Hacker News Reader

Comment by zamfi | Hacker News Reader

What do you make of WebRTC?

Is that an attempt to do just what you propose?

Yes! A second problem is that not all clients follow the spec. For example, Safari, which has relations with the dog in every respect: http://iswebrtcreadyyet.com/

Thankfully, for those unfortunate enough to be on an iOS device, I'm sure a native app can provide webRTC support rather than going the browser route.

If Safari is an impediment then it's time to put more pressure on Apple to conform. That's a lot easier than inventing new standards.

Mozilla caved on H.264 so anything is possible.

I don't think it's really in Apple's interest to conform. The status quo means developers have to build native apps.

Apple has a vested interest in having a high quality browser. In many "native apps" it's the backbone of them.

What would Twitter be, for example, without a robust WebKit view for web content?

WebRTC doesn't help the user inter operate between different clients (apps, not browsers) That's when we have a true standard.

Right now it's just a platform/API for developers (an achievement nonetheless)

WebRTC can help apps/browsers communicate with each other, but it still relies on out-of-band signaling.

There are plenty of libraries for WebRTC for native apps on iOS, Android, and desktop OSs -- and they all interoperate with the built-in Chrome and Firefox implementations.

However, to set up the calls, you need to get data between those clients, and WebRTC doesn't do that.

What's the solution?

Personally I don't think there is one.

Any such protocol would reduce these apps to a 'lowest common denominator' of features.

And in the current climate, its features (not interoperability) that sells.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see one. But I can't see it appearing until the business case demands it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com