Dan York

Just a guy in Vermont trying to connect all the dots...

Author's posts

Oct 20

My Rant: Who Are We Building RTCWEB/WebRTC For? Telephony Developers or Web Developers?

IetflogoYesterday morning I did something I haven't done in eons. Many years, probably. (I can't remember.) I fired off a "rant" on an IETF mailing list.

I've been a huge proponent of the "RTCWEB/WebRTC" work going on in the "RTCWEB" Working of the IETF and the "WebRTC" of the W3C. I've mentioned it in many of my presentations. I've advocated for people to join the mailing lists. I've written about it a good bit on Voxeo's standards blog when I was at Voxeo.

We have an opportunity to make it easy for web developers to add "real-time communications" via voice, video, IM, etc., to web applications. We can make that work from directly within the browser.

Think of it... HTML5 with the ability to quickly add voice, video, chat... and without the need for a browser plugin or extension in Flash, Java, etc. (the limitation of all of today's proprietary options).

It's the opportunity to move real-time communications into the very fabric of the Web.

Awesome potential!

The work has been moving along quite rapidly in both the IETF and the W3C. Extremely active (high-volume!) mailing lists. Many Internet-Draft documents being created. Regular conference calls, interim meetings, face-to-face meetings. Some truly brilliant - and passionate - people involved. (Read the RTCWEB overview Internet-Draft for more background.)

But I still can't escape the feeling that the direction isn't quite right... as a friend said to me:

my feeling is that this is being appoached as SIP 5.6.2 - a minor tweak on an established standard - not WebRTC 0.9 - a new dawn in a new world.

I haven't honestly had the time to read all the messages with the crazy amount of traffic (which is good - shows people are passionate about the topic!), but I've felt increasingly frustrated with reading the messages that I have read that we're collectively in the midst of developing something that few developers will actually use.

So I ranted. Will it do any good? Maybe. Maybe not.

What the rant really needs is to be backed up by people who have the time to join in the process and contribute suggestions for how a RTC API that would appeal to "web developers" would look like.

Care to help out? The mailing list is open to anyone to join.

Anyway here's the rant... (and yes, for the truly pedantic, I am very aware that I ended with a </rant> but did not start with a <rant>)...

Folks,

I need to rant. I've been lurking on this list from the beginning but with a new job I haven't been able to really keep up with the volume of messages... and every time I get ready to reply I find that others like Hadriel, Tim, Neil, Tolga or others have made the points I was going to make...

But I find myself increasingly frustrated with the ongoing discussions and want to ask a fundamental question:

- WHO ARE WE BUILDING RTCWEB/WEBRTC FOR?

Is it for:

1. Telephony developers who are tired of writing code in traditional languages and want to do things in new web ways;

2. Web developers who want to add real-time comms (as in voice, video and chat) to their existing or new web applications;

3. Both 1 and 2.

If the answer is #1, then I think everything is going along just wonderfully. We can go ahead and use the SIP/SDP/etc. stuff that we all in the RAI area are all used to and understand just fine. Heck, let's just all end the discussions about a signalling protocol and agree on SIP... get the browser vendors to agree on baking a SIP UA into their browsers... and call it a day and go have a beer. Simple. Easy. Done.

And the only people who will ever use it will be people who work for RTC/UC/VoIP vendors and random other programmers who actually care about telephony, etc.

But that's okay, because the people who do use it (and their employers) will be really happy and life will be good.

If the answer is #2, then I think we need to step back and ask -

HOW DO "WEB DEVELOPERS" REALLY WANT TO WORK?

Here's the thing... in my experience...

99% OF WEB DEVELOPERS DON'T GIVE A ______ ABOUT TELEPHONY!

Never have. Never will. (In fact, I may be understating that. It may actually be 99.99999%.)

If they are with startups, they want to build nice bright shiny objects that people will chase and use. They want to make the next Twitter or FourSquare or (pick your cool service that everyone salivates over). If they are with more established companies, they want to create easy-to-use interfaces that expose data or information in new and interesting ways or allow users to interact with their web apps in new and useful ways.

