×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wengo Releases Flash Softphone For Web Pages

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the talk'n'browse dept.

62

bolsh writes "Wengo, a French company specializing in VoIP and instant messaging, and patron of the OpenWengo project (previously featured in Free Software magazine and here on Slashdot), has just released WengoVisio — a Flash softphone that you can download and embed in your Web page, to allow readers to call you when you're available through their browser, without downloading any software. (Disclaimer: I work for Wengo, on the OpenWengo project.) It's functionally cut down from the full Wengophone, but it's enough to be able to make a phone call in a Web page for the first time."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

62 comments

WengoVisio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17273830)

WengoVisio?

Watch Microsoft jump all over that...

Re:WengoVisio? (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274004)

Wow, you're right. I read it as WengoVision. So. It's just audio then? Not a video phone? If it were a video phone, WengoVision might be a better name for it.

Wengo a Skype replacement? (Open Source, SIP) (2, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274230)

The Wengo people need to hire someone who can help them communicate in writing. There are translation errors and other mistakes on their web site, too.

However, here is the question that is important for most Slashdot readers: Is WengoPhone a good replacement for Skype?. WengoPhone [wengophone.com] is open source and SIP compatible.

Mandatory Joke (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17273846)

For sale: WW II era French rifle. Never used, dropped only once.

Weird name & interoperability Q (2, Insightful)

metamatic (202216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17273894)

"Visio" suggests something visual, i.e. a phone with video chat. But there doesn't seem to be any video involved.

Also, can Wengo interoperate with Gizmo and/or iChat? If not, why not?

Re:Weird name & interoperability Q (2, Interesting)

pavon (30274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275024)

The Wengo Visio product does include video chat.

WengoPhone is an SIP based application that can be used with whatever SIP provider you want, as well as being able to interoperate with AIM, MSN, Yahoo, and Jabber (including Google Chat). Who you can talk to then depends on which SIP networks your SIP provider allows calls to. If you use Wengo as your provider, they only allow calls to other Wengo users. It is one of the more frustrating things about SIP - from a technical point-of-view there is little preventing networks from interoperating, but so many are walled off to varying degrees for business reasons.

As for Wengo Visio, it's sole purpose it to let people without VOIP software/accounts to talk to you, so interoperability only affects what software you have to run. From the sparse amount of information on the website, it appears to require a wengo account and WengoPhone software, but it is SIP based and therefore might be able to be setup to connect to any SIP account / software.

Re:Weird name & interoperability Q (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17277458)

I understand that it does XMPP, which is good.

My question was more about SIP. If I have iChat (which is SIP-based) and my friend has Wengo (which is SIP-based), can we audio chat? What about Wengo and Gizmo? Or my home iChat client and work Sametime client?

I ask because I've never seen any SIP software described as interoperating with any other SIP software. Maybe I just need to try a bunch of this stuff and see for myself.

Re:Weird name & interoperability Q (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17280934)

In general, the client isn't as important as the provider when it comes to interoperability. The problem is one of initiating the connection. Like IM, or email or a regular phone call, you need some way of locating the person you want to talk to on the internet. If the person you are calling has a static IP address, and has their software / firewall setup to allow direct connections then you can call them directly using their IP address. But the vast majority of people who use the internet do not have a static IP address and worse are behind a NAT, or would like their SIP number to move with them to multiple locations, and hence IPs. In these case, you have to log into a provider who then associates your account name with your current dynamic IP. Then when someone calls you they send your account name to the provider who then either provides them with your current IP, or in the case where you are both behind a firewall, acts as a mediator to initiate the connection.

Some providers allow connections from outside networks, some don't. As far as I can tell:
iChat only allows connections to/from AIM or .Mac accounts.
Wengo (the provider) only allows connections from other Wengo accounts.
Sametime will depend on how your IT folks set things up.
Gizmo appears to allow connections from any SIP number.
Most telcom providers allow connections from any SIP number.

The address that you use to connect to people can vary. Sometimes you can just use SIP:username@provider.org, but sometimes you have to use SIP:sipaddress@provider.org, where sipaddress is a long number that you'll have to ask your provider for.

The software packages can sometimes be used with any providers. This is definitely true for the WengoPhone, which is libreware.
Other features of the various software packages are often specific to that provider such as account presence (shows you if people in your buddy list are online).

Re:Weird name & interoperability Q (1)

Sark666 (756464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17282540)

According to the first page on openwengo.org it says you can use other sip providers, but in the faq it states:

Can WengoPhone 2.0 be used with any SIP provider?

