now, but I'd love to be able to implement a 'video click to call' button on a website using WebRTC. Much like Skype but using no plugins and with the option to self-host it.
Why isn't there a Google Hangout clone with WebRTC already? It seems so easy to setup (similar to url shortener or pastebins), but there is no standard site everybody uses (like tinyurl.com before everybody made his own).
edit: Thanks for the suggestions, I appreciate your work. My point is that there is no standard yet. Is it just too early or does Hangout/Skype have some inherent advantage?
I've been using appear.in for months. That said, WebRTC makes it so easy that videochat/screensharing is basically a commodity now. Someone will have to innovate on top of it to make something better by enough to become standard, and that hasn't happened yet.
You should say something about why I would want to try it if you're going to market your product here. I'm not going to request an invite to something I know nothing about other than that it solves a problem I already have a tool for.
A "Google Hangout clone" would, in fact, essentially be a contact management app which dings you when someone wants to talk to you - at the moment, you can use practically any site, they all give you links to share with your friends.
The issue is, of course, getting people to add all their friends into yet another app. You might be able to grab them from Facebook, but then you'll lose all your users as soon as Facebook implements video chat, and you still have to convince everyone to have your app open.
Thought of doing a TogetherJS-like feature, too? I'm already using TogetherJS, and icecomm.io and TogetherJS seem to play pretty nice together .. but it'd be nice to have it all in one package, obviously ..
Looks pretty good .. but I had some hiccups that I haven't quite debugged yet. It appears that the <video> object needs to be instantiated somewhere earlier than the (in my case bowser'ified) icecomm script .. and it was kind of hit and miss between me on Chrome/OSX, my buddy on Chrome/OSX and my other buddy on Chrome/Linux whether we could get the Linux-guy into our session .. I'll chalk it up to a loose and fast hack at trying to make this work on our site, but .. generally .. its freaking awesome! Felt like the intro to the Brady Bunch when we got some connections, lol ..
EDIT: doesn't work with Safari on OSX, it seems .. dunno why, maybe autoplay=true is not valid? I'm not a web guy, though, so could also just be PEBCAK.
I keep trying to sign up but the verification link doesn't seem to do anything? Just plops me back to the homepage, subsequent logins fail, and subsequent registration attempts with the same info succeed (to the point of sending me the confirmation email)... am I doing something dumb?
Since the app is so new there is currently no paid component to it. Signing up allows you to get an API key which you need to include in your Icecomm code.
It's plugin-free if you use their own browser (chrome/chromium). So I have to assume there's something non-standard going on or else Firefox wouldn't need a plugin.
What's the advantage of this over PeerJS? What is your guys' pricing going to look like? Can I deploy this to something with thousands of users already?
Hey, it's Nick, another one of the creators. Icecomm provides the STUN/TURN servers and backend signaling servers for convenience/ease of use for the frontend.
Can you elaborate on whats needed on the backend to make this happen? I'm new to WebRTC, and am very excited about the possibility of adding realtime video chat to my site - but I really don't want another third-party involved (no offense). I'd be quite happy to purchase a server license, as long as I could run that server wherever I wanted and not depend on hosting it elsewhere ..
We're having some scaling problems that will be resolved very soon. The benefit of signing up is getting the API key so that you can start using Icecomm.
Hey Will here (one of the creators). Yep we wanted to make setting up WebRTC - allowing P2P connections client-to-client, without a server as simple as possible. The pricing plan is not fully worked out- we're thinking something similar to Kimono labs with free up to a certain number of connections and then potentially a paid tier to cover costs
so there is one line NoSQL server? `git clone git@github.com:mongodb/mongo.git`
the point is that you have to choose your wording and make sure you say that it's not "only" 8 lines of code, it's only 8 lines of settings...
If the notice is just about the website, I'm left wondering why they would include an advertisement for a browser from an advertising company on the site?
Users that are okay with ads and vendor lock-in already have plenty of bigger and more established options, so I'm still trying to figure out how this service might appeal to me - maybe not at all?