Google Duo Video Chat App Arrives On iOS and Android With End-to-end Encryption (betanews.com) 114
An anonymous reader writes: Video chat should be simple, but it is not. The biggest issue is fragmentation. On iOS, for instance, Facetime is a wonderfully easy solution, but there is no Android client. While there are plenty of cross-platform third-party options to solve this, they aren't always elegant. Skype is a good example of an app that should bridge the gap, but ends up being buggy and clunky. Google is aiming to solve this dilemma with its 'Duo' video chat app. With it, the search giant is putting a heavy focus on ease of use. The offering is available for both Android and iOS -- the only two mobile platforms that matter (sorry, Windows 10 Mobile). Announced three months ago, it finally sees release today. There is no news about the Allo chat sister-app, sadly.
Re: (Score:1)
Google Duo isn't peer to peer or open source. Fail.
Man in the Middle is Annoying Man (Score:2)
From experience with Hangouts, if it's not peer to peer I'm thinking it will have the same horrible performance that often led the chat participants to switch to audio only. Good luck with that Google!
Re:Man in the Middle is Annoying Man (Score:5, Informative)
Except it is peer-to-peer, it uses Google servers to initially set up the call, but the actual call traffic is direct. Don't take your facts from a random AC without a bit of checking.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, good to know. You are right that I should not be so quick to accept AC "wisdom", but since that's how Hangouts was it seemed believable...
Re: Man in the Middle is Annoying Man (Score:1)
Clearly you lack some basic understanding.
When two people want to make a direct connection to each other and they are both behind firewalls (as most home users are), how does one know the other wants to talk (or what the other's IP is)? By using some other server that has a known address.
Even bit torrent and magnet links work this way.
Re: (Score:1)
Hangouts does not use end-to-end encryption.
"When you dial a phone number from a Hangout, audio is encrypted until it reaches the carrier network. But telephone carriers are responsible for the audio within carrier networks." (https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/6046115?hl=en)
In my opinion, that is a significant enough change to warrant re-branding. The cross-platform compatibility makes it even more-so.
Re: (Score:2)
So Hangouts does use end-to-end encryption for audio, except when making a PSTN phone call, of course. Not sure about text however.
Hangouts is already cross-platform. No need for rebranding.
Not Duo Multifactor? (Score:1)
I realize that Google Duo and Duo aren't in the same market space but still...Duo is a fairly prominent mobile app. Google will likely need to change the name of theirs.
Re: (Score:1)
Just like how either FB Messenger and Google Messenger had to change their names. Oh wait, there's two Messenger apps! It's amazing! It's stupendous! It's Googlicious!
Desktop? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about desktop applications? Is this planned?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Desktops matter if we believe the summary:
"Google is aiming to solve this dilemma", where dilemma refers to fragmentation such as Facetime being iOS only, and skype being buggy and clunky.
Personally, I think this is more like that xkcd comic about standards: https://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]
I was doing video chats in the late 90's, and others were doing it before that. Two decades later and it's still a PITA to get everyone on the same thing and working.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not to worry, it will be cancelled in 2-3 years anyway. Might as well just ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
Line works great (Score:1)
Line works very well between android and IOS. There is a windows client but I haven't tried it with video conferencing.
Solving a problem (Score:1)
I like how Google is solving the problem of refusing to use video chat with more video chat.
"3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Video chat should be simple, but it is not.
Seen from a historical perspective, video chat is frankly miraculous, and it's amazing that it works at all. But sure, okay. I can be jaded and take things for granted with the best of them.
The biggest issue is fragmentation... Facetime... third-party options... Skype.
Okay, so your thesis is that there are too many competing, non-standardized solutions. Cool, I'll buy that. How can we solve this dilemma? With some sort of open, universal standard that can be agreed upon, however grudgingly, by the major players?
Google is aiming to solve this dilemma with its 'Duo' video chat app.
Uh. Won't that just mean more fragmentation? And therefore, by your own logic, doesn't that just make the problem worse?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh. Won't that just mean more fragmentation? And therefore, by your own logic, doesn't that just make the problem worse?
There isn't yet a decent cross-platform solution. Something as easy to use as Facetime, but covering all important platforms. And until Duo covers Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, it isn't that solution either. But Google would seem to be interested in covering the major platforms. Users definitely want a solution with complete platform coverage. Contrast that with Apple (definitely) and Microsoft's (less so) interests being against having a cross-platform solution.
I'm tentatively hopeful.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There isn't yet a decent cross-platform solution.
Not that I'm a Microsoft famboi or anything, but what's wrong with Skype? It seems to support more platforms than this Duo thing does. And it works well enough for me and everyone I use it with, on a multitude of platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" (Score:2)
I routinely use Hangouts for video calling because most of the people I know use Gmail and have Google accounts, and it tends to be very easy. I've used it cross-platform with Linux, windows, Android, etc with no problems. I have found that it tends to have higher video quality compared to Skype and it's easy to have a conversation with multiple participants who can join and leave at their leisure.
Re: (Score:3)
There isn't yet a decent cross-platform solution.