Not right now. However, it is the item with the highest priority on our todo list, apart from having a 2.0 release. So expect to see this feature implement right after the first NG release.

Re: interoperability Q (1)

bolsh (135555) | more than 7 years ago | (#17284116)

Our goal is to have OpenWengo be as open as possible - I want SIP to become the dominant VoIP protocol - and we definitely want the Wengophone to talk with other platforms, as well as share presence information and user directories.

For my part, I'd love to see various platform providers collaborate on things like directory services and presence so that we could have any SIP user look for any other SIP user, regardless of platform.

And aside from VoIP, we want to be as inclusive as possible - IM in many protocols, support for H323, Jingle and Skype (I can dream), and a very open and collaborative community.

We don't ask for copyright assignment on code contributions, because we don't want Wengo to be the sole proprietor of OpenWengo - the company is investing in the project and paying developers, but it really is a community-owned project.

Cheers,
Dave.

What's the purpose? (1)

megrims (839585) | more than 7 years ago | (#17273910)

You can only talk to one person on the phone at once, right?
I can see one or two rare situations where this would be of use, but generally, uses are there for this type of technology?

Re:What's the purpose? (2, Insightful)

BoboB-69 (1034912) | more than 7 years ago | (#17273950)

I can see one or two rare situations where this would be of use, but generally, uses are there for this type of technology?
This is an incredibly useful tool. It makes it easy for any company to easily allow its customers to contact the company directly via telephones. All while leveraging the exisiting telephony infrastructure. There are wide-ranging uses for this type of connectivity for corporate use. Many users do not want to download helper applications and being able to just click on a web page to make a phone call is extremely helpful for them. IRC and other techno-weenie tools may be useful for the slashdot crowd, but nothing beats a no-brainer point and click in a web page for the vast majority of website users.

Re:What's the purpose? (3, Insightful)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274020)

Do you really think those same non-tech savvy customers can configure microphones (or even have them)?

Honestly, I don't see a real use for this. If a company wants to leverage their telephony infrastructure, they can post their phone number in an easy to find location. If they want to cut down on costs, they can simply post a direct number and not a toll-free number (which cost extra).

Real phones have the advantage of not disconnecting if a user closes their browser window, their laptop suddenly goes into standby, Windows decides its time to reboot for updates, or Spyware decides to show 20 popup windows.

Cool idea, I just don't see much application for this.

Re:What's the purpose? (3, Insightful)

prichardson (603676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274220)

All Macs that come with built-in monitors also come with built-in microphones. This has been the case for quite a few years. They just work and have sound quality that's good enough for audio chats.

Re:What's the purpose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17276744)

In my opinion, only headsets are good for "audio chats." And only a small subset of quality headsets at that.

Re:What's the purpose? (1)

prichardson (603676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17281186)

In my opinion, only headsets are good for "audio chats." And only a small subset of quality headsets at that.
There's a huge mac user base out there that disagrees.

Re:What's the purpose? (2, Insightful)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 7 years ago | (#17278268)

Er.. how do you configure a microphone? Provided sound works (and you would need that in order to talk to anyone), I just plug mine in and it works. Even in Linux. As a matter of fact, the connector is the same color as the jack, so I don't even have to figure out where I should be plugging it in. As for the other arguments, I agree. It is trivial, however, to make the web page show a dialog via JS if you attempt to leave/close the page.

Re:What's the purpose? (1)

muszek (882567) | more than 7 years ago | (#17281780)

Some microphones have a on/off switch. In order to configure it, you need to make sure that this switch is in "on" position. However, most microphones are user friendly and less bloated.

Re:What's the purpose? (1)

thc69 (98798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274070)

Does anybody remember "Page the SysOp"?

"Page the SysOp" (1)

ClayJar (126217) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274502)

Only did that once, and that was when the TradeWars 2002 universe appeared to have been wiped out.

The sysop said it was lost to hard drive problems the night before, but the fact that I had dialed in and played my turns about 8 hours *after* the "crash" had me thinking that maybe, just maybe, the sysop was unhappy that I had an invincible class 5 citadel in each sector of a large dead end.

I'd only used my unspendably-large cash reserves for fighting the bad guys, too. Had I known he was a petty, arrogant jerk, I'd have signed up some more corporation members and blown him out of the universe. At least then there would've been a reason to be petty. ;)

These days, I don't know if I'd want someone to be able to reach me that easily, although if I can use it to connect to my personal SIP server, it could come in quite handy when I'm out of the country. On the other hand, carrying a little SIP phone hasn't been too much trouble, and it's a lot more comfortable to use than a computer headset (at least for my normal conversations). If this thing can't connect to my personal SIP network, there's no reason at all for me to want it -- I don't want to be on a public telephony network anymore.

