[HN Gopher] Teamspeak 5 to be based on the Matrix protocol
___________________________________________________________________
Teamspeak 5 to be based on the Matrix protocol
Author : circularfoyers
Score : 508 points
Date : 2021-01-12 08:27 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (community.teamspeak.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (community.teamspeak.com)
| nathias wrote:
| Nice! Increasing our reliance on open protocols instead of
| platforms is the best way towards a freer better internet.
| hda111 wrote:
| I would prefer TeamSpeak over Discord if they would bring back
| non profit licenses. I mean that I could host one myself but
| without making profit with enough slots.
| agilob wrote:
| All sources of this guy
|
| https://community.teamspeak.com/u/erkinalp/activity
|
| point to a comment from a developer where word "matrix" is in DNS
| SRV record name
|
| https://community.teamspeak.com/t/teamspeak-development-stat...
|
| All other sources in Google are reddit and Facebook posts.
| luos wrote:
| Teamspeak is still the best when it comes to chatting when
| gaming, it is usable with voice activation, push to talk and it
| has so good echo cancellation that it works when both of us are
| on speakers.
|
| Though the current version uses almost a full core on my machine,
| it's still worth it in my opinion and you can find many free
| servers you can connect to.
| superkuh wrote:
| Teamspeak used to be the best. I used it for a decade. It's
| only within the last couple years as they've tried to become
| Discord that it's started going downhill. Teamspeak 3 was solid
| enough but soon they implemented the artificial lifetime, you
| had to re-authenticate your server every year (and sometimes
| more often). Then they got rid of the old forums and wiped
| everything clean. It hasn't been the same. I stopped using TS
| recently.
|
| I do use matrix, but only because of the pandemic. And matrix
| itself only does 1-to-1 voice. For multiple it has a system to
| shunt you over to jitsi and autoconfigure the room. So I don't
| see how TS5 is going to use matrix.
| faeyanpiraat wrote:
| We switched to Mumble way back when I played Cod2
| competitively. It was better in every way.
|
| Ventrilo was "meh" (probably between the two).
|
| Edit: Fixed product names.
| luos wrote:
| I tried Mumble but it was lacking in something, maybe the
| push to talk did not work properly or the echo cancellation
| was not working? I can't really remember now.
| amazonluvis wrote:
| It's very informative post. Thanks for sharing a simple and very
| fruitful
|
| information with us it was really good and beneficial for us. <a
| href="https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/">www.Amazon.com/mytv</a> <a
| href="https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/">Amazon.com/mytv</a> <a
| href="https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/">www.prime.com/mytv</a>
| amazonluvis wrote:
| http://maps.google.ad/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.it.ao/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.com.ai/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com...
| http://maps.google.com.ag/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com...
| http://maps.google.com.ar/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com...
| http://maps.google.am/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.ac/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.com.au/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com...
| http://maps.google.at/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.az/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.bs/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.com.bh/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com...
| http://maps.google.com.bd/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com...
| http://maps.google.com.by/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com...
| http://maps.google.be/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.com.bz/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com...
| http://maps.google.bj/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.bt/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.com.bo/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com...
| http://maps.google.ba/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.co.bw/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.com.br/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com...
| http://maps.google.vg/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.com.bn/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com...
| http://maps.google.bg/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| http://maps.google.bf/url?q=https://www.a4amazonmytv.com/
| MayeulC wrote:
| Here is a more official-looking statement:
| https://community.teamspeak.com/t/beta-signup/13749/50
|
| > We use the Matrix protocol only for the messenger part. The
| rest does not require a different TeamSpeak server.
| kitkat_new wrote:
| interesting, I am speechless
|
| This is rather unusual for a commercial service
| kqr wrote:
| What part of it? Lots of commercial services are built on
| open protocols. HTTP is probably the most prominent example,
| but even in the IM world it is (was?) not that odd to see a
| commercial service use IRC under the hood.
| kzrdude wrote:
| In the continuation of this. Open source gets a lot of
| credit, but it deserves even more - companies, governments,
| institutions need to acknowledge it. Open source is jet
| fuel for the IT/technology industries, the ultimate
| commoditization of portable software.
| alderz wrote:
| WhatsApp is, or used to be, based on a heavily modified
| version of ejabberd, which is a XMPP server written in
| Erlang.
| skrowl wrote:
| Discord uses IRC for it's chat
| codetrotter wrote:
| Is that true?
| anticensor wrote:
| It was, for very early revisions of Discord.
| Macha wrote:
| It has some IRC stylings in the UI with the #channels
| etc. but it's not IRC.
|
| Are you sure you're not thinking of Twitch?
| stryan wrote:
| I think Discord has always used it's own thing (or at
| least I've never heard of this).
|
| Twitch, on the other hand, did used to use a very heavily
| customized version of IRC for it's chat. Not sure if it
| still does.