And they want to do all this using the "languages of the web"... JavaScript, PHP, Ruby, Python, etc.

They want "easily consumable" APIs where they can just look at a web page of documentation and understand in a few minutes how they can add functionality to their app using simple REST calls or adding snippets of code to their web page. Their interaction with telephony is more along these lines:

"Wow, dude, all I have to do is get an authorization token and curl this URL with my token and a phone number and I can create a phone call!"

And the thing is... they can do this **TODAY** with existing proprietary products and services. You can code it all up in Flex/Flash. You can write it in Java. You can use Voxeo's Phono. You could probably do it in Microsoft's Silverlight. I seem to recall Twilio having a web browser client. A bunch of the carriers/operators are starting to offer their own ways of doing this. On any given week there are probably a dozen new startups out there with their own ideas for a new proprietary, locked-in way of doing RTC via web browsers.

Web developers don't *NEED* this RTCWEB/WebRTC work to do real-time communications between browsers.

It can be done today. Now.

The drawback is that today you need to have some kind of applet/plugin/extension downloaded to the browser to allow access to the mic and speakers and make the RTC actually work. So you have to use some Flash or Java or something. AND... you are locked into some particular vendor's way of doing things and are reliant on that vendor being around.

THAT is what RTCWEB can overcome. Make it so that web developers can easily add RTC to their web apps without requiring any downloads, etc. Make it do-able in open standards that don't lock developers in to a specific product or vendor.

But if we are targeting "web developers", that is who we need to satisfy... and we need to understand that they *already* have ways to do what we are allowing them to do.

If we come out with something that is so "different" from what "web developers" are used to... that requires someone to, for instance, understand all of what SIP is about... that requires a whole bunch of lines of code, etc.... well...

... the web developers out there will NOT launch an "Occupy RTCWEB" movement claiming that they are the "99% who don't care about telephony"... they will simply... not... use.... RTCWEB!

They will continue to use proprietary products and services because those work in the ways that web developers are used to and they make it simple for a web developer to go add voice, video and chat to a web app. Sure... they will still require the dreaded plugin/extension, but so be it... the "open standard" way is far too complicated for them to look at.

And all the work and the zillions of hours of writing emails and I-Ds that this group has done will all be for nothing. Well, not nothing... some of the telephony-centric developers will use them. But the majority of the web developers out there may not because there are other simpler, easier ways to do what they need to do.

So I go back to the question - who are we building RTCWEB for?

Is the goal to enable the zillions of web developers out to be able to use real-time communications in new and innovative ways? Or is it solely to make it so that VoIP/UC/RTC vendors can make a softphone in the browser that calls into their call center software?

RTCWEB *can* enable both... but to me it's a question of where the priority is.

The question is - will the RTCWEB/WEBRTC API/protocol/whatever be so simple and easy that web developers will choose to use it over Flash/Phono/Twilio/Java/whatever to add RTC functions to their web apps?

If the answer is yes, we win. Open standards win. Maybe we upgrade from having a beer to having champagne.

If the answer is no, what are spending all this time for?

</rant>

Dan

NOTE: And, as I suppose must be the case with any good rant, mine was not entirely accurate. As multiple people pointed out (one example), my ending where I ask about whether people would choose the RTCWEB/WebRTC API over Flash/Phono/Twilio/Java/whatever is not entirely on target. The question is really... will vendors creating libraries like Phono choose to use the RTCWEB/WebRTC protocols/APIs or will they continue to use their own proprietary solutions?

As people pointed out, there will be a hundred different JavaScript libraries created (like Phono) that will consume the RTCWEB work... and most web developers will use those libraries and not program directly with the RTWEB/WebRTC APIs and protocols.

Fair enough... but the question remains - will the RTCWEB work make it easy enough for all those JavaScript libraries to blossom?

Others pointed out that I'm really talking about the web API that would be exposed via the W3C's work versus the low-level API coming out of the IETF. And yes, that is perhaps technically true... but the reality is that it is the same set of people working in two different mailing lists... and both efforts are contributing to the end result.