("Telephony": From "tele-", meaning "at a distance", and "phony", meaning "BS".)

Re:What's the purpose? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17275868)

The purpose is that ISP's will have to start traffic shaping flash data, in order to promote there own VOIP. even better, maybe block flash altogether.

Re:What's the purpose? (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17276542)

The best customer support I have had recently was from a retail place that provided something like an IRC client on their support page. You go to the site, connect to the chat, and they resolve the problem.

That was fine for me, I type quickly, and I'm at home with text (and I liked the ability to keep an exact record of the conversation). A lot of people, however, prefer to use voice for that kind of thing. Imagine putting a link on your support site saying 'click here to talk to a customer support representative,' and having it just work. You can route it to any SIP phone, or to a POTS line, and the customer doesn't have to know any of the technical details. If I were setting up support for a company these days, I would want to offer both solutions; text for those that don't have a microphone, voice for those that do.

My hosting company uses iChat for support; I can bing-bong them with quick queries, or have a full video or audio chat if that's more useful. Having the CEO and CTO on your Jabber roster, and the ability to bitch at them directly when things break, provides a certain level of confidence in a company that you rarely find these days.

Re:What's the purpose? (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17284398)


You can only talk to one person on the phone at once, right?
I can see one or two rare situations where this would be of use, but generally, uses are there for this type of technology?


I don't see a huge use for it either. Plus I'd rather be the one initiating the call to cut down on prank calls. There's a lot of jerks on the net who'd I'm sure would love the opportunity to harass website owners, esp. of sites that they disagree with the content.

What would be neat is a way for a web surfer to talk to other visitors. For example, here on Slashdot, talk to other people reading the same article, or to people on your "Friends" list. Or on ebay, talk to other people watching that item (though that could get nasty, hehe).

just a deeply disturbing concept... (5, Insightful)

ZahnRosen (1040004) | more than 7 years ago | (#17273942)

Random harassing phone call from any slob on the internet? No thanks!

Re:just a deeply disturbing concept... (1)

epyks (1041172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17283912)

note that you can accept/deny the incoming call + decide whether to be online or not. Then, at some point in the near future you'll be able & may decide to route incoming calls to a fixed line / cell phone & define the rate at which you'd like to be called - hence monetizing your conversations.

Re:just a deeply disturbing concept... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17288290)

Random harassing phone call from any slob on the internet? No thanks!
Call me old-fashioned, but I'd bet that "click here for hot chat wih one of our sexy sluts" will be the main use for this.

Advertisers will love this (4, Interesting)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17273988)

"Click here to speak to one of our representatives now"

Should attract a lot of impulse buyers.

Re:Advertisers will love this (2, Insightful)

metamatic (202216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274212)

I'm less convinced. I often encounter web sites that provide information and then ask me to call a phone number and talk to someone to actually take action. Well, screw that--if I wanted to talk to someone, I wouldn't be using the web in the first place, I'd have reached for the phone at the start.

Re:Advertisers will love this (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274330)

It's a convienence thing.

I can't count the number of times I've gone online & run into a wall while searching for information, or found what I was looking for, but called anyways in order to confirm.

The only downside I see to this is how do you navigate phone menus that don't accept voice commands? You know, "Press 1 for Customer Service" kinda stuff.

Re:Advertisers will love this (2, Insightful)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275378)

Convienience on the web is live text chat. It has WAY less pitfalls then VOIP. Text Chat doesn't suffer from QOS problems. Text Chat will probably not drop the connection if there is high latency or a momentary loss of connectivity. The system can be anything with a keyboard. Agents can potentially handle multiple chat sessions at once.

Meanwhile VOIP requires a relatively modern computer, sound card, speakers, microphone, larger software footprint. Call quality can be horrible or downright unusable for a variety of reasons from microphone (or lack thereof) to speakers to latency to audio on "mute" to localized accents of people in east vs west or whereever. An agent is only going to be able to handle one VOIP caller at a time, ever.