Not that I'm a Microsoft famboi or anything, but what's wrong with Skype? It seems to support more platforms than this Duo thing does. And it works well enough for me and everyone I use it with, on a multitude of platforms.
Have you tried to use skype with video on linux? there is no group video chat, and in the latest alpha they removed video altogether, even one to one. They also removed 90% of the settings options.
Re: (Score:1)
That's called streamlining the user experience in CURRENT_YEAR tech company jargon. You and the rest of their users are too stupid to handle anything but the most basic and braindead of interfaces.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on a Mac, so this might be different on windows:
1) the desktop version is modeled like an mobile App, which makes it close to unusable
2) the iPad version suddenly stopped receiving pictures, instead you get a link to log on on the skype web site. That site forgets your log on credentials after each click, so if you get three pictures you have to log on three times
3) Skype randomly hicks up and eats 99% of a CPU core, in rare cases it causes some kind of locks in the kernel that stall all other processes
Re: (Score:1)
"There isn't yet a decent cross-platform solution"
Camfrog is available on iOS, OSX, Windows, and Android. It blows everything else out of the water (it's so good Paltalk bought it just to get ahold of the underlying video tech.)
As far as security goes, who the fuck actually expects security across a cellular network? Did nobody learn the lesson from Telegram's most recent fuckup?
To boot, videochat on a smartphone means, well, you're more likely to have the speakerphone on (holding the handset to your ear so
Re: (Score:3)
There isn't yet a decent cross-platform solution. Something as easy to use as Facetime, but covering all important platforms.
There is hangouts. There is Skype (although MS is removing platforms pretty fast). Facetime is the worst possible option (only on one platform).
Re: (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This has pissed me off to no end.
Remember when everyone and their dad had a chat client that used XMPP? Now it's all completely balkanized, with each client using a different protocol. I'm expected to have Hangouts, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and a few dozen other ones now. No. I refuse to.
Although more to your point, Duo apparently uses the QUIC protocol which is open. Now that's just for the connection piece. Who knows what they're using for the data protocol.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no technical reason at all for companies to not work together. All the building blocks have been in place for years.
The problem is they they don't *want* to work together. They would rather balkanize so that they can have a captive audience and hopefully crush the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What pisses me off the most is that companies *had* been going in the direction of federation and collaboration. Facebook and Google were notable in that they had XMPP compatible systems. But then they decided "Screw this, I want the whole pie!" and balkanized again.
Not on tablets, iPad or desktop = fail!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Does not work on tablets, iPad or desktop because it is phone number based. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
Viber is phone number based and works on iPad, Tablets and Desktops ...
Wow, that was simple!
Re: (Score:2)
Does it require a cell phone to be turned on, with battery and signal?
If so, it doesn't pass the test and shouldn't even be considered.
Re: (Score:2)
It does require you to set up an account with a phone number first. WhatsApp is similar. Telegram requires *a* number during initial setup, but after that you can install the client on any mobile or desktop device you want, and it will just work. Supposedly, Telegram will work with a landline number in lieu of a cell number, but I never tested that.
IIRC, you can sign up with Snapchat without a phone number, but it doesn't have a desktop client.
Re: (Score:2)
So they all suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Tragedy of the commons 'n all that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a tragedy, there are alternatives working right now without this limitation.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there are. But if they don't achieve some level of critical mass, then they become marginalized and eventually disappear. Or if you have a number of overlapping social circles, you end up having to install multiple clients because some use one client and others use a different one.
Hell, I've been trying my damnedest to move away from Facebook Messenger cause I despise Facebook. But there are enough people who are on it, that it becomes very difficult.
I used to use Trillian to manage all these s
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there are. But if they don't achieve some level of critical mass, then they become marginalized and eventually disappear.
Some of them have both the critical mass and are not based on stupid phone numbers. Hangouts, Skype, probably others.
Or if you have a number of overlapping social circles, you end up having to install multiple clients because some use one client and others use a different one.
Except if you have a very limited number of contacts, most people are likely in that situation.
That's why it's our job (tech enthusiasts) to promote the less crappy of them and boycott the crappy ones as much as we can. Ideally, there would be an open standard that would kill them all. XMPP is as close as it gets, but still not perfect for all situations. Then you have those which are cross-p
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically what Franz is. It's a a web browser dedicated to handling IMs that have Web APIs. The nice thing about it is that it gives you full access to whatever the target IM provides over the web, so you don't lose functionality like you would with say, Trillian or Pidgin, and you still get basic OS integration, like notifications, etc.
It's the single best option I've been able to find that lets me (relatively) painlessly manage multiple IMs without having a bajillion clients all running simultane
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Why are people stupid enough to design protocols based on phone numbers in the 3rd millennium?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also already have email addresses. There is no benefit to protocols based on phone numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
E-mail is useless when the problem requires near real-time observation.
Example, a switch whose fans are acting up. Live video of the fans spinning or failing to spin (maybe ticking over a bit then stopping) can't be shown with a static picture and text.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facetime works only to other iOS device users, not to Android users. As for other platforms: I would expect a Symbian version before a win mobile version, just to rub the failure of windows mobile to MS.