In the end, I want to see a result of all this RTCWEB/WebRTC work that developers will actually deploy and use!

I want open standards to win.

If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:

Oct 20

The Hardest Part of Podcasting Is…

Podcasting
... probably not what you think it is.

It's not the technology... as that is in so many cases the easiest aspect. Download a tool like Audacity to your computer and start talking into your built-in mic. Boom. You're done. Or point your phone's video camera at someone and press the record button. We've got a zillion different devices that will record audio or video.

It's not the post-production... although that can take some time depending upon the level of "professionalism" you want to give to your podcasts. Some people are fine with just posting raw "(wo)man-on-the-street" interviews up with little or no post-production. Some people want to do some editing, add intros and outros, etc.

It's not the on-air voice (the "talent")... as there are many podcasts out there that demonstrate that you don't need to have the proverbial "radio voice" to still have a show that builds a community of listeners. Of course, having (or developing) a good voice does help, but it's not the hardest part.

It's not the marketing of your podcast... the world of social media has made it so much easier to get the word out. Good shows will spread virally and people will learn about what you are doing. MANY tools out there to help spread the word.

It's not the story or the outline of what you will talk about... although admittedly this CAN be one of the harder aspects - to craft the outline of what you are going to do over a period of time, to think about the audiences, to figure out what story you are going to tell.

No, the absolute hardest part of podcasting is none of those, although all of them can be challenging in different ways.

Instead the hardest part of podcasting is...

... keeping the podcast going!

It's easy to start a podcast... it's far harder to maintain a podcast.

To keep doing it... week after week after week after week after week after...

For every podcast like For Immediate Release that has been diligently going on week after week for over five years now (just passed episode #621) or the VoIP Users Conference that has been going on for 4+ years, there are a hundred other podcasts where the hosts had brilliant ideas, the best of intentions... yet didn't keep the podcast going.

The Internet is littered with the remains of thousands of podcasts that started... (and yes, the same could be said of blogs).

One of my own is amidst those remains... from 2005 to 2008 I produced and co-hosted Blue Box: The VoIP Security Podcast. It was great to do and we built up quite a strong community of listeners. But then jobs changed... life changed... new kids came into the world... and so we ended the show's run. I keep thinking about bringing it back... but I'm conscious of this "hardest part" of podcasting. If I do bring it back, I have to be ready to commit to bringing it back on a regular basis.

THAT is the hardest part of "podcasting".

Keeping the podcast going.

IF, of course, you are trying to create a "show" that is ongoing. If you are just putting up some audio interviews... well, those might just be "downloadable audio files" and not really a "podcast", per se. Or they might be a "podcast" that has a predetermined lifespan... such as for an event or conference. There are many such podcasts around an event or date - or for a set series of topics - and they are great for what they are: a "body of work" with a defined beginning and end.

But if you are trying to create an ongoing show that attracts a community of listeners... then this "hardest part" comes into play. When I've been consulting with clients about starting up a podcast, I stress this fact again: it's easy to start a podcast, but far harder to keep it going.

Are you ready to commit to the long-term run of the show?

To do it week after week after week after week?

THAT is the hardest part of podcasting.

If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:

Oct 19

When Did Facebook Start Letting You Unfollow Posts?

When did Facebook copy Google+ and add the feature that you could stop receiving notifications for a specific post? As the image shows, I just noticed it yesterday:

Unfollowingapost

Very nice to see as there are certainly times when I have "Liked" or commented on a post and then not really wanted to see the zillion other comments that people have left on a popular post.

If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:

Oct 18

Can Alec Saunder Woo Developers Back to the Blackberry Platform?

Can he do it? Can he get developers to actually care enough about the Blackberry / Playbook platform to come and build apps?

Today my friend Alec Saunders, RIM's newly minted "VP of Developer Relations and Ecosystem Development", took to the stage of the Blackberry "DevCon Americas" event in San Francisco to make the case to the assembled crowd. Jim Courtney passed along to me the link to the livecast of the event and I did take a moment to tune in and check it out. (Apparently a recording will be available at some point.)

