[JDEV] Videoconferencing withjabber/Re:[speex-dev]Videoconferencing with speex and jabber

[Richard Dobson]

> >> Well, I think it is better to solve the hard problems up front. We are
> >> talking conferencing, not audio chat. It gets a big deal when you
include
> >> video. If we get the framework right for audio then an audio-video
> >> environment is just a bigger datastream but the bandwidth gets
lumpy...so
> >> better to ensure the bandwidth is properly considered. I am a bit of a
> >> tartar when it comes to what name we give. If this is audio chat
protocol
> >> then I will shut up as it is a different problem domain.
> >
> > I have been talking about audio conferencing, not video, thats is a
whole
> > different kettle of fish, we should try to do each the best way, and for
> > normal people p2p is the best way for audio.
>
> I did say conferencing, not Videoconferencing and you are clearly talking
> about some form of informal Audio Chat. Conferencing is quite different.
It
> is very important to use the right name for what we talk about.

Other people have been talking about video and you did say and i quote "It
gets a big deal when you include video" so you did infact mention video. FYI
to me audio conferencing means multiple people talking together to each
other and everyone can hear what everyone else says, what do you mean by
audio conferencing then?

> > yea 42 audio streams in total are buzzing around, but that doesnt matter
as
> > that doesnt really have any impact on each individual client, quoting
this
> > total stream number is irrelivant as the only impact on the client is
the
> > total number of streams it is receiving and sending.
>
> It is far from the only impact - a p2p client is basically a server as it
> has to manage all the comings and goings and establish links to all who
are
> in the conference and tell everyone when they are disengaging. Just lovely
> for a mobile phone client...

I wasnt suggesting this for a mobile phone client (when did i??), and I am
not denying what p2p means but as has been said it has real benefits on such
things as standard PC clients (with broadband) on which it will work fine.
Also what has its impact on mobile phones got to do with me arguing that the
total number of streams among all the clients doesnt have any relevancy and
only the number of connections the individual client is handling does.

> I agree with Jesper on this. Your post strongly implied that such a
solution
> was 'the solution' as a means to mitigate against concerns raised. It is
> *so* important not to dismiss concerns using an assumption on hardware or
> platform.

If you re-read the email in question you will see that I was not saying it
was "the solution", all I did was suggest how it "could" be done on windows
systems at no time in that email did I dismiss other hardware or platforms,
I just suggested a possible method of which I have knowledge about. It was
infact you in your reply that turned this into an assumption that you have
to have a windows system. Now can we please get back on track with the real
discussion.

> In a few years time many people will be running their windows shell on a
> massive server which will NOT have a local dedicated sound card to offload
> the audio processing to. Also remember that a mobile phone pays by the
bit,
> so 8kbps is far more desirable than 48kbps, and these are the people just
as
> likely to be Audio Chatting.

I wasnt talking about mobile phones, everytime I mentioned this I have been
saying broadband, also I dont think people are really going to want to be
using functionality as complicated as voice conferencing on a phone, if they
want to chat to people by voice they will phone them direct and if they want
to talk to more than one person they will use the existing telephone
conferencing features standard with most phone packages. So overall I dont
think this is of much use for mobile phones at the moment anyway, I think
you will have a hard time convincing people they need IM based voice
conferencing on their mobile phone, i can already hear the responses that
will be "whats the point, why cant I just call them".

Richard