Fancy and flashy makes headlines and gives pointy hairs something to BS about and force their subordinates to impliment, simple and reliable makes cusomers happy and companies efficient. The high pressure marketers will argue that they make more sales if they actually get to talk to the customer as the agent can keep them as a captive audience more or less if they are any good at controlling the conversation. But I still have to go back to the above comparison. If the customer can't connect or can't communicate with the agent, then you are pretty much guaranteed to lose the sale as the customer's short attention span will be maxed out and they will move on to the next best option (IE: one of your competitors).

No Software Download Pbbbt (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274110)

Of course there is a software sownload - the Flash conponents that implement the softphone are most definitely software. Not only that they are obviously interacting directly with the network in some manner.

Re:No Software Download Pbbbt (1)

epyks (1041172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17283842)

you're right, however in terms of user experience (caller), no download & no specific device confiuration is required - disclaimer, I work for wengo.

What are your experiences? Wengo links. (3, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274160)

Wengo is advertising itself as a Skype replacement. The free WengoPhone is Open Source and SIP (telephone standards) compatible.

Does anyone have experience with Wengo? Skype is excellent, of course, but not open source and not compatible with standards.

Wengo Links:

Wengo French [wengo.fr]
Wengo English [wengo.com]

WengoPhone [wengophone.com]

OpenWengo [openwengo.org]

Wengo consulting [wdeal.com] . Sell your technical knowledge over the phone.

"Who is Wengo? [wengophone.com] People like you all over the world
and the team: 35 people in France keeping you in touch."
Wengo started in 2005. "Wengo is a subsidiary of the group neufcegetel."

Confusion: It is difficult to find their telephone service rates pages [wengophone.com] . The one linked is for the countries beginning with B.

Debian Wengo: Package: wengophone (2.0.0~rc5-svn8108-2) [debian.org] "SIP-based software telephone with video and chat features."

Observations: Their web site is confused. The site is incorrectly translated to English in some places.

Re:What are your experiences? Wengo links. (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274834)

Very confusing layout, but once you find their rates, you'll find they beat Skype and a few other big names.

I got 2€ worth of time when signing up, and it's going to take me a while to spend it. The service is fine to
landlines, but I have been cut off during the few calls I've tried to mobile phones.

Re:What are your experiences? Wengo links. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274952)

I was excited by the prospect of voice chats between some different IM clients.

After I got it installed, the thing that bothered me about Wengo is that I could never make the damned thing work for voice calls. The software would install on both of my OS X 10.4 Macs with high speed internet access, then I'd get ready to make a call and the little "connecting" icon would be bouncing back and forth, forever. As of this moment, it has been sitting bouncing back and forth for more than a month and half (honestly!) nonstop, never able to connect. I've tried creating a new account, but the web site does not allow me to do so. The last time I bothered checking, before giving up entirely, an awful lot of other OS X users were having very similar problems.

Conclusion: something about the software, at least for OS X users, is very broken. I'll hold off until they have software that works.

Re:What are your experiences? Wengo links. (1)

tendays (890391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17276556)

I'm glad you asked, so I can <rant> a bit :)

I (using linux) have been looking for a way to do video calls with my family (using windows) with no success so far.

At some point I tried using wengo. It uses SIP so it is supposed to interoperate with other software running the same protocol (like ekiga which works on my computer). The linux version didn't work, could neither connect nor access my camera. The windows version didn't work; camera was working but could not connect. They advised in their forums (in French - good thing I know the language) reinstalling plenty of times and one guy having the same symptoms as me finally succeeded :-(after reinstalling three times. I did it five times (on the windows side) and gave up. Their uninstaller only removes half of the software, you need to go through regedit and manually remove plenty of keys, you need to manually remove configuration files etc.

So I don't think I'll try wengo again (maybe I was just unlucky though)

As for my other attempts at video between linux and windows (maybe a bit OT sorry):
Skype works both win and lin but no video on linux
Ekiga (gnomemeeting) worked in linux but not in windows (camera not detected. Well, the windows version is only early beta).
Couldn't get netmeeting to work in windows either
Msn works in windows but not (I tried amsn, kopete) in linux

mm.. :-(
</rant>

Re:What are your experiences? Wengo links. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17276566)

Skype + Free software - Proprietary crap = Wengo

I really like Wengo. I started using it recently when I had to call home from a laptop and discovered that Skype didn't work properly with the laptop microphone. Apparently Skype's ALSA implementation isn't quite right yet - shame no-one else can fix it. Wengo worked well, even though both endpoints were behind NAT.

I installed it from Debian testing (yes, it's THAT free). Call quality was excellent and it seems to cope reasonably well with lag spikes.

