Beta
×

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!

gTalk To Get Video Boost?

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the still-no-mac-audio-blah dept.

Communications 89

lotusleaf writes "According to an article at PCWorld, "Google Inc. has bought video conferencing software from Marratech AB", "The client software runs on Windows 2000 or XP, Mac OS X 10.4, or versions of Linux". Could this provide a cross-platform video conferencing boost to gTalk?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Skype (3, Insightful)

bcmm (768152) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832477)

Hopefully this will let Skype start quietly dieing the way it should have when it started providing video support for Windows clients only...

Re:Skype (5, Interesting)

imamac (1083405) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832513)

Agreed. There is a serious lack of crossplatform video conferenceing software that actually works well on all platforms. One can only hope Google is up to the challenge. Though if any company can do it, it's probably them...

Re:Skype (1)

miscz (888242) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832645)

How about SIP [wikipedia.org] apps [wikipedia.org] ? The problem is that voice/video conferencing market is dominated by Skype (with their closed protocol) and most people won't make a move to a new platform.

Re:Skype (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832679)

Agree, I really would like to see gTalk adding video, not because I will move (in order to use gTalk I would need to convince all the people I talk to in Skype to move... and I just wont) but because maybe skype will wake up and provide video support for linux... that will be sweet and will make me move to Ubunty 7 (provided that it now works with my wireless chip :P)

Re:Skype (1)

beckerist (985855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832877)

The program can handle chat to most mainstream IM applications. This program allows for voice chat, easy file transfer and now is about to add video capabilities...

...but there's still no "send" button.

GAH YOU GOOGLE for forcing me to reach for my keyboard!!!

Re:Skype (2, Insightful)

It'sYerMam (762418) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833497)

What were you just using to type your gTalk message with, if not the keyboard?

Re:Skype (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18834269)

I kind of thought that he implied that he used a microphone to send his voice.

Re:Skype (1)

beckerist (985855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18834885)

Things you need to enter for that doesn't require the keyboard initially:
  1. Copying and pasting text
  2. Drag and dropping text
  3. Dragging and dropping pictures

I mostly use gtalk to send links of cool sites I find all day to a coworker/friend. Right click the link, cut, right click in gtalk, paste.....enter key? I want a button!

Re:Skype (1)

It'sYerMam (762418) | more than 7 years ago | (#18835363)

Fair dos. Presumably the decision was made based on average usage, deemed to be that of someone typing. For me, a send button is just clutter, really. Especially since I usually have one hand on the keyboard all the time.

Re:Skype (1)

miscz (888242) | more than 7 years ago | (#18858011)

Sometimes I think that's the reason Enter key on numpad is easy to press with your thumb even when using a mouse :)

Re:Skype (4, Insightful)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832685)

I doubt google will support all platforms. At best, maybe windows, mac os and linux. People forget about PDAs, BSDs, Solaris, ecomstation, cell phones, game consoles, etc. There are a lot of platforms in this world.

Windows, Mac OS and Linux are not the only platforms. Its really funny to hear people complain about software support on their platform. Windows users complain if it does work on every version of windows, or at least the one they like. Mac users complain about windows only software but tout their platform as superior if they happen to get a Mac only product. Linux users try to say Windows and Linux or Windows, Mac, Linux without remembering they are an open source platform. I remember when we were all in this together. Now that linux has commercial support from IBM and other firms its now OK to ignore every other open source OS on the planet. From my perspective, the only thing Linux is missing is games. You already have the video drivers to play them.

If google were smart, they'd take the approach Netscape did years ago and port to everything possible. Remember Netscape shipped for linux, solaris, irix, hp-ux, windows, mac os, and a slew of other platforms. There was even an OS/2 version. I can't think of a single company that is not open source that ships on that many platforms today.

Re:Skype(MOD PARENT DOWN) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18832847)

-1 troll? This guy is either trolling or just plain talking out of his...... ignorance. Obviously,
Google can make a good effort to support gtalk on all the major platforms, and people can build/modify their own clients for any platforms that remain (remember, Gtalk is implemented on top of the open-standard xmpp.). As for the rest of his comments, they are so misinformed (or just deliberately misinforming) that I don't even care to respond to them. PLEASE MOD DOWN!