What's in it for Google with "encryption"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
While I don't go to quite the same lengths that you do, I agree with your sentiment. Unfortunately, it seems to be very much in the minority.
The prevailing attitude seems to be, "Well, they're gonna harvest my data whether I like it or not, so I may as well enjoy it." It's nice to know that identity theft has become such a non-issue that people can be happily blasé about it.
Obligatory XKCD (Score:1)
No (Score:2, Informative)
Don't believe it and don't trust it. The "APP APPY APPS" guy has one point, they never have you in mind, period. Your phone isn't your property. Your carrier owns it, its manufacturer owns it, your government owns it, you just pay exorbitant rent. Anything you do on your phone can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion, at the very least.
Google has no interest in providing you a secure communication channel.
On a desktop computer that runs Linux or Windows7 at the latest, install Pidgin,
Re: (Score:2)
And there's the stumbling block, when the vast majority of people neither know nor care about security to bother setting up this or any other form of secure communication. PGP has been around for encrypted email for years, but how many non technical people do you know who secure their personal mail with certificates?
POTS (Score:5, Interesting)
Serious question. POTS systems are pretty much standardized world-wide, except for the numbering schemes between various regions around the globe. But right now, I can simply dial a number for virtually any country in the world, and it'll work.
Fragmentation within the video space exists BECAUSE of what Google is doing right now. This isn't their first chat system. It isn't their second. It really isn't even their third system. (Chat, Voice, Hangouts, Google+). If they can't even manage decent interoperability between their own services, how the hell are end users supposed to enjoy this?
Since the POTS networks have been upgraded over the years to include things like CallerID, SMS and HD Audio/VoLTE, why couldn't they just add another universal expansion for a video protocol that can be standardized across the board that any telco and handset manufacturer could get behind? I don't need to worry about having to download an app to be able to call or text someone, why should I have to do the same if the exact same call contains video on top of voice/text?
Re: (Score:2)
Except for certain parts of New Jersey Verizon no longer gives a fuck about (and is allowed to by a corrupt state government, along with an FCC that can no longer be bothered with mere copper).
Re: (Score:2)
"End-to-end" for certain definition of end (Score:1)
"End-to-end" encryption where one end is Google's server.
If you think this makes you safe from snooping you better think again. It has been proven time and time again that the most common malicious agent when it comes to internet communications is the government. They want to read everything you send and/or receive. Google decrypts your messages and video on their end, and store them in plaintext for government agencies to inspect. Do not trust Google with your security. They have been known not only to hap
Is this penis-wave encryption? (Score:2)
How does the encryption work? I can't find an explanation on Google.
Key handling and exchange is hard; most non-hard methods of key exchange require some sort of penis-shaped sound wave to remediate their bad design.
Why not just port Hangouts? (Score:2)
more fragmentation... (Score:2)
The biggest issue is fragmentation
we know!
The offering is available for both Android and iOS -- the only two mobile platforms that matter (sorry, Windows 10 Mobile).
so the biggest issue is fragmentation... but they leave out Windows 10 Mobile.... oh dear :)
Happy people (Score:2)
If I see one more picture of mindlessly happy people I shall raise my cane in a threatening manner!
So, no desktop support - more fragmentation then...
I think that everyone... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problems with video calling between Android and iOS: Viber and BBM both can do it. Skype too, but Skype refuses to connect to my wifi because I once had a Tor exit node running at home. They apparently hate anonymous communication.
Facetime works on computers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facetime doesn't work on computers, or at least 95% of them which aren't Macs.
Hangouts works just fine on computers. No need for Duo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
for all 2 people out there with a hackingtosh this is also an option...
Re: (Score:2)
CUSeeMe (Score:2)
No thanks. I'll stick with CUSeeMe.
Seriously, this was working just fine twenty years ago. Why is this still a problem? Granted, CUSeeMe didn't have encryption, but you could do multi-way video conferences, and it was cross-platform.
Skype at least covers all the major platforms. We use it for a weekly video call with our son's grandparents across the country who would otherwise rarely see him. It's not perfect, but it works well enough (Android to Windows laptop).
Google Hangouts also covers all the maj
Re: (Score:2)
Skype works fine on my Android phone, and it works on my mother's Windows laptop. When we tried Google Hangouts, something didn't work. We're sticking with Skype because the core functionality works for us: video phone calls.
Yes, it has it's problems:
*) Encryption is sub-par.
*) It drops connections if my phone jumps networks.
But it works on the platforms we need it to work on, and it solves our problem. Switching would require that the core video conferencing of the new alternative be noticeably better.
Wire app? (Score:1)
What about https://wire.com ? It appears to be a better option.
Standards (Score:1)
Start by agreeing on a common open federated protocol and common patent-unencumbered codecs for video and audio. Then and only then client and server software will follow.
Obligatory: (Score:2)
I wouldn't get to used to it; Google will just discontinue it in 18 months.
Not gonna happen. (Score:2)
The encryption issue is a non-starter for two reasons: First, there isn't a viable competitor that does adequately encrypt and open the source code so that you know it really did. Second, 90%+ of the userbase don't care.
Sorry Google, but you're not going to win the war w