Hacker News Reader

Comment by dheera | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why every advertised feature of Teams can't be done with a web interface, like Slack.

Even with Slack I see no reason for a desktop client, which looks to me like just a widget-less browser running slack.com inside. I didn't need an app for that. And with the web client I can inject JS/CSS as I please (e.g. to prevent sending typing indicators).

View on HN

The most obvious one is screen sharing - that requires some access that isn't possible through the browser. Also, interacting well with audio and video hardware might need native support.

Discord is another interesting datapoint. You can access that through the browser or natively, but their team has said that the native client means (among other things) better access to audio codecs for better quality audio and things like noise cancellation.

> The most obvious one is screen sharing - that requires some access that isn't possible through the browser.

Browsers have had screen sharing for awhile.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Screen_Capt...

It doesn't work well across all OSs (see the Wayland discussion from a few days ago....) but it is there.

Yeah the Teams webapp supports screen sharing (and does it pretty well)! I particularly like the way Edge (and I assume Chrome) let you choose to just share a specific browser tab.

Video calls through a browser seem really hard to do well. I think that's why so many video call systems like Zoom really push you to download and use their native client.

My kid's school issued Chromebooks for remote schooling and are using Zoom through the browser. It was so bad that I pulled out an old Macbook instead. The Zoom native client running on a 12 year old Macbook works way, way better than running in updated Chrome on a recent Chromebook.

That sounds more like an issue with Zoom and the Chromebook. :/ My ~8 year old desktop works great with video chat in Firefox.

Then again my 8 year old desktop has 32GB of RAM and it is amazing what throwing 32GB of RAM can do to solve problems.

I've actually used video chat in multiple web apps for years now w/o issue though. In theory almost every aspect of video chat should be offloaded to GPU, the browser should just be a dumb canvas to throw pixels at, if that isn't the case then something has gone wrong somewhere in a particular setup. :(

Have you compared it to using Hangouts? I have no problem with the in-browser video quality on Hangouts, and get even better quality using a direct P2P WebRTC link.

I think Zoom is doing its own streaming schengens in the browser with JS and not using the native WebRTC framework for video streaming. It's very possible that they made the web client experience deliberately poor so that they could sell you on downloading the native client, and then spy on you.

> that requires some access that isn't possible through the browser

It is possible:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Screen_Capt...

Google Hangouts allows screen sharing from the browser.

Even if it isn't supported across all browsers, I'd much rather download the latest release of Firefox or Chromium than a proprietary client by Slack.

You know you can use Teams from your browser, right? Go to teams.microsoft.com. Seems pretty full-featured as far as I can tell.

The calls are pretty limited in the Browser. You only have the speaker view with one person and can't use the gridview. And firefox is completely blocked from doing any calls at all.

just a widget-less browser running slack.com inside

That's pretty much what it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com