Re:Skype(MOD PARENT DOWN) (2, Informative)

bcmm (768152) | more than 7 years ago | (#18834247)

I appreciate Google using an open standard for their IM system, as I use Linux and have been able to use it despite the absence of a Linux client from Google, as it works with any IM client supporting Jabber.

However, who says that their video extension to the protocol will be an open standard?

Re:Skype(MOD PARENT DOWN) (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 7 years ago | (#18840043)

However, who says that their video extension to the protocol will be an open standard?

The fact that the existing systems from the company they have bought this from are based on SIP and H.264 should give you a clue.

Re:Skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18834009)

I do realize that the situation is rather different, but considering the state of Netscape nowadays, are you quite certain that devoting hundreds of Google engineers towards porting Google software to up to a dozen different platforms is a business-enhancing move?

Not to mention, why bother? If someone really wants to connect to Google's Jabber server from IRIX, they can use an existing Jabber client or write one themselves. Or hey, they can use a web client, which itself forms an ersatz platform.

sightspeed (1)

DietFluffy (150048) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832805)

http://www.sightspeed.com/ [sightspeed.com]

PC and Mac. The interface is terrible but the video codec is by far the best thing out there. The problem I have with iChat and Skype is that though they may claim 30fps video, it feels like it's much less. When I'm using sightspeed, it feels like I'm seeing the other person on TV (natural motion and lip sync but admittedly snowier). I can't say the same for the codecs in ichat and skype; to me they are reminiscent of the the 'live' footage we saw during operation enduring freedom.

Re:sightspeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18833867)

PC and Mac.
I think you mean Windows and Mac. The GP was asking for a voice+video client which supported the 3 major platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux).

Re:Skype (4, Informative)

abigor (540274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832635)

Skype video works great in OS X also. I use it all the time.

Re:Skype (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18832665)

cool beans wish i was a little rich bitch like you who could afford a mac

Stop whining (0, Offtopic)

wal9001 (1041058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832757)

I'm in high school. I got a part time job last summer. I bought myself a Macbook Pro. It's really not that difficult.

Your best bet is to stop being a whiny bitch on slashdot and learn how to do something useful. Companies tend to hire people who can do useful things.

Or I suppose you could keep browsing craigslist to see if anyone wants to pay you to be a whiny bitch. It just seems unlikely.

Re:Stop whining (1)

mustafap (452510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833545)

I'd like to mod you up but I've no points. Well said.

Re:Stop whining (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#18834699)

Or I suppose you could keep browsing craigslist to see if anyone wants to pay you to be a whiny bitch. It just seems unlikely.

Look in the m4m casual sex section.

Re:Skype (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 7 years ago | (#18834219)

MacOS support came a long time after Windows support. Linux support still isn't done and isn't generally talked about.

Re:Skype (5, Informative)

lordholm (649770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832669)

I just had a video conference with my mother over Skype. She use Windows and I am using a Mac. That is, your post is wrong in that it is only for windows.

However, the Mac implementation is rather buggy and one have to restart Skype occasionally when the video stops working, but it is working more or less. Despite this, it is actually the only realistic alternative to cross platform video conferencing at the moment.

OpenWengo (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18832927)

Check out http://www.openwengo.org/ [openwengo.org] . It's a Free Software SIP client that provides working, cross-platform audio/video chatting. It's written by a French company. They make money by providing the ability to call phone numbers. I've used it and while it's got a few rough edges, it works well on Debian and Windows.

Re:OpenWengo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18833725)

And dont forget the most important thing:
Their client IS GPLed!
The Open in name is not only PR.
And they provide whole servers/callout/in infrastructure.
It is proven(?) that Gizmo has better quality than Skype.
How's Wengo?

Re:Skype (1)

ir (104) | more than 7 years ago | (#18834845)

you want to look at your mother?

Re:Skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18839817)

Try using Sightspeed instead. It's free, you need to register accounts to get it to work.

http://www.sightspeed.com/ [sightspeed.com]

I've had more success with this than with iChat and AOL client, Skype works but the video good be better like you said, then I've tried MSN and aMSN which didn't work. At the end of the day two of our faculty found it easiest to use Sightspeed.