Alec has a theatre background and is always fun to watch present... he has a certain dynamic energy that is good to see. In the few minutes I watched he seemed very much in his element:

Blackberrydevcon2

Alecsaunders 1

Now, whether he will actually have any success is another question... despite his stats that the BlackBerry AppStore is more profitable for developers than the Android Marketplace, I don't know if the broader world of developers will really notice. From what I see the momentum seems to be elsewhere...

I wish him the best, though... and Alec, when you read this, you can know that some of your friends did enjoy watching the live stream! :-)

If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:

Oct 18

Amazon and the Incredible Disruption of The Publishing Industry

used books

Have you been tracking the insane degree to which Amazon.com is utterly disrupting the traditional publishing industry? Have you been paying attention to how incredibly the business models and the players are changing?

As an author of multiple books who has been published through the traditional publishing industry (ex. O'Reilly, Syngress, Sybex, QUE) and who still has a zillion book ideas in my head, I've obviously been paying close attention. For those of us who write, it's an incredible time of opportunity... and choices.

The 800-Pound Gorilla

Amazon.com is at the heart of the disruption and the opportunity. I first started watching Amazon closely about 5 years ago or so when I learned of CreateSpace, Amazon's "do-it-yourself" publishing site where basically anyone can upload a PDF, choose a cover (or create your own) and... publish your book into Amazon.com! The cool thing is that your book shows up in Amazon listings just like those from the traditional publishers.

  1. Write your book.
  2. Export to PDF.
  3. Upload to CreateSpace.
  4. Start Selling!

Boom!

That's the sound of the traditional publishing industry business model going up in smoke...

In the years since, CreateSpace has of course expanded into ebooks and Amazon's rolled out many other services helping authors get their content out.

Now, of course, to do it on your own is not quite that simple. Traditional publishers provide some key assistance to authors:

  1. Editing - a critical piece of writing a book
  2. Design - of the cover, the book, graphics, the typefaces, etc.
  3. Marketing - promoting the book across many different channels, advertising, etc.
  4. Distribution - getting the book out to where people will buy it

Editing, design and marketing are all areas where you can find people to help you... and the distribution is the whole point of what Amazon.com, Smashwords, Lulu and a zillion other sites will now help you with. Sure, the traditional publishers can help you with distribution out to brick-and-mortar bookstores... but how are those doing these days? (The sad subject of another blog post at some point.) For some authors those bookstores may be a market... and for them the traditional publishers may be necessary. For other authors starting out - or writing for more niche audiences, the "indie publishing" route may work better.

Amazon's Latest Move

This month brings news that Amazon is signing authors to its own publishing imprint and there are two great articles out analyzing what this means:

Mathew Ingram's GigaOm piece, in particular, is useful for all the links he includes to other articles and information. The NY Times piece also had this great quote from Amazon executive Russell Grandinetti:

“The only really necessary people in the publishing process now are the writer and reader,” he said. “Everyone who stands between those two has both risk and opportunity."

The time has never been better for authors to be able to get their content published. We've had this world of "blogging" now for over a decade which has let anyone publish their thoughts online... and services from Amazon and the others have let you get into "print-on-demand" so easily.

And ebooks! Look at how the way people consume books have changed just in the last few years....

But of course there is an entire industry that was used to being the gatekeepers of that content: publishers, agents, bookstores...

Some Traditional Publishers Get It

I should note that some publishers certainly "get it", have seen the disruption and are doing what they can to both survive and thrive in this new world. The primary reason why I signed with O'Reilly for my latest book, Migrating Applications to IPv6, was because the entire idea behind the the book was for it to be an "ebook" that could be constantly updated as we as an industry learn more about IPv6 application migration.[1] O'Reilly has long been paying attention... they brought out Safari Books Online many years ago... they have their excellent Radar blog/site that indeed includes ongoing commentary about the disruption in the industry... and they sponsor the annual excellent Tools of Change for Publishing conference. I wrote earlier about how O'Reilly makes it so easy to get ebooks onto your mobile devices.