Skype is a potential minefield of terrifying security holes too. If I was a corporate IT administrator I think I'd ban it from the company - it can't be audited for safety or effectively monitored for problems. Check out this article - http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-06 /bh-eu-06-biondi/bh-eu-06-biondi-up.pdf [blackhat.com]

No Shame (-1, Troll)

Haxx (314221) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274162)


  Shameless self-promoting, the author benefits from this story but tries to look unshameful by admitted the ugly facts. Slashdot is officialy over. Let the comical responces begin.

There is no shame in self-promotion. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274186)

Why should there be shame in self-promotion? I am glad to get useful information from any source, even from those who benefit financially. Besides, the Slashdot article is about something that is FREE.

Why I like OpenWengo (2, Informative)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274204)

1. uses a free protocol.
2. it's free software (yes, free as in speech or freedom)

Skype is neither free nor uses a free protocol, Gizmo Project is not free (at some point it had a big disclaimer when you installed it, something along the line of: "we don't guarantee that it doesn't contain a virus or that doesn't contain adware" -- No, thank you.

This is similar to Camfrog (1)

e-scetic (1003976) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274208)

This is similar to Camfrog Web [camfrog.com] , except with Camfrog you can have multiple open chat windows and can carry on a convo in text while communicating via webcam and voice.

The downsides are last time I checked it came with a hefty price tag ($9000 for unlimited users) and operates exclusively on Windows servers.

I really hope this WengoVisio project produces something of similar quality. I've been seeking ways for my organization to communicate with its deaf clients, using sign language, over the web. There is a desperate need for this sort of thing within the deaf community and those organizations serving them.

As an example, it could possibly be used for on the spot translation services. Imagine a nurse in an emergency ward needing to urgently communicate with a deaf patient, then browsing to an online translation service using this technology. The deaf patient can sign with an online interpreter who would then translate everything into voice and vice versa.

(No, pen and paper wouldn't always work in this instance.)

Re:This is similar to Camfrog (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17277974)

If they can sign, can't they type? I guess I don't understand why that or pen and paper are not realistic. I mean I think the idea for automatic translation of sign language is a really great (and frankly cool) idea, I just don't see how it'd be worth the increased cost over a pen and paper or typing in almost all situations.

Re:This is similar to Camfrog (2, Interesting)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 7 years ago | (#17278318)

If they can sign, can't they type? I guess I don't understand why that or pen and paper are not realistic. I mean I think the idea for automatic translation of sign language is a really great (and frankly cool) idea, I just don't see how it'd be worth the increased cost over a pen and paper or typing in almost all situations.
Suuuuuuuuure.... Somehow, being able to sign gives you YEARS of keyboarding experience to quickly [in poor health/ill/rabid/blurred vision] type out your problem. Usin' that logic, since you're able to peck out a message on /., you've got the piano keyboard skills to play Für Elise with no training, right?


This is why my family and I haven't bothered to learn ASL or other variants. VERY few people sign, but darn near EVERYONE talks. We've invested our time more in learning to lip-read. It's not perfect, but does MUCH more to enhance communication than the blank looks you get when trying to sign to all but a few.


HERE is something we could use: A system to read lips FOR us, to a text screen. Before I'm inundated with the "utterly lazy" tag, let me explain. I'm around 70% deaf, and my main problem with reading lips, other than everyone's slightly different accent/pronunciation, is that you've generally got to be in pretty good mental shape to DO so. It's like translating; you have to take the "lipshapes" and make 'em into "words" in your head. If I'm sick, inebriated, delirious, or my vision's blurring in and out, it's almost impossible. Give me some screen text to focus on for a few secs and I'll be able to make out what's being said... Some here might suggest just handing a laptop/PDA/keyboard back and forth, but trust a guy that's worked with a LOT of doctors: most would be lucky to break 5 words a minute.

Just the deaf hippie's two cents.

Re:This is similar to Camfrog (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17279146)

I totally see your point that typing is not the BEST solution by any means. However to be fair, its nothing like playing a piano. If you can read, you can type. You may not be able to type fast but you can do it. I apologize if I came off condescending or what not. I really do think the idea of being able to communicate in whatever way the person feels most comfortable is a great goal. My concern was whether this service would be practical. For example you'd need a camera at the hospital, and a computer and network at both ends capable of sending and receiving approx. 15-20 frames per second. Anything less than that and I would think it'd get really tough to translate (just a guess but I know many people can sign very fast). On top of that, you need translators who you might need to pay. Is this practical? Hell if I know, I just worry that the cost of it, in light of other solutions that are at the very least are workable, might make it unrealistic. I really do hope it is practical and it does work, I guess I just have my worries about it.

Re:This is similar to Camfrog (1)

e-scetic (1003976) | more than 7 years ago | (#17278704)

The problem is that English is not a first language for many deaf folk, and ASL (American Sign Language) is a whole language in itself, complete with it's own syntax, structure, idioms, etc. So if you're in a medical emergency setting, pen and paper will likely be very inaccurate compared to an ASL interpreter.

It would be like trying to communicate, via pen and paper, with someone just off the boat. If you were a doctor or lawyer in an emergency situation you'd need a level of accuracy which incorrect English doesn't provide.

Skype's not cut-down, Why should this one be?!? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274404)

Subj sez/asks it all, folks...

Nothing to see here... move along.

Did anyone else read it as... (2, Interesting)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274722)

"Wengo Releases Flesh Softporn For Web Pages"?

I guess I need to have my eyes. Of course, the way people are addicted to Web Tech these days, I may be on to something - so to speak.

Too bad Wengo's dialer doesn't work (1)

Robotech_Master (14247) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275242)

I downloaded WengoPhone, gave it a whirl calling TalkShoe [terrania.us] to log in. While it did call the SIP address just fine, unfortunately the dialer didn't generate the proper touch tones.

Which means it's not going to be useful to me. Pity.

Applets is NOT a new thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17276438)

A Java applet can be what ever you feel like putting on a web page. It may be to heavy and slow for most use, but it can easily be done.

So what was new again? The new thing might be that it is light and easy, but it is nothing new in putting a application in flash, java or java script.

I am a paying user of OpenWengo. It is a promising project, but they need to focus on quality, security and privacy.

I call bullshit on the 'first' claim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17278912)

theswitchboard.ca had this *two* full years ago, in internet terms that just about
eternity.

Jacquesm posting anonymously because I'm travelling...

Not the first time it was done (1)

MrSmileyJr (981125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17279018)

"it's enough to be able to make a phone call in a Web page for the first time."

Not true. FWD (FreeWorldDialup) had an activex implementation that allowed you to do the same. Here it is http://account.fwdnet.net/fwdtalk/ [fwdnet.net]

I have used it before and it works fine.

Another thing - this wengovisio looks suspiciously similar to meebo styling...

Re:Not the first time it was done (1)

epyks (1041172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17283856)

yes, however, it's activeX based, ie limited to windows & it doesn't include video - disclaimer, I work at wengo.

Re:Not the first time it was done (1)

MrSmileyJr (981125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17283982)

yes, however, it's activeX based, ie limited to windows & it doesn't include video - disclaimer, I work at wengo.

oh, I'm not saying its the best way to do it, but nevertheless, it came first. Besides that, its free. Wengo might call itself free, but I was overwhelmed with the endless mumbo jumbo before I could sign up to try it out, and to top it al off I was asked for a credit card!! Skype doesn't ask for a credit card unless you want some pay services. Thats a part of why they're so big. Maybe wengo should do its homework before claiming their product is superior. Its superiority is a moot point if nobody will bother using it.

Re:Not the first time it was done (1)

epyks (1041172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17284058)

"and to top it al off I was asked for a credit card!!"
>the widget is entrely free and easy to set-up (3 steps) and doesn't require any credit card.
>If you refer to the application (wengophone ), I understand from your comment that our account set-up process has to be improved & you're certainly right, BUT it only regards the wengophone (SIP client) and not the widget which is the inital topic here.
> Finally, you're only required to enter a credit card if you i/ buy credits (to call landlines,cellphones or send SMS), ii/ set-up a buyer account for paying services (coaching/homeschoolong, language tutorials..) listed on our marketplace.)
"before claiming their product is superior"
> we don't claim anything, we try to clarify when it needs done

Wengo sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17279100)

Sorry, but Wengo really sucks. I tried to find a decent (and non Skype) video chat client for linux, and tried Wengo for a longer time. The client is unstable, has often problems connecting, crashes sometimes, the video and audio has a very noticable lag, using it with another service than theirs did not work well and so on. The concept seems nice, but the quality sucks for now. I hope they catch up.

Has everyone gone berserk?, I dont see a softphone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17279742)

It looks like it is a way for people to track you blog?, no f***g softphone, The artivle is about WengoVisio, not OpenWengo. Now you do match CNN in false f******g reporting.
"has just released WengoVisio -- a Flash softphone that you can download and embed in your Web page"

Bullsh*t.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...