Chrome talks WebRTC to Firefox!

Chrome talks to Firefox and viceversa!

But actually, in WebRTC world the C2B and B2C cases will be hugely important, so it may be that this will not turn out so relevant as it seems.
However, this is certainly a great boost for WebRTC initiative.
It is easy to imagine Opera joining the interop. Now let's just ask: what does this mean to Microsoft?
The major risk for WebRTC is the codec-related potential patent wars.

Yahoo gives up on VoIP and goes VoIP...WebRTC that is...

Yahoo acquired WebRTC technology with OnAir in December.

Yahoo recently acquired OnTheAir, a startup that offers interactive live video over the Web, in a move that shows the company’s commitment to increasing its mobile technology offerings.

OnTheAir, which uses WebRTC technology, is the second key acquisition by Yahoo under the watch of new CEO Marissa Mayer. 

Now, Yahoo announces the ramp-down ofYahoo Voice.

Just learned that Yahoo Voice is shutting down at the end of January. Yahoo! will no longer offer Phone In and Phone Out services to our users, although free Messenger-to-Messenger calls will still be available through your Yahoo! Messenger service.   

Yahoo VoIP direction is clear. From thick clients to Web.

Ads in Facebook call? Who wants that?

Interesting view on why Facebook is implementing VoIP. 


From the story:

There's a few ways Facebook could make money off of this too. It could offer low-cost, off-net VoIP calling services, similar to the way Skype does. This could allow a user to drop to the lowest-cost voice plan and just make calls over VoIP. The cost of data plan overages could make this unattractive, but if a user utilized the service only when connected over WiFi, it could significantly reduce the cost of calling from a cell phone. Another idea could be to somehow insert ads into the interface or a short one at the start of the call. However they do it, this might be Facebook's fastest path to being able to monetize mobile.

The idea of insterting ads with phone calls was trialed in the late 90s, if I remember right. I have a hard time seeing any success in that.

Why  would Facebook not want to connect consumers with businesses with easy to make voice call? A lot easier way to monetise.

Fair enough, you argue that this will get expensive for the mom&pop store to handle all those call. Well, let's put it this way: sure and there are smart folks working to make it feasible...

Why is Facebook doing VoIP?

Facebook has started to offer voice messaging in some markets with apparently plans to offer VoIP too in near future.

The voice messaging is obviously a smart usability enhancement. Rather than typing text, say something.
The realtime bi-directional VoIP is a different animal.

There are some factors for and against full VoIP by Facebook happening in the markets.

Pro:
+ may generate more service stickiness
+ one more modality to communicate, text has been there quite a while
+ Facebook may quite well be so much more powerful that the operators cannot stop it
+ WebRTC is around the corner and as an open technology may steal the middleman position Facebook has envisioned for itself between companies and consumers. The game around WebRTC is evolving to an interesting one

Cons:
- operators are an important distribution channel for Facebook in many markets (but what can they do?)
- questionable use case.  People may use social networking separate from realtime communications and prefer avoiding phone calls

I believe the key driver is Facebook's will to remain between the consumer and businesses.
This is hard to argue against, one needs only to look at Google to understand why.

Facebook to target IM market and drive XMPP?

Chat is not a new innovation in customer service. IKEA has it, travel agencies have it, several others have it.
There is nothing as such new in the fact that Facebook has it. And the short-term benefits to FB are obvious.

Facebook’s customer-service department has been quietly testing a Salesforce-powered system that lets businesses contact it over Facebook Chat rather than with a phone call. This gives merchants a quick and convenient way to get answers while they run their businesses, and it keeps call-center costs down for Facebook.

But Facebook is a powerful force and attracting small businesses to it.
Let's now remember that Facebook chat is based on XMPP. Not the usual XMPP service, but any XMPP client can in theory be used as a Facebook chat client.

Facebook Chat should be compatible with every XMPP client, but is not a full XMPP server. It should be thought of as a proxy into the world of Facebook Chat on www.facebook.com. As a result, it has several behaviors that differ slightly from what you would expect from a traditional XMPP service...

Therefore, the truly interesting question is what is waiting around the corner?
Will Facebook be allowing its users (consumers) to directly connect with advertisers over chat?
Let's note that today, this seems not the primary target of FB chat. This by judging what FB says of chat in the above. But technically it could be done.

For the business using the FB-provided service could in principle mean enhanced opportunities to get consumer attention. For example, the service use case of "chat or video chat with a celebrity" is a known one.

The scenario would also call for some business analysis because one could argue that FB might be bypassed and that it is in Facebook's interest to remain somehow between the advertiser and the consumer, to monetise the service in the right way.
However, if this happens, then this would be a great boost for XMPP and openness in instant messaging.

Let's remember that also Google Talk is based on XMPP.

Is this the way how IM market finally opens up? The IM in principle would be "open" but in reality dictated by the Big Internet Players?

The Firefox WebRTC demo video is a cool one

The Firefox video showing new ways to share images, videos, files or whatever is just cool. 
It all integrates in one smooth user experience, bringing your friends and colleagues close.

It is easy to see how systems based on WebRTC will challenge current proprietary players.
And once again, we will see incumbents trying to slow down evolution or even stop it.
They will be working hard to move the battlefied to other areas where proprietary elements come to play. Exciting times ahead.

WebRTC: an enabler for embedded devices?

The Internet of Things calls for intelligent peripherals. It would be nice even low-cost devices would support CoIP. Technologically, the issue is not so much about implementation capability. Of course any cost penalty is highly unwanted.
However, I would argue that the most important factor here is the market fragmentation in CoIP standards implementation. There is uncertainty of standards to be supported and fear of their incompatibility and cost of possibly exhaustive testing.
Now it will be interesting to see if WebRTC will change things.
Of course implementing basic underlying technologies required by WebRTC takes time and effort.
But at least Plantronics will be doing some cool things. 

Wearables is a natural first step. But a dynamic CoIP interoperability and capability in e.g. a smart sensor would have certainly a lot of use cases.
Waiting eagerly for news from hardware players.