O'Reilly is a stellar example of publishers who see the changes and are looking at how to be part of that wave. There are others, too. The smart ones are evolving.

Some Traditional Publishers Don't

Others aren't. As both the GigaOm and NYT piece mention, some of the traditional publishers are instead fighting tooth and nail to hang on to some relevance.

I loved Mathew's ending paragraph:

Here’s a hint for book publishers: take a lesson from the music industry, and don’t spend all your time suing people for misusing what you believe is your content — think instead about why they are doing this, and what it says about how your business is changing, and then try to adapt to that. Amazon is giving authors what they want, and as long as it continues to do so, you will be at a disadvantage. Wake up and smell the disruption.

Wake up and smell the disruption, indeed!

If you are an author, have you been following what Amazon is doing? Have you self-published any work? Or are you considering it?

Image credit: babblingdweeb on Flickr

[1] To be entirely clear, another HUGE reason for signing with O'Reilly was because of the marketing they could do on my behalf to their existing channel of techies, early adopters, etc.

If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:

Oct 17

Asterisk Remote Crash Vulnerability in SIP Channel Driver

Asterisk

The folks over at the Digium security team today released security bulletin AST-2011-012 for a remote crash vulnerability in the SIP channel drive. For info about the attack, they state only:

A remote authenticated user can cause a crash with a malformed request due to an uninitialized variable.

An assumption from this statement would be that an UNauthenticated user could not carry out this attack… but I admit to not personally knowing the SIP channel driver of Asterisk enough to be able to stand behind this conclusion.

Regardless, updates have been released in the form of new versions 1.8.7.1 and 10.0.0-rc1.

Oct 17

Awesome Comic -> The Bright Side to the Blackberry Outage

A truly awesome way to start my Monday... courtesy of RWW, this great cartoon from Rob Cottingham showing the "bright side" of the Blackberry outage:

Noisetosignal

Of course, we iPhone owners could have a similar discovery... although whether or not our phone connection would actually work is a different question... (but did any of us truly get an iPhone for the phone piece? ;-)

Great comic, Rob!

If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:

Oct 15

Learn To Curl Clinic Tomorrow (Sun, Oct 16) at Petersham Curling Club in Petersham, Mass.

Petershamcurlingclub 1

I'm looking forward to throwing a few rocks at houses tomorrow... the Petersham Curling Club is holding a "Learn To Curl" clinic for the public tomorrow, Sunday, October 16, 2011, from 10-1pm, a their 2-sheet facility in Petersham, MA.

I'm not going to be part of the clinic... given that I was last skipping teams, I'm a bit beyond that initial stage (although you can always learn more)... I'm actually going to bring my 9-year-old daughter down to see if it's something of interest to her. The Petersham C.C. has an active youth curling program on Saturday mornings and we're toying with pursuing that this winter.

But, I admit to hoping that when I'm down there with her I'll at least get a chance to throw a few rocks ;-)

Petersham, MA, is about an hour south of Keene, NH, heading straight down Route 32. It's a good haul to drive for curling... but Petersham Curling Club is really the closest rink to our area. The next nearest would really be the Nashua Country Club over in Nashua, NH. (about 1.5 hours away), or the Union Ice Arena up in Woodstock, VT (also about 1.5 hours away).

We'll see... we went down and visited Petersham last year and it's a great 2-sheet facility. The folks there were very friendly and welcoming... it should be fun!

P.S. If anyone in the Keene, NH, / Monadnock Region is interested in seeing what we can do to get some more local curling options, please drop me a note... I'm definitely interested in seeing what can be done.

Oct 14

It’s Official! For Better Or Worse, Skype Is Now Part of Microsoft

Skype microsoft
And so begins the next chapter of Skype... first it was a scruffy little startup taking on the telecom world... then it became somewhat bizarrely part of eBay... then it went back to a private company owned primarily by Silver Lake Partners... and then... to the utter amazement of so many of us... Skype announced it would be acquired by Microsoft!

