WebRTC Just Became Usable

By | February 6, 2013

After Microsoft has successfully demonstrated their own implementation of the VOIP API, we wondered how long will it take for the WebRTC developers to respond.

Well, it looks like a small kick in the butt was enough as they have now successfully implemented a feature, which allows individuals with different web browsers to have a conversation. As seen in the video above, it works just fine and best of all, everything was fully encrypted.

Your turn, Microsoft.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this]

About (Author Profile)

Vygantas is a former web designer whose projects are used by companies such as AMD, NVIDIA and departed Westood Studios. Being passionate about software, Vygantas began his journalism career back in 2007 when he founded FavBrowser.com. Having said that, he is also an adrenaline junkie who enjoys good books, fitness activities and Forex trading.

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Przemysław Lib says:

    Now MS need plugin for Firefox.

    And Google can respond with plugin for IE adding WebRTC.

    And MS can respond with ….


      • Przemysław Lib says:

        Plugins are good way for supporting some new but unstable protocols.

        If CU-RTC-Web ()horrible name!) gets adopted as W3C standard, and MS choose to open source those extensions, than that code would be “relatively” easy to incorporate in Chrome/Firefox code base.

        Java/Flash plugins are bad becuase they are not FLOSS (which changed with recent Java), are not standardized in open way (also changed a bit with Java), and do not integrate well with pure HTML (which is important for search engines!!!!!!!).

        Plug-ins MS release could avoid all those stoppers.

        • Shane Bundy says:

          Maybe, but plugins are more likely to be exploited due to their interaction with the browser.

          Don’t get me wrong, things like Chrome Frame are great for IE users who are stuck on IE.

          • Przemysław Lib says:

            I agree. Plugins are not as good as built-in solutions.

            But as proof-of-concept they are perfect. And MS really need to show whistles and bells of CU-RTC-Web (horrible name!), if they want to replace Web-RTC.

          • Shane Bundy says:

            I preferred Microsoft’s solution to WebRTC (the cross-browser part) and now that WebRTC has done that, what else can Microsoft do?

            I’ll be watching.

          • Przemysław Lib says:

            CU-RTC-Web to Asterix? Browser to Skype? Whatever.

            Web-RTC is designed for Browser-to-Browser. MS have more broad spec. They need to market it better.

  2. Ari Sanders says:

    Does anyone else notice that while Firefox’s logo appeared the same direction on both his view of himself, and the other’s, Chrome’s logo appeared in two different directions? This shows that there is clearly something different about the two implementations. I wonder why?
    It’s pretty cool to see this working properly though.

    • Péter Vári says:

      I think it’s because Chrome shows you a mirror of yourself. To some, that could be more comfortable.. but clearly, since the feed in FireFox browser was not mirrored, only the person behind the camera would see themselves like that.