Re:Skype (0, Redundant)

fsiefken (912606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833829)

perhaps i misunderstand what you mean, but video skype works perfectly in osx here.

Re:Skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18837597)

Watch. This is going to make use of the Google Video/ YouTube scanning engine. Now all those videos I'm in that were posted anonymously can correctly tag my full name and a picture from my most recent video conf.

gTalk support in gaim (0)

Jack Malmostoso (899729) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832493)

I'd be very happy if gTalk support in Gaim worked...

Re:gTalk support in gaim (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18832537)

new name is Pidgin

Re:gTalk support in gaim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18852045)

#include
int main(int c,char**v) {
                char *s="B+p:ubYBGG0,|M3B=1*0N\n"
                                "it's touring complete\n",*k[]={s+21,--s};
                return c?({while(main(!k,k))putchar(**k^*k[1]-10);0;}):(v [1]++,*++*v);
}

Re:gTalk support in gaim (2, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832539)

gtalk works fine under adium, which is based on libpurple, or whatever it is being called now. No video is another story. i don't see why it is so hard for video to be done. As even google said when gtalk was first sent out that video would be added.

Re:gTalk support in gaim (2, Informative)

nexxu (1090763) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832541)

gTalk works in gaim [pidgin] (jabber is the protocol) but unfortunately supports only text :)

Re:gTalk support in gaim (1)

kraemate (1065878) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832547)

Yes, its about time Google treated us Linux users fairly.

Mod Parent Up! (1)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832681)

Nuff said... Gaim - get your voice on!

Re:gTalk support in gaim (1)

bheekling (976077) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833319)

There was a project once upon a time called as gaim-vv [sourceforge.net] , after some time however, it got merged with the main Gaim project.
There was recently a discussion [sourceforge.net] on the gaim-devel ML (before it was called pidgin) about the status of the project. It seems its basically stalled because work on it is not as easy as people imagine it to be and that major work on it will begin after the 2.0.0 release [sourceforge.net] of Pidgin.
There was also talk of having it as a GSoc project, but turns out it was too complicated for it.

All in all,
  1. Work will begin after Pidgin 2.0.0 is released
  2. It will probably use gstreamer [gstreamer.net] or farsight [freedesktop.org]
  3. Pidgin will eventually have both video and voice support but it will take a lot of time

Re:gTalk support in gaim (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#18835627)

Gaim/Pidgin does indeed support Jabber (and GTalk is just another jabber server). All they need to do is get libjingle implemented (which Psi has in a dev branch), and voice and video will come along with it

Google must be doing something right (5, Insightful)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832535)

I was thinking the other day... in the past 2 years google has bought A LOT of companies, technologies, and created new ones. I thought there's no way they could be a profitable company right now. Well I checked google's Q1 profits and they are actually up 68% to 1 billion a quarter. I know there will be a lot of posts that google is becoming a one hit wonder. Perhaps... but I think if they've got their financials in such good order they've really separated themselves from the dot bomb's of the 2000's. Just a thought...

Re:Google must be doing something right (2, Funny)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832613)

Lots and lots of expensive ads.

Re:Google must be doing something right (1)

cyberianpan (975767) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833437)

Yes Google excels at it's core advertising business which comes from search. Most of the great acquisitions since then haven't added to the bottom line. That said the hosted Google Apps package may come good. Otherwise Google is a one trick pony which peculiarly spends most of its R&D budget outside of its core revenue market !

Re:Google must be doing something right (2, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833637)

Otherwise Google is a one trick pony which peculiarly spends most of its R&D budget outside of its core revenue market !

Wait a minute.. We're on to something. So Google has one single core business which makes it profits, and keeps spending R&D on other initiatives, and entering late in markets by buying other companies which are already there.

Where the heck is this familiar from.. Anyone help?

Re:Google must be doing something right (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#18838353)

It might remind you of Microsoft, and would be exactly the same except for one small problem, Microsoft has been able to gain monopolies in a lot of the other areas it expanded into (such as browser, word, etc). Google, not so much.

Re:Google must be doing something right (2, Insightful)

RGRistroph (86936) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833479)

Google has always hyped itself, and been hyped, as an incredibly productive and creative organization. All this talk of 20% of time on independent projects, etc.

However, a lot of Google's recent history consists of buying other businesses, not of developing cool stuff themselves. They bought youtube, blogger, jotspot, writely, measure map, and now Marratech and of course Doubleclick.

This is not reminiscent of a "skunkworks" full of geniuses producing cutting edge technology. Rather, it is more reminiscent of Microsoft from the early 90s onward. Microsoft likes to wait until it realizes that a certain niche of technological innovation (like the internet) is actually going to pan out, then buy some relatively cheap player in the area and re-brand it's technology and re-sell it quickly to get a foot in the door with some crap backed by marketing muscle, and then re-work that purchased technology through a few versions until it is passable.

It seems to me that this is what google is doing. It is only a matter of time before the executive suite and associated beancounters beggin to look at buying startups and hiring cheap "commoditity" programmers from overseas as the most reliable way to make money, and begin to look with suspicion on the high salaries and benefits of the Googleplex genius set.

Of course, when I first saw the iPod, I thought to myself "They're going to try to be the Gucci or Ferrari of friggin' mp3 players ? Apple is finally dead." So take my predictions with a grain of salt . . .

Actually, you are spot on! (2, Informative)

Wonderkid (541329) | more than 7 years ago | (#18835037)

I was in Silicon Valley in the 1990s and Microsoft did buy up a number of players, one of whom had developed a fantastic MPEG4 based video codec. It could do all kinds of amazing things that even today's codecs cannot do - such as embedded data, like graphs, text and more. MS ended up with the lacklustre Windows Media player. Doing nothing with the technology they purchased. MS and others often make a purchase to block their competitors or prevent the companies they buy from becoming a threat. Of course, normally, it is simply as case of not re-inventing the wheel. How many people know where Apple's iTunes came from? Not Apple! They purchased a relatively ugly looking but technically proficient 3rd party MP3 playback application, prettied it up and et Voila! But on the whole, unlike MS and Google, Apple do tend to design and develop most of their software and products in house which is why it interoperates so well.

Re:Google must be doing something right (1)

Felius (56017) | more than 7 years ago | (#18835375)

<advocate type="devil">
Perhaps, if you have cash to burn, acquiring startups is simply the most efficient means of getting hold of more smart people..
</advocate>

SIP/H.264 (5, Insightful)

good soldier svejk (571730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832555)

A cursory reading of the product FAQ reveals it is SIP based and supports H.264. Hopefully means that Mac users will be able to use iChat as a gTalk client, since it uses the same protocols and codec. Better yet, this could mean real standardization.

As a renter in Texas . . . (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18832707)

You sig says:

If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent Texas and live in Hell

-Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sheridan

And I'd just like to add, as a tenent in Texas, I believe the General may be my landlord. The fucker won't fix ANYTHING or do ANYTHING other than send me threatening letters that he is too cheap to send certified. When I take repairs out of my rent check he leaves 15 minute rambling messages on my machine about how bad his mortgages are and literally starts crying on the phone. The address I send my rent checks to is in California, which suddenly makes a lot of sense.

Re:SIP/H.264 (4, Insightful)

222 (551054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832719)

Agreed. This is something often overlooked when there is a discussion about Google, but its willingness to develop on open standards for multiple platforms should serve as a model for the tech industry.

While a number of scenarios have dinged their "Do no evil" approach, I'll take Google over any day.

Re:SIP/H.264 (2, Funny)

l0cust (992700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833373)

I'll take Google over any day.
So google is... funday ?

Re:SIP/H.264 (1)

222 (551054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833533)

I had originally typed I'll take Google over any day, but HTML formatting must have seen it as an invalid tag. I suppose I should have used the preview button o.O

Re:SIP/H.264 (2, Funny)

222 (551054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833547)

I'm going to stop trying now...

Re:SIP/H.264 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18838899)

I thought you meant "I'll take over Google any day", but I guess you have to master the slashcode HTML interface first, before working your way up to the big battles with multibillion dollar companies.

Ummm.... (3, Informative)

scooter.higher (874622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832983)

Actually, if you have OS X 10.4 you can add a Jabber account to iChat.

I added my gTalk account to iChat, and I can video chat with other Mac users using the same setup.