And today that acquisition is official. Microsoft announced in a news release and Skype announced in a blog post and video from CEO Tony Bates that the acquisition has formally been concluded.

The deal is done. Skype CEO Tony Bates is now the president of the Skype Dvision within Microsoft reporting directly to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. I found this phrase of the news release to be interesting (my emphasis added):

Microsoft and Skype will remain focused on their shared goal of connecting all people across all devices and accelerating both companies’ efforts to transform real-time communications for consumers and enterprise customers.

My interest was not only in the "across all devices", which has been a large part of Skype's goal for some time... but also in the use of "real-time communications". For a while that was a phrase that only the more technical-minded folks used, but now increasingly "real-time communications" seems to be the phrase of choice for many. I, for one, applaud the usage.

Skype and Microsoft also apparently wanted to be hype-compliant and so they released an infographic with recent stats about Skype. (Everyone seems to need to have an infographic these days, don't they?)

I admit to a degree of sadness that Skype is no longer the independent company that they were. They were always "fun" as a company because they were such the "outsider" that attacked the entrenched telecommunications industry - and succeeded in so massively disrupting the industry!

They've been fun to watch... and a constant source of stories to write about for those of us chronicling the changing communication industry. Somehow I don't think they'll be quite as "fun" or "wacky" as part of such a megalithic company as Microsoft.

Yet maybe that's okay.

Skype's reached a point in its growth where it has disrupted so much of telecom... and it has in fact become a critical communication tool for so many.

On one level they will now have the large-scale support they need, both from a financial point-of-view but also from a "systems" point-of-view. Microsoft does understand the needs of enterprise customers. I would think they will improve the support options... and improve the security reporting features.

Heck, maybe they'll actually put a phone number on Skype's website so that people will stop calling ME! (People still do... had two calls last week.)

More than that, though, Microsoft will give Skype a platform upon which to move into the enterprise. Not only in the potential integration with Microsoft Lync, but just in the "legitimacy" brought about by being part of "Microsoft". Skype is no longer some scrappy little outlaw-or-barely-legal company from somewhere in Eastern Europe who should be dismissed and blocked by IT departments everywhere.

Skype is now a Microsoft product. (with the associated microsoft.com product pages)

Enterprise IT departments understand, support and use Microsoft products... and so Skype may no longer be as dismissed and blocked as it has been. We'll have to see... but the name does help Skype overcome some of those issues.

Microsoft also has its wide array of other products and services... Lync, XBox, Office, Office 365, etc. So many places where Skype could be further integrated.

It will be intriguing to see where the "Skype Division of Microsoft" goes now. I'm pleased for my friends there that the acquisition has closed so that they have at least some degree of certainty of what is happening next. Kudos to all involved in making the acquisition a reality.

Now let's see what happens in the next chapter of the story of Skype...

UPDATE: Jim Courtney has a good post up, too: Microsoft Acquires Skype: Deal Closed!

If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:

Oct 13

R.I.P. Dennis Ritchie, half of the K&R Bible for C Programming

KandR CProgrammingLang

For those of us of a certain age, “The C Programming Language“, written by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie, was our “bible” as we learned to program in those very early days. Our copies of “K&R“, as many of us referred to it, got quite dog-eared and marked up as we used it to figure out this whole new world of “C”. It was an exciting time and a critical book to have.

Many of us, in fact, probably still have that book… the image accompanying this post is my copy that I pulled off of a bookshelf a few moments ago.

Today many of us learned that Dennis M. Ritchie, the co-author of that book and indeed the inventor of the C Language, passed away recently after a long illness.

While many of us stopped programming in C years ago (although many still do), it was the language that got many of us started in “serious” work… and also that formed the background of UNIX as well.

On that note, I had quite honestly forgotten over the years Dennis Ritchie’s role in the creation of UNIX, but as has been noted in many articles today it was he and Ken Thompson that started it all. Here’s a great video from the Bell Labs days showing both Thompson and Ritchie:

R.I.P. dmr!

UPDATE: A couple of other nice tributes: