Google Hangouts temporarily won’t support phone/video calls on Firefox(gsuiteupdates.googleblog.com)
gsuiteupdates.googleblog.com
Google Hangouts temporarily won’t support phone/video calls on Firefox
https://gsuiteupdates.googleblog.com/2017/02/google-hangouts-temporary-issues-with-firefox.html
135 comments
That seems uncharitable. The issue at hand is that Mozilla is dropping support for plug-ins, and hangouts' implementation of media streaming uses a plug-in. Google didn't do anything to break Firefox here except fail to develop an alternative in time. The actual software change being pushed to break the functionality is on Mozilla's end (which I don't disagree with, FWIW).
Lots of other stuff is breaking because of this Firefox change too, and it's not a conspiracy.
Lots of other stuff is breaking because of this Firefox change too, and it's not a conspiracy.
> The issue at hand is that Mozilla is dropping support for plug-ins, and hangouts' implementation of media streaming uses a plug-in
Every time two systems need to integrate, the vendors always can and often do point the finger at each other. In this case, Google had since October 2015 to fix this, didn't do it, and now attributes the problem to Firefox.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13764449
Every time two systems need to integrate, the vendors always can and often do point the finger at each other. In this case, Google had since October 2015 to fix this, didn't do it, and now attributes the problem to Firefox.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13764449
> Google had since October 2015 to fix this
Sorry, but I don't really believe in an internet where the default assumption is "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is your fault"
Hangouts relied on browser support which worked. It's crufty, I get it, but it was supported.
If this was Microsoft pulling support for old Windows 98 API calls, everyone on HN would be appalled that their old-but-reliable software no longer worked on a new OS. But then for some reason, they give Mozilla a complete pass on the exact same behavior.
Finished webapps should not require a constant refactoring and fixing to keep them usable. We're only hearing about this because it is Hangouts and Google. Sure, Google _could_ throw a bunch of money at it and fix it, but there are thousands of other little sites which will just silently die forever, and I don't believe Google should _have_ to update this.
Sorry, but I don't really believe in an internet where the default assumption is "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is your fault"
Hangouts relied on browser support which worked. It's crufty, I get it, but it was supported.
If this was Microsoft pulling support for old Windows 98 API calls, everyone on HN would be appalled that their old-but-reliable software no longer worked on a new OS. But then for some reason, they give Mozilla a complete pass on the exact same behavior.
Finished webapps should not require a constant refactoring and fixing to keep them usable. We're only hearing about this because it is Hangouts and Google. Sure, Google _could_ throw a bunch of money at it and fix it, but there are thousands of other little sites which will just silently die forever, and I don't believe Google should _have_ to update this.
This specific change feels a bit different to me since Google was also aggressively deprecating NPAPI in their own browser[1]
It was an industry trend, not really a Firefox specific decision.
[1] At a faster pace than Firefox, as it happens: https://blog.chromium.org/2014/11/the-final-countdown-for-np...
It was an industry trend, not really a Firefox specific decision.
[1] At a faster pace than Firefox, as it happens: https://blog.chromium.org/2014/11/the-final-countdown-for-np...
> "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is your fault"
Hangouts would require fixes, but not quite a rewrite. When Mozilla announced in October 2015 that it would EOL NPAPI plugins over a year later, Hangouts had already switched from NPAPI to WebRTC in Chrome over a year before (July 2014):
https://plus.google.com/103171586947853434456/posts/39TCW3Pc...
Hangouts would require fixes, but not quite a rewrite. When Mozilla announced in October 2015 that it would EOL NPAPI plugins over a year later, Hangouts had already switched from NPAPI to WebRTC in Chrome over a year before (July 2014):
https://plus.google.com/103171586947853434456/posts/39TCW3Pc...
> I don't really believe in an internet where the default assumption is "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is your fault"
In a way I agree; the lack of stability is costly for users, especially in managed environments where changes needs to be planned and tested thoroughly before deployment. Frequent updates do seem to greatly improve quality, but the lack of support for old versions is painful. It's a way of shifting the cost of old versions from the vendor (who would have to maintain them) to the user (who has to deal with the updates).
On the other hand, Google does the same thing and it seems like the norm now for software, especially web and Internet-based applications. I've come across many web apps that will only support the latest (or two latest) versions of browsers. It's also far better for security.
Arguably nobody has less reason to complain than Google: It's their own practice, and possibly nobody has better resources for keeping up - money, personnel, talent, and expertise - they make browsers themselves.
In a way I agree; the lack of stability is costly for users, especially in managed environments where changes needs to be planned and tested thoroughly before deployment. Frequent updates do seem to greatly improve quality, but the lack of support for old versions is painful. It's a way of shifting the cost of old versions from the vendor (who would have to maintain them) to the user (who has to deal with the updates).
On the other hand, Google does the same thing and it seems like the norm now for software, especially web and Internet-based applications. I've come across many web apps that will only support the latest (or two latest) versions of browsers. It's also far better for security.
Arguably nobody has less reason to complain than Google: It's their own practice, and possibly nobody has better resources for keeping up - money, personnel, talent, and expertise - they make browsers themselves.
Frankly it was Google that set the ball in motion, by frequently, and quietly, downloading Chrome updates in the background. Next time you launched Chrome, whole new version etc.
Mozilla felt they had to jump on the bandwagon or come across at lethargic.
To me this is the web dev "push to prod" mentality encroaching on the desktop, and i am not really sure it belongs there.
Mozilla felt they had to jump on the bandwagon or come across at lethargic.
To me this is the web dev "push to prod" mentality encroaching on the desktop, and i am not really sure it belongs there.
Considering Mozilla has been planning to remove support for NPAPI plugins for well over a year and had made public announcements of such and considering Chrome has already removed such support it actually is far less uncharitable.
How much leeway should be given when they had ample notification of such breakage and had workarounds available for their own browser? I'll agree that the parent's link is a bit uncharitable, but given the circumstances it seems a bit more poignant and dismissing it entirely seems a bit much.
How much leeway should be given when they had ample notification of such breakage and had workarounds available for their own browser? I'll agree that the parent's link is a bit uncharitable, but given the circumstances it seems a bit more poignant and dismissing it entirely seems a bit much.
> hangouts' implementation of media streaming uses a plug-in.
Sort of. That's true in non-Chrome browsers. In Chrome, Hangouts uses WebRTC.
Though the Google Talk plugin that Hangouts uses in Firefox is (as I understand) used as a way of patching Firefox's WebRTC to make it behave more like Chrome's WebRTC.
Sort of. That's true in non-Chrome browsers. In Chrome, Hangouts uses WebRTC.
Though the Google Talk plugin that Hangouts uses in Firefox is (as I understand) used as a way of patching Firefox's WebRTC to make it behave more like Chrome's WebRTC.
The part you're missing is: this comes from Firefox dropping support for NPAPI. Google is also dropping NPAPI. But rather than turn Hangouts into a plugin that could work in the new non-NPAPI world, they've just given it special privileges in Chrome to allow it to keep working, and are letting it break in Firefox.
> it's not a conspiracy
But is it a conflict of interest?
Nestle formula wasn't let's kill babies in Africa. It was let's do PR damage control first, and if the PR cost gets too high, we'll eventually change our marketing strategy.
Unilever wasn't let's increase racism in India. It was skin lightening products are the largest personal care market segment, so let's advertise and develop the market.
Microsoft wasn't let's reduce the world's access to knowledge in books. It was what's bad for Google is good for us, so let's quietly fund stumbling blocks.
Why should I inconvenience my customers by fixing my implementations of your standards? Why should I delay giving features to my customers because of your standardization slowness? What part of your customers switching to be my customers should I prioritize as a problem?
Situations have associated incentives. Ethics can shape response. But incentives do matter. No conspiracy needed.
But is it a conflict of interest?
Nestle formula wasn't let's kill babies in Africa. It was let's do PR damage control first, and if the PR cost gets too high, we'll eventually change our marketing strategy.
Unilever wasn't let's increase racism in India. It was skin lightening products are the largest personal care market segment, so let's advertise and develop the market.
Microsoft wasn't let's reduce the world's access to knowledge in books. It was what's bad for Google is good for us, so let's quietly fund stumbling blocks.
Why should I inconvenience my customers by fixing my implementations of your standards? Why should I delay giving features to my customers because of your standardization slowness? What part of your customers switching to be my customers should I prioritize as a problem?
Situations have associated incentives. Ethics can shape response. But incentives do matter. No conspiracy needed.
If it was Chrome that dropped support for something (like they do all the time), Hangouts and other Google properties would have been ready on day one.
They also would have likely known about it for a longer period of time before it was public knowledge.
That's basically true for all software. Unpopular options that no longer receive support recede, regardless of their price-point.
Or should I also have an Opera instance hot and ready to run, just in case?
Or should I also have an Opera instance hot and ready to run, just in case?
Firefox isn't just any software; the survival of the open web, and therefore open software in general (because the web is a major platform), depends in part on their marketshare.
The survival of the open web, whatever that means, depends on a bit player (~15% marketshare, neck and neck with IE) with an abysmal security record, questionable leadership, and who's in the immediate process of disassembling their only remaining competitive advantage?
If this is the case, "the open web" did not go extinct, it committed suicide.
If this is the case, "the open web" did not go extinct, it committed suicide.
Well then Mozilla better would spend their resources more wisely and refrain from political influenced decisions, e.g. Thunderbird, FirefoxOS, Brendan Eich. Mozilla/Firefox lost much respect from me (not that they will or should care;)
I love the irony of the fact that this post is written on blogger, a Google platform.
Blogger did not start as Google platform but was acquired by it. Or what was the irony?
Blogger is very far from creating a monopoly on blogging platforms.
This makes it sound like they only received notice last October.
Not true: https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/10/08/npapi-plu...
Not true: https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/10/08/npapi-plu...
It also doesn't say when they intend to restore support for Firefox builds.
Also, they recommend installing IE. So I'm assuming Edge isn't supported either? This is a horrible approach to browser security coming from Google.
Also, they recommend installing IE. So I'm assuming Edge isn't supported either? This is a horrible approach to browser security coming from Google.
For IE it's not even npapi, it's ActiveX (!) plugin[1]. Yes, Edge does not support neither npapi nor ActiveX.
[1] https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/1361676?hl=en
[1] https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/1361676?hl=en
Edge doesn't support plugins (NPAPI or ActiveX), other than Flash. Hangouts switched to WebRTC in Chrome back in 2014, but still requires a plugin for any other browsers.
https://www.cnet.com/news/in-chrome-googles-hangouts-plugin-...
https://www.cnet.com/news/in-chrome-googles-hangouts-plugin-...
I can really only be cynical about this announcement, hoping to convince a few more firefox users to switch to chrome instead of supporting the open web.
In the end corporation have discovered how to hijack "open". They just need to get a lead position on development, and then iterate on changes faster than the competition. Then again, i guess that is pretty much how Microsoft kept the competition from fully supporting the Office file formats...
The path for "Hijacking 'open'" sounds an awful lot like "building better software faster."
Can we get more people to "hijack 'open'"? Can "'open' hijackers" become the new "rockstar developers?"
Can we get more people to "hijack 'open'"? Can "'open' hijackers" become the new "rockstar developers?"
It all depends on your definition of "better", and particularly on whether it includes "open" and "interoperable", and to what extent.
"Does it work?" is generally the definition I use.
A lot of people do. But some of us find it frustrating when, later down the line, we want to switch the service provider (of whatever the service is), only to find out the massive amount of lock-in around their services/software making it a massive pain - and as a result, we have to contend with the relatively more minor pain that prompted the desire to switch in the first place.
E.g. in retrospect, I wish I never bought into the Google ecosystem as much as I did, convenient though as it was. There are parts of it that I dislike or outright hate now, but the inconvenience of switching away is greater (yes, I've tried), so now I mostly just grumble quietly.
E.g. in retrospect, I wish I never bought into the Google ecosystem as much as I did, convenient though as it was. There are parts of it that I dislike or outright hate now, but the inconvenience of switching away is greater (yes, I've tried), so now I mostly just grumble quietly.
I used to feel similarly about the Windows software ecosystem.
Then I spent about a decade and a half trying to embrace alternatives and I concluded that software that handles general use cases is actually a hard, specialized-skillset problem, and there's a lot of benefit to the full-stack control (and large developer culture, and multi-decade legacy history of successful product) that a long-legacy monoculture provides. Most of the friction is in wanting to use something that isn't in your monoculture, and trying to solve that by building a more general solution really just adds another monoculture to be incompatible with your favorite one (see https://xkcd.com/927/). Virtualization has basically solved that rare problem in my use-case.
To each their own, of course; I got bored with the game of making the computer architecture work over paying someone else to do that and then using the computer to make things.
Then I spent about a decade and a half trying to embrace alternatives and I concluded that software that handles general use cases is actually a hard, specialized-skillset problem, and there's a lot of benefit to the full-stack control (and large developer culture, and multi-decade legacy history of successful product) that a long-legacy monoculture provides. Most of the friction is in wanting to use something that isn't in your monoculture, and trying to solve that by building a more general solution really just adds another monoculture to be incompatible with your favorite one (see https://xkcd.com/927/). Virtualization has basically solved that rare problem in my use-case.
To each their own, of course; I got bored with the game of making the computer architecture work over paying someone else to do that and then using the computer to make things.
FWIW they link Firefox ESR, and October-now is only 2 quarters to migrate a complicated app.
Sucks though, Firefox probably could have make a longer exception for them if it mattered to them.
Sucks though, Firefox probably could have make a longer exception for them if it mattered to them.
The announcement linked to above was made in October 2015, 16 months ago, and said the change would be made by the end of 2016.
Ah, thanks for the correction. In that case yeah that's quite a long time to implement something important.
[deleted]
This makes it sound like it was ever supported. The hangouts plugin has never worked in 64-bit Firefox on Windows.
- Both Chrome and Firefox remove npapi plugin support to move web forward
- But Chrome leaves few plugins, including Hangouts, and makes them builtin
- Now Hangouts does not work in Firefox, users think that Chrome is superior
Party like it's 1999.
- But Chrome leaves few plugins, including Hangouts, and makes them builtin
- Now Hangouts does not work in Firefox, users think that Chrome is superior
Party like it's 1999.
> But Chrome leaves few plugins, including Hangouts, and makes them builtin
Huh? No they didn't. The only plugins built-in to Chrome are Widevine DRM, PDF Viewer, Native Client, and Adobe Flash: chrome://plugins/
Huh? No they didn't. The only plugins built-in to Chrome are Widevine DRM, PDF Viewer, Native Client, and Adobe Flash: chrome://plugins/
This "almost opensource" browser became so shady so noone knows for sure what plugin it includes. I see Google Hangouts plugin in Chrome Task Manager: http://imgur.com/a/HLpLf.
Also in source in Chromium: https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/stable/tal...
It might be not npapi plugin but just something built in into source.
Also in source in Chromium: https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/stable/tal...
It might be not npapi plugin but just something built in into source.
I don't think they use any specific plugin, but use webRTC instead for hangouts
Hangouts uses a bunch of non-standard Hangouts-specific APIs in Chrome. Maybe it's be best to call it "Google-RTC".
https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-hancke/
In summary, they use weaker encryption than allowed by the spec, nonstandard ICE (firewall hole punching), nonstandard data channels, and an abandoned way to do multistream.
https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-hancke/
In summary, they use weaker encryption than allowed by the spec, nonstandard ICE (firewall hole punching), nonstandard data channels, and an abandoned way to do multistream.
Hangouts uses a plugin (NPAPI or ActiveX) in browsers other than Chrome.
Seems that extension is involved: http://imgur.com/a/HLpLf
Hangouts on Chrome uses NaCl for some visual processing (like hats), or at least it used to. So the NaCl code may show up as a plugin process.
https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-hancke/
https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-hancke/
Unfortunately, after knock-down, drag out fighting over the matter, it was learned that the Justice Department of the United States is entirely spineless, and Microsoft got away with their antitrust conviction with impunity.
Meet the new boss, Google, same as the old boss, Microsoft.
Meet the new boss, Google, same as the old boss, Microsoft.
I can think of 3 possible explanations for this "temporary issue" (that Google should have seen coming literal years ago):
1. Google is swinging its market share around in the desktop browser market to further squeeze Firefox, a much smaller competitor
2. Google hasn't allocated any resources to porting Hangouts away from NPAPI plugins presumably because it has already put Hangouts for the desktop on life support, focusing resources on a similar initiative like Allo or whatever the flavor of the month is
3. Mozilla somehow dropped the ball on writing a sufficiently capable WebRTC implementation despite having implemented a Hangouts / Skype competitor in Firefox Hello
Any others?
1. Google is swinging its market share around in the desktop browser market to further squeeze Firefox, a much smaller competitor
2. Google hasn't allocated any resources to porting Hangouts away from NPAPI plugins presumably because it has already put Hangouts for the desktop on life support, focusing resources on a similar initiative like Allo or whatever the flavor of the month is
3. Mozilla somehow dropped the ball on writing a sufficiently capable WebRTC implementation despite having implemented a Hangouts / Skype competitor in Firefox Hello
Any others?
> 3. Mozilla somehow dropped the ball on writing a sufficiently capable WebRTC implementation
Hangouts on Chrome uses NaCl (for video processing like hats) and non-standard features of WebRTC that are not available in other browsers:
https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-hancke/
Hangouts on Chrome uses NaCl (for video processing like hats) and non-standard features of WebRTC that are not available in other browsers:
https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-hancke/
Yes, Google's already announced (when they announced shutting down the API) they are doing a major pivot for Hangouts to be an enterprise messaging app (which seems to have been quietly launched as Meet by Hangouts [0]), so presumably all the resources have gone into the redesign and not maintenance of the current, legacy consumer app.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/28/google-quietly-launches-me...
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/28/google-quietly-launches-me...
I'm going to guess #2 is the most likely situation. They didn't allocate any resources to maintenance, and now the time has expired and they're scrambling to make a cross-compatible webapp that doesn't depend on plugins.
Worth noting that Google Hangouts isn't entirely Google-developed: my understanding is that all of the old NPAPI plugin, some of the current browser codec support and server code, and most (?) of the enterprise Hangouts stuff is developed by Vidyo. http://blog.vidyo.com/vidyo-news/google-vidyo-vp9-webrtc/
Yet another reason for me to continue a divorce from Google. I may even leave Gmail at this point. So far, I have switched to Duck Duck Go for searches, switched to Chromium, use NewPipe instead of the YouTube app, and have disabled all Google software on my phone. I will still have to use Docs at my work, but my personal life will be almost free of Google when I get a viable alternative to Chromecast. I just can't continue to support a company that has morphed itself into Ballmer-era Microsoft and actively tries to destroy the web with abominations like AMP.
I wish there was an easier replacement for Google Apps. A company like protonmail that lets have have DNS for your domain, email, and some replacements for the other apps. Having this all in one place in the cloud is very convenient - and when it comes with browser syncing, apps like Google Keep, and all the extras, then it's very easy to buy into. It wouldn't be that hard to compete in that space these days! So please compete! :)
I recently switched to FastMail. Pretty happy with it so far and they also offer a really nice (free) IMAP import service which will allow you to move all you old email from Gmail to Fastmail (5 mins to setup and then it runs for a few hours).
Agreed. About a year ago I began the process of migrating away from Google/Apple/Microsoft/Dropbox services. It's important for the web to remain a decentralized network of servers, not a few walled gardens.
The most important part of making this happen is revising the Soviet-era CFAA and the Copyright Act for the digital age.
I'm surprised that the one thing you couldn't replace was Chromecast. I like Chromecast, but I got the impression that Roku and the Amazon stick were pretty similar. Is there a particular feature of Chromecast that you find hard to replace?
Also, I'm not sure that switching from YouTube's provided client to a third party YouTube client counts as divorcing yourself from Google.
Also, I'm not sure that switching from YouTube's provided client to a third party YouTube client counts as divorcing yourself from Google.
I haven't done a whole lot of looking. It's just the most recent thing on my mind. I used to have a Roku and it was pretty good. The more important thing is being able to stream videos from my computer(or at least my network drive), as opposed to being able to play Netflix, which I have my Xbox for.
The problem with YouTube for me is that there's a lot of great content on there that's hard to get anywhere else. I spend a lot of my "free" time listening to lectures on various topics, and nothing can compare with YouTube in the sheer volume of monetarily-free intellectual content. NewPipe at least takes away the ad revenue from YouTube/Google/Alphabet and doesn't force me to eat up my 4G bandwidth with HD video I'd rather just listen to audio for. I support all my favorite content creators through Patreon.
I know it sounds kind of scummy to free-load, but I'd have little problem watching their ads if Google hadn't been behaving the way they have and if they weren't making their ads more pervasive. Somehow, cutting myself off from the smartest people in the world share their ideas with me, just because of a moral dilemma in supporting an internet giant, doesn't seem right to me. I'd happily switch to something like Vimeo if it could compare in content, but I don't think it ever will. Cutting off the revenue stream is the only way I can have a sort of vote without losing touch with the world. My tune will change if Google can decrease the level of uncertainty in their products and not be trying to impose its corporate vision of the web. Heck, my actions might change if they stopped having the worst technical support the world has ever seen.
The problem with YouTube for me is that there's a lot of great content on there that's hard to get anywhere else. I spend a lot of my "free" time listening to lectures on various topics, and nothing can compare with YouTube in the sheer volume of monetarily-free intellectual content. NewPipe at least takes away the ad revenue from YouTube/Google/Alphabet and doesn't force me to eat up my 4G bandwidth with HD video I'd rather just listen to audio for. I support all my favorite content creators through Patreon.
I know it sounds kind of scummy to free-load, but I'd have little problem watching their ads if Google hadn't been behaving the way they have and if they weren't making their ads more pervasive. Somehow, cutting myself off from the smartest people in the world share their ideas with me, just because of a moral dilemma in supporting an internet giant, doesn't seem right to me. I'd happily switch to something like Vimeo if it could compare in content, but I don't think it ever will. Cutting off the revenue stream is the only way I can have a sort of vote without losing touch with the world. My tune will change if Google can decrease the level of uncertainty in their products and not be trying to impose its corporate vision of the web. Heck, my actions might change if they stopped having the worst technical support the world has ever seen.
> I'd have little problem watching their ads if Google hadn't been behaving the way they have and if they weren't making their ads more pervasive.
Google has that. It costs $10/month.
Google has that. It costs $10/month.
Not OP, but unfortunately YouTube Red isn't available in places like Canada last I've checked.
For me, this pretty much tells me that Google Hangouts is scheduled for deletion :(
I do understand that some google services work only on Chrome but certain systems need to be cross-browser / cross-platform to become successful. For example, in early days MS Word could save documents into WordPerfect format - not because MS liked WordPerfect but because that was the easiest path to conquer the world.
So as soon as a product starts dropping support for very popular platforms that can mean only two things: 1) the product rules the world in that segment or 2) company plans to sunset that product.
I do understand that some google services work only on Chrome but certain systems need to be cross-browser / cross-platform to become successful. For example, in early days MS Word could save documents into WordPerfect format - not because MS liked WordPerfect but because that was the easiest path to conquer the world.
So as soon as a product starts dropping support for very popular platforms that can mean only two things: 1) the product rules the world in that segment or 2) company plans to sunset that product.
I think it's just the opposite. Looking at Chrome's market share, I think they're banking on that product ruling enough of the world that the majority of users will force the minority on other browsers to switch.
Did it ever? I normally find with most Google services I have to open up Chrome, and figured it's probably just them trying to get me to switch browsers.
Weirdly enough I find that Firefox works better than Chrome with Hangouts a lot of the time
Yeah Hangouts on Chrome forces webp, even if you have hardware h264 support, whereas Hangouts on Firefox / Safari will happily use your hardware h264 support.
This is also why Macs get scorchingly hot when using Hangouts on Chrome.
This is also why Macs get scorchingly hot when using Hangouts on Chrome.
By "webp", you mean VP9?
But yes, it's generally Google forcing their own products, just like what they're doing with YouTube, where you also get VP9 on Chrome and H.264 on Firefox.
But yes, it's generally Google forcing their own products, just like what they're doing with YouTube, where you also get VP9 on Chrome and H.264 on Firefox.
Or, you know, Apple could make available that VP9 hardware acceleration, that is present in the chips shipping in Macs.
Firefox is getting H.264 only because it doesn't support MSE for VP9.
Firefox is getting H.264 only because it doesn't support MSE for VP9.
Can you give us an example?
similar experiences here - safari on mac - hangouts just plain doesn't work about 30% of the time (over last 12-18 months). I'll click a link, then after a minute of futzing around remember "oh yeah, this really only works in the latest chrome" and have to switch...
I have wondered about this also, although I have found Chrome on my Mac to work poorly with Hangouts. Recently I had an issue during a Hangout and the people I was on with mentioned they also avoid Chrome for Hangouts. I had been using Firefox, but I guess now I'll have to rely on Safari. Or use Skype.
Same experience here. I wish they would just make Hangouts better rather than splitting efforts across Duo and Allo.
A unified Mobile+Desktop solution is highly required so I can take conversations from one, continue them on another, and then bring them back to the original...which is why most of us switched to WhatsApp.
A unified Mobile+Desktop solution is highly required so I can take conversations from one, continue them on another, and then bring them back to the original...which is why most of us switched to WhatsApp.
That's been my experience with Hangouts but everything else I've used seems to work ok for the most part in FireFox.
Why use hangouts if https://meet.jit.si works in Firefox flawlessly?
Exactly, I've been using Jitsi Meet for over a year. It works in all browsers flawlessly, it's encrypted, it's open source and there's no account needed.
Came here to say this. I've just been using https://framatalk.org/ (based on Jitsi Meet) for a meeting with unknown (read: not necessarily having a Google account or enough knowledge in IT to install a browser plugin) people and it works so much better than Hangouts than I'm tempted to remove the Hangouts plugin right now.
How does it compare to https://talky.io/? I'm looking for a Skype/Hangouts alternative (for talking, chat and Screensharing)
[deleted]
It doesn't seem to allow me to chat with hangouts users.
Regardless of how you feel about Google's motivations, this is a pretty dismal commentary on the state of browser interoperability.
Google hangouts in Chrome uses Native Client. Which no other browser vendor has any interest in supporting. Webassembly is the path forward for such code as it is supported/planned support in Firefox, Edge, Chrome and Safari. They have had 18 months of notice that the end of plugins was coming.
I think a large part of the problem is how many diverse applications are now being served through the browser. Interop always had problems and this is just the natural evolution of old issues like bad CSS rendering.
Just a few days back a projectzero post informed us how Google had told the proxy companies about upcoming TLS 1.3 change months back and that company didn't do anything about it. Google does the same now, ignoring something important known for months ahead.
The proxy companies behavior for TLS 1.3 is a bug and it's easier to fix; they just need to respond that they only support TLS 1.2 and below.
Not really the same at all. The proxies were buggy and that time Google rolled back the change.
Surely Hangouts can work over WebRTC?
Is it using a plugin in Chrome also?
Is it using a plugin in Chrome also?
As far as I remember it uses WebRTC on Chrome, that's how it manages to be plugin free there. But there's subtle differences in browser implementations w.r.t WebRTC, it's one of those... standards. WebRTC is also incredibly hard to debug from browsers.
Our WebRTC video calling system on Roll20 is used by around 50k people per week and works fine in both Chrome and Firefox.
So is our WebRTC web conferencing platform. I just tested a firefox-to-chrome video call, and it works fine. Hangouts, however, wants me to install a plugin on firefox. WTF!?!
There's no reason why hangouts can't work on Firefox. In my experience, firefox actually works better than Chrome, due to it having implemented the applyConstraints API.
This is just laziness or evil on Google's part.
There's no reason why hangouts can't work on Firefox. In my experience, firefox actually works better than Chrome, due to it having implemented the applyConstraints API.
This is just laziness or evil on Google's part.
Hangouts switched to WebRTC and NaCl (for video processing like hats) in Chrome back in 2014, but still requires plugins (NPAPI or ActiveX) for any other browsers.
https://www.cnet.com/news/in-chrome-googles-hangouts-plugin-...
https://www.cnet.com/news/in-chrome-googles-hangouts-plugin-...
I was working on a WebRTC client in Angular a few years ago and basically Firefox was weird.
The WebRTC team has released a polyfill [0] for browser incompatibilities so that would not really be a excuse for them, especially given the fact they have some of the top web engineers around.
[0] https://github.com/webrtc/adapter
[0] https://github.com/webrtc/adapter
Your experience from years ago, in the age of rapid releases, is like ancient history. WebRTC is supported on firefox, and I've used it with no problems.
lol thanks man, I know I'm an old-man in Internet years, I'm sure that it works now but then why is the Google Hangouts team temporarily not supporting it?
which sites are you using webrtc on firefox?
which sites are you using webrtc on firefox?
I see "Extension: Google Hangouts" in Chrome Task Manager[1], but I don't see anything Hangouts-related in chrome://extensions/. Seems that it's good old npapi plugin, but built-in into chrome, like Flash and NaCl.
[1] http://imgur.com/a/HLpLf
[1] http://imgur.com/a/HLpLf
You can use "--show-component-extension-options" flag to display hidden extensions.
Most of the nonstandard features that Hangouts uses are built into Chromium and the JS APIs it exposes to Hangouts. In particular, SDES, google-ICE, RTP data channels, and plan B are all nonstandard features exposed that way. [1]
[1] https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-hancke/
[1] https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-hancke/
Hangouts on Chrome uses NaCl for some visual processing (like hats), or at least it used to. So the NaCl code may show up as a plugin process.
I'm confused about this too. I thought WebRTC just worked everywhere now.
Safari still does not support WebRTC, and users must enable Flash on sites that require it. They've merged in a few commits [1], but their implementation is still lacking [2].
[1] https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/210942 [2] http://caniuse.com/#search=webrtc
[1] https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/210942 [2] http://caniuse.com/#search=webrtc
The power of the monopoly to crush competitors and remove user choice.
In what sense? If you want to use Hangouts but not Chrome, just install Chrome for the sole purpose of using Hangouts and use Firefox for everything else. Think of it as a heavyweight application that you only use one feature of.
What's a good open-source alternative to Google Hangouts and Skype?
I'd really love a video call tool the quality of Mumble; a few basic features, reasonable call quality, low-latency and fast reconnects. Skype and Hangouts never came close to that for me.
I'd really love a video call tool the quality of Mumble; a few basic features, reasonable call quality, low-latency and fast reconnects. Skype and Hangouts never came close to that for me.
Some commenters recommend Jitsi:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13765289
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13765289
Nothing.
Realtime multi-directional video over the Internet is pretty high on the pyramid of software complexity. There are a lot of corner-case problems that can only be solved by rolling up one's sleeves and building one-off solutions for a variety of hardware, OS, and browser quirks.
To my knowledge, no open source project has attracted enough critical mass to have the army of supporters that can get in and solve those problems. It's boring, glory-free grunge work, so good luck finding people you aren't paying to get it done.
Realtime multi-directional video over the Internet is pretty high on the pyramid of software complexity. There are a lot of corner-case problems that can only be solved by rolling up one's sleeves and building one-off solutions for a variety of hardware, OS, and browser quirks.
To my knowledge, no open source project has attracted enough critical mass to have the army of supporters that can get in and solve those problems. It's boring, glory-free grunge work, so good luck finding people you aren't paying to get it done.
The most promising ones are ring.cx and tox.chat. Just note that they are in development and not stable yet.
appear.in and talky.io are nice and simple video chat services using WebRTC.
I am betting that there are Chrome devs who feel that Firefox didn't deprecated NPAPI quickly enough - it was something like two and a half years ago when Chrome did the same.
Hangouts is completely broken for me right now when trying to join a hangout via link. As far as I can tell, it's always trying to join calls with the wrong Google Account, and the control that used to be there for switching accounts is gone.
You can fix the account in the URL by changing the authuser parameter. You'll need to remember the order you signed into accounts and enter the right number, but at least it's a workaround. The account is controllable from the URL for all Google services. It's horrible UX but it's there.
It happens to me all the time. If you have been logged out of the account you want to use. You need to login through another mean (eg via Gmail), then come back to Hangout.
Well then, this absolutely doesn't reflect badly on Google at all, does it?
Nope, they are a perfect company who can do no wrong on HN. Just try to point out something they screw up, an army will show up to obliterate you immediately. I guess this is the new phase of marketing, just make sure you dominate discussions everywhere, all the time.
Are you kidding? Google can barely throw away a cardboard box without a flood of HN comments exclaiming "embrace, extend, extinguish!" and calling them "the new Microsoft."
It seems that both sides are well-represented here. That's true on a number of issues, and is what makes HN pretty unique among discussion sites.
How long is "temporarily"?
What's a good alternative to Hangouts, then?
Looks like another poster mentions "https://meet.jit.si". Ran a 10-second test, and it looks like it can successfully display my face. Haven't tried it for actual communication.
Not sure if they are better but at least you have FB messenger and Skype. All have desktop/web clients with video support? If anyone knows anything with more privacy focus and mobile clients please reply.
appear.in and talky.io are nice and simple video chat services using WebRTC.
Really disappointed with Google more and more everyday. AOL 2.0?
[deleted]
Choose Firefox Now, Or Later You Won't Get A Choice (2014)
http://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-or-la...