Hey! Google even has a help page about this!

http://www.google.com/support/talk/bin/answer.py?a nswer=24076 [google.com]

Re:Ummm.... (1)

good soldier svejk (571730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18834651)

Umh yeah... I do that too. However, since gTalk doesn't currently support AV, you can't use the AV features of iChat. My point was that this product uses the same core technologies as iChat for AV, SIP and h.264. So if Google uses it as a basis for gTalk AV, there is a high probability of AV compatibility. And more importantly, it would cement a standard with which iChat is compatible. Currently there is no concensus on what jabber AV should look like, although jingle [bmannconsulting.com] is good a basis.

Re:Ummm.... (1)

good soldier svejk (571730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18834685)

you can't use the AV features of iChat.
Should have previewed. I meant you can't use them to talk to non-Mac gTalk users. Of course you can talk to other iChat users. You can do that over any jabber server. Or over AIM for that matter.

Re:Ummm.... (1)

tuxic (769908) | more than 7 years ago | (#18838245)

I do exactly that myself too. I'm a Macbook owner who chatted with two other Macbook owners over built-in iSight video, all of us using GTalk with iChat and we were all in all three people videochatting + audio with each other at the same time, with great quality since one of them had his connection on 100 Mbit down/10 Mbit up, participant number two had ADSL2+ and I had ADSL2+ as well, all using the same ISP. I highly recommend GTalk for audio, video regardless of client choice, but especially iChat is optimized for it. I haven't yet tried audio and video with iChat over AOL, I figure that I probably can make it happen with my ICQ account?

PocketPC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18832615)

I'm still waiting for a PocketPC version of google talk that supports voice calls. All of the third party clients aren't too impressive.

Congrats Marratech (5, Interesting)

gnurfed (1051140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832701)

As I attended Luleå university of Technology as a CS student when the technology was developed, I got to use the software from its infancy. Before I graduated they started recording lectures with the system (with video and slides), so you could either follow it live from home (and of course ask questions to the lecturer) or review it later. Cool shit which is probably a lot cooler today. The Marratech crew were all true nerds (meant as a compliment, of course) and they really deserved this success. Hmmm.. They're probably all slashdotters and reading this, so GRATTIS! (congrats)

Re:Congrats Marratech (3, Informative)

ltjohhed (231735) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832783)

It's good to see that the development of Marratech has gotten in touch with the real world in the last couple of years. This wasn't all the case when the product was released in the mid/late 90's. A product which assumed that everyone had 100Mbit switched multicast routing enabled networks, and of course a 100Mbit internet access.

Although being a geeky developer is often a good thing, the academic world somethimes clashes hard with the 'real world'.

However the product has evolved, and now we have gotten our first Google office in Luleå!

But it costs money! (1)

solar_blitz (1088029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832735)

It sounds like an excellent alternative to Skype since their video chat software is still in beta. Marratech's profits are made from its software, though, so I wonder how the company could earn money if Google made the software available free on gTalk? I'm not a businessman nor am I too familiar with how Google deals with companies that it's purchased, so if the question's been answered pay no heed.

It would be interesting to know if Google employees could transfer to Sweden, though. :D

Re:But it costs money! (1)

Shohat (959481) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832961)

Voice recognition + relevant ads could be quite a sick idea...

Google Should've Bought Camfrog (2, Interesting)

Khyber (864651) | more than 7 years ago | (#18832755)

Then Google would have a very efficient and very powerful voice/video application. And tehe only thing missing is Linux support for the cilent - there's Win/OSX/Linux versions of the room server software, one just needs to add in a Linux client and that would be that.

Re:Google Should've Bought Camfrog (1)

l0cust (992700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833401)

I don't know about Camfrog(and you did not provide a link + I am feeling lazy) but if its really as good as you say it is then I am glad they did not buy it. The more the number of competent players in a field, the greater the chances that everyone tries to improve their application as much and as quickly as possible.

Re:Google Should've Bought Camfrog (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 7 years ago | (#18841383)

Http://www.camfrog.com is what you're after, grab it and test it with me if you want, my nickname on there is Colossus_Hunter. There's an OSX and Windows client, and a Linux/OSX/Windows server to download. Bear in mind, this is the ONLY software I've paid for in many years after testing it thoroughly ($50 for the pro client and $200 for the pro server) It's nice to be able to see a hundred people at once, quite fluidly (depending upon your downstream and their upload and the server's upload) chatting away in sign language, or hearing and watching some guy rip out on a guitar, and to be able to control it all (If you're the server owner/operator.)

Just don't use it with Vista. It gives people problems because of Vista's tuned-down configurability. (Some people can't stream their guitar playing directly because Vista removes the Wave-Out Mix or Stereo Mix or Line-In options for being recording sources.)

And I'd rather Google buy Camfrog, mainly because Camfrog refuses to do what their customers want - protect us from those rabid sex-crazed middle-eastern countries (mostly, that is) that come into our rooms and start demanding women take off their clothes, getting on the mic and blowing in it as hard as they can, refusing to read room rules (which are presented to you with ayes or no link to click on so you can gain access if you agree to the room rules, etc. Nor will Camfrog do anything about those regions and their hacking the server to obtain registered codes. I'd prsonally ban the entire Middle East from accessing Camfrog, having seen what some of those people do, Yet Camfrog says "It's an important stream of revenue" yet each code being sold is usually used in a damned internet cafe, so one code could be used by as many as a thousand people. Camfrog also does not seem to care that these Mid-East countries list Camfrog as a sex-chat program, when the webpage for Camfrog mentions nothing of this sort. Minor things like this piss us paying customers off.

Re:Google Should've Bought Camfrog (1)

l0cust (992700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18852227)

Thanks for the link. I will give it a shot once I get some free time.
About the problems you mentioned, I can't comment on them as anything I say about them right now will be mere conjectures and speculations.

Re:Google Should've Bought Camfrog (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 7 years ago | (#18981771)

Tell me when you have Camfrog, and let me know your nickname on the program. Mine's Colossus_Hunter

So soon? (2, Interesting)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833175)

I wasn't aware there were still IM clients that didn't have video anymore. Nice to see gTalk catching up to ~2003 I suppose. Odd that with an army of PhD's, Google seems to have to buy all their tech elsewhere and is still years behind.

Doesn't anyone else think this is a little strange?

Re:So soon? (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833207)

Well, there's nothing worth mentioning for linux...

Oh, Ekiga? The one that claims to work in 99% of cases but somehow won't go through open NAT firewalls or businesses with port-restricted firewalls? Yeah, what else you got?

Re:So soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18833351)

And as the billy goat started crossing the bridge, a troll jumped up onto the bridge and said, "I'M GOING TO EAT YOU!"

Quit trolling. Google buys stuff probably because they do a cost analysis (as any good compnay/project manager should). Let's see...

X number of people spending X hours to develop video software = X millions of dollars
Buying a company who already has a great piece of software + X man hours to hook it into our system = Y millions of dollars

Y millions X millions

Looks like Y wins. It's all about money.

Re:So soon? (1)

geekinaseat (1029684) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833675)

Agreed.

Even more disturbing is the fact that this technology is only to be used internally... ie google talk stays in the year 2000.

It seems odd that with such a huge amount of grey matter in that company that their IM application is not up to scratch. I really expect more from Google, maybe they should stop buying technology and write decent applications themselves, or at least improve the technology they buy so it includes the same features that their competitors have included for years.

Re:So soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18835107)

I don't know about this one but most of their other purchaces haven't been just to buy the technology but to buy the users and customers along with it.

If they invented the perfect IM application it wouldn't matter if nobody used it claiming "but I still have to use the other programs because that's what my friends use"

Re:So soon? (1)

ThePengwin (934031) | more than 7 years ago | (#18837375)

Google has integrated Talk into Gmail, and its seemless from The browser to the desktop app. Thats more convienent than MSN or Yahoo.

I use Gtalk all the time, its small, lightweight, and not bloated with crap, it takes up at max 40 megs of memory, wheras MSN idles at 80mb.

Great... (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833215)

Now they're going to offer a feature where they can record, transcribe and make searchable all of your video chats... No privacy issues here...

LibJingle (2, Interesting)

jbond23 (525878) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833219)

It's now 18 months since the LibJingle announcement. And yet there's still no sign of anyone except Google using it. GTalk still looks like an Alpha. The whole IM market is still hopelessly fractured with very little chat interop between IM systems and virtually no interop for voice and video. I really hoped that GTalk and LibJingle would lead to a link up between Google, Apple, AIM, Gaim, Jabber and all the 3rd party clients. There was even a press release where Google and Skype were talking about gateways and interop. Guess I was too optimistic. What are they all doing?

Re:LibJingle (2, Informative)

LibrePensador (668335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833681)

Google interops with Gizmoproject.com for chat and will have voice real soon.

Re:LibJingle (2, Interesting)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#18835689)

PSI has Jingle support, but not yet in an official release. See http://psi-im.org/wiki/Jingle_branch [psi-im.org] , and someone has made a fork of Psi called Jabbin http://www.jabbin.com/ [jabbin.com] that has libjingle in their releases. Since Gaim/Pidgin has finally gotten AOL off their backs, I would expect something from them Real Soon Now (and AdiumX will most likely follow in their footsteps due to libpurple), and I've heard Kopete will try to have jingle in by KDE4

Quality? (1)

Magic Fingers (1001498) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833287)

The best thing about gTalk is quality and less utilization of bandwidth as compared to skype, I wonder if video capabilities will be on the same track as well?

Multiplatform support (1)

jirah (994042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833291)

On these days gTalk only support VOIP on Windows systems, and the projects that support the VOIP protocol of Google for Linux for example, stay on develop and not represent a really option. What's the idea with make support for video and voice for only one (and propietary) platform? I think google is making evil on this side of the business.

Re:Multiplatform support (2, Informative)

LibrePensador (668335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833707)

Kopete should have decent support for it once KDE 4.0 is officially released. These things take time. I actually appreciate the fact that Google is funding some of this work through SOC scholarships, rather than creating a brand new client.

In other words, they are working to integrate their work into existing projects, rather than create a close-source monolithic client for linux.

RTFA : This is for internal Google use! (2, Informative)

cyberianpan (975767) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833485)

TFA [pcworld.com] reports For now, Google plans to use the software internally, as a tool for its employees, the spokesman said, declining to speculate whether Google might later try to market the technology or integrate it into one of its commercial products. Should Google decide to market or integrate the technology into its products, the move would be seen as another in a string of recent steps taking Google into the sphere of collaborative work tools.
They're only then saying maybe for regular users!

file transfer (0, Offtopic)

hey (83763) | more than 7 years ago | (#18833619)

I'd prefer if the Jabber clients could get file transfer working first.
(For users on all side of filewalls.)
Maybe Google can kickstart this by using one way of doing it.

Re:file transfer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18833811)

There's talk about using Jingle (the protocol extension behind video and voice in XMPP) for file transfer too. Implementing one is a big step toward the others.

Misleading Summary (3, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18834225)

The entire summary is filled with misconceptions.

1. SIP client protocol has been implemented for every desktop. Windows/Mac/Gnome-ekiga/kde-twinkle and kphone.
2. Multiple SIP servers are open, and Free AND integrate with Google's IM platform. (openser being generally excellent, there are a number of others)
3. Conference bridges are open and Free and work nicely through most clients.
4. Nortel-style phone systems are still absurdly priced.

The SIP protocol should revolutionize communication. The thing holding everyone back in the U.S. is the telco patent portfolio. The message waiting indicator has been litigated, the claims AT&T successfully made against Vonage are ridiculous.

I predict Google will be in court with AT&T over VOIP-related patents in very short order.

Re:Misleading Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18860295)

"the claims AT&T successfully made against Vonage are ridiculous."

I believe you're thinking of Verizon, not AT&T.

Google support Adium... please??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18834353)

I'm just hoping google will open source enough of this so that Adium can finally add video and audio support at least for one protocol. ::crosses fingers::

Video? Is that really necessary? (1)

1337W422102 (883430) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919129)

Instead of this video chat support, why not implement group voice chatting? I think that speaking to more than one other person at the same time via Gtalk is a lot more useful than speaking to one person and being able to see them. Sure, I could just use Vent or XFire, but I think that many people wouldn't have to use them if GTalk had the group voice feature.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?