| erinnh wrote:
| It did as of last year.
|
| I used to use custom desktop clients where the chat was
| basically just an irc client that automatically joined
| whichever Twitch Stream I was watching.
| echelon wrote:
| Can you connect to Discord using a standard IRC client?
| jcelerier wrote:
| Facebook and Google talk used to use xmpp
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| Google Talk's usage of XMPP was more of an Embrace,
| Extend, Extinguish than _actual_ adoption.
| kevincox wrote:
| It may have been. But I wouldn't be surprised if the
| people who started it actually wanted a properly
| federated standardized XMPP.
|
| Of course then leadership got to it :'(
| jrimbault wrote:
| There were a few months more than 10 years ago when you
| could use one XMPP client for all your various
| social/chat accounts. I want to say around 2008 ?
| Eldt wrote:
| Yes... I remember using pidgin for that, and I believe
| there was some kind of proxy I used to link up IRC too.
| Those were the days.
| jcelerier wrote:
| same, that was the golden era of IM, using Pidgin for
| MSN, fb, google,...
| StavrosK wrote:
| More than a few months, I used that for years. Even after
| Google announced the shutting down of their XMPP service,
| it worked for years.
| webmaven wrote:
| _> Google Talk 's usage of XMPP was more of an Embrace,
| Extend, Extinguish than _actual_ adoption._
|
| That would have been an actual strategy, and probably
| would have worked, but from what I could tell they just
| sort of fumbled around without really committing.
|
| As I recall, the Embrace was half-hearted, the
| implementation was pretty standard with no Extensions,
| and they never really got around to an Extinguish phase,
| they eventually just phased out support for XMPP clients
| at all.
|
| The only way I think Google's incoherence of multiple
| overlapping stabs at messaging over many years makes
| sense is as internal maneuvering and jockeying for
| position among execs playing chess with the various
| engineering teams and end users as pawns.
| mminer237 wrote:
| They extinguished their own service by killing Google
| Talk and replacing it with Hangouts. They never dropped
| XMPP from Talk, they just never implemented it in
| Hangouts. Talk and Wave really started Google's churn of
| messaging apps, which has seemed to just hurt themselves.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Ah so it's only for the chat.. So they don't use Jitsi for
| voice by the sounds of it (which is what Matrix uses for
| voice).
|
| Makes sense but it would have been nice to have been fully open
| source-based.
| sho_hn wrote:
| > which is what Matrix uses for voice
|
| Matrix also has its own voice/video, but it's not considered
| entirely ready for prime time yet, hence the Jitsi embeds.
| Arathorn wrote:
| Matrix uses its own voice/video for 1:1, which is very
| nearly ready for prime time (we've been iterating a lot on
| it over the last few months, and are about to declare it
| open for business).
|
| We embed Jitsi for voice/video conferences, but we're
| experimenting more and more with native Matrix conferencing
| over the course of this year.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Aha I wasn't aware of that, thanks for enlightening me! I
| didn't know there was built-in conferencing at all. This
| is great!
| gsich wrote:
| Thank god.
| StavrosK wrote:
| That would have removed a large piece of the competitive edge
| for them. You don't swap out your core advantage.
| [deleted]
| bzb6 wrote:
| Last time I tried to set up a ts server I couldn't because they
| don't provide arm binaries. Everybody is on discord now. Better
| close shop already, frankly.
| cabraca wrote:
| yeah close that stable company, that offers a good selfhosted
| solution for a fair price and jump ship to a VC funded startup
| that is backed by Tencent. \s
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Yes too many open-source projects sponsor Discord too by
| using it :( Like Home Assistant. It's a shame when there's so
| many good open systems available.
| gsich wrote:
| Yeah clise shop because you tried to run it on hobby hardware.
| bzb6 wrote:
| Arm is not hobby hardware. I was running it on a scaleway
| instance (they have phased out arm instances ever since).
| gsich wrote:
| Guess why.
| f1refly wrote:
| Last time I checked I still had well over a dozen users on my
| ts3 server during the daytime. It'd be really sad to lose the
| community.
| blackrock wrote:
| What is the Matrix?
| danr4 wrote:
| I have a personal TeamSpeak server for my friend group since
| forever. I don't know if it's nostalgia, or I'm just old (31) but
| I can't imagine replacing it ever. Initially for gaming sessions,
| it became a place to hangout when you're on the computer,
| whatever you are doing.
|
| It's light weight, usable on my phone, self-hosted, no emoji-
| fiesta, can send the one-off chat message that I NEVER need
| history of. It just works and it's OURS. Once in a while when
| it's down all of my friends panic.
|
| I always thought there was a missing consumer app for my use
| case. There was/is Houseparty but I thought that video is too
| much. Clubhouse seems like it's doing something right but still
| not on point re. dropping in to a "familiar" place and hanging.
|
| Discord on the other hand just feels so alienating to me.
| nxoxn wrote:
| The new teamspeak application is clearly targeting Discord and
| I'll be happy to see some competition. I like the differences in
| the UI that are visible in their demo screenshots and the ability
| to host my own server would be nice.
|
| The biggest difficulty teamspeak is going to face is that users
| are now firmly entrenched in discord, just as twitch users are
| firmly entrenched in that product. Why would users switch? I am
| certainly going to try out the new TS and see how it fares
| because I just like trying out all of my options before settling
| on one. Quite a few others that I know would largely prefer to
| just stay put though.
| orliesaurus wrote:
| I'm glad to see TeamSpeak is still out there. I totally dropped
| it as soon as Discord became popular, not because I didn't like
| it - but literally everyone moved over, I didn't want to be left
| behind.
|
| Totally can see how some folks out here value their data a lot
| more and want to keep things private! That's where TeamSpeak will
| always thrive!
|
| Here's a little bit of a story-time anecdote: Back when I was in
| school, we used TeamSpeak to talk after hours, it was like the
| equivalent of people double (or 1.5x) my age spending hours and
| hours on the phone and their parents yelling "GET OFF THE PHONE".
| It was a win win situation because with ADSL (3mbps lol) I could
| be connected all day and not hog the phone line, additionally the
| in-built chat to whisper things was good enough that we could
| exchange links for funny images/flash games etc.
|
| The voice quality was never bad, it took a little server
| configuration to get it just right, and the ability to record
| your voice and the conversation made for some hilarious clips
| compilation throughout the years, sometimes we still share some
| of those clips to remember what it was like to have a squeaky
| teenage voice.
|
| I spent thousands of hours on TeamSpeak and also tried
| Ventrilo/Mumble - but I was defo a team TeamSpeak kid...Also I
| really liked the fact that TeamSpeak had a public servers list
| that we could just join when someone forgot to pay the bill for
| our own server. Yep we rotated...so it wouldn't be the burden of
| 1 person paying for everyone!
|
| Speaking of paying the bill, it was always just a couple of
| dollars PayPal'd over to someone who had a larger servers,
| basically sub-renting a whole room and subrooms...made us feel
| like adults paying our own bills :)
|
| Thanks for allowing me to drive down memory lane!
| jjice wrote:
| Sorry Teamspeak, but you lost me already. Back about 7 years ago
| when I spent more time online with friends in school, we tried to
| use Teamspeak multiple times, but the audio quality was always
| awful. We didn't like Skype either, but the audio was still
| better, so we dealt with the bloat. Discord is king in my mind,
| without question. Being electron based makes it a bit heavy, but
| I can spare 200MB on my machine for some damn good chat and call.
| Mo3 wrote:
| You probably had the audio codec configured improperly. Back
| then, TS used Speex in different bitrates. Today it is OPUS
| Voice (or OPUS Music), which has absolutely great audio
| quality. Combine this with very low latency if the server is in
| your proximity and you've got something that sounds and
| performs better than anything else - Slack, Discord, etc.
|
| "Damn good" chat might be true, but call? Only if you
| appreciate mediocre voice quality, a suboptimal RTC protocol
| and a good big chunk of latency.
|
| Discord feels sluggish, bloated and heavy compared to TS, and
| it's not just because it's Electron-based.
| deadbunny wrote:
| Not at my PC to check ATM but I'm pretty sure Discord uses
| Opus codecs as well.
| Mo3 wrote:
| Yeah, but on top of WebRTC = choppy, packet loss
| jagger27 wrote:
| TeamSpeak supports Opus and I don't remember quality being an
| issue. I actually distinctly remember Discord's audio being
| worse than the best TeamSpeak settings when Discord launched
| and my friends switched over.
| momothereal wrote:
| Could've just been a network issue, or simply because it was 7
| years ago. I've been using Teamspeak daily with my friends for
| 6 years, hosted on a 5$ digitalocean droplet and the audio is
| _far_ superior compared to anything else.
|
| Discord is pretty sweet too, with screensharing, videos, better
| chat etc. But once more than 2 people talk at once in a
| channel, even with Nitro/whatever, it starts cutting people up.
| We can really feel the difference when going back to TS after a
| Discord call.
| 650REDHAIR wrote:
| TS has always had better audio than Discord. Did you change the
| codecs?
| seanieb wrote:
| Will this be end-to-end-encrypted?
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| As a developer of an application wich had end-to-end encryption
| for a decade now, I'm so sick of people constantly demanding
| e2ee without fully understanding what it is and what are the
| downsides of it.
|
| The big irony is that strong _promise_ of _really good_
| encryption works for them better than really good encryption
| and all the drawbacks in usability it brings.
| ziddoap wrote:
| Out of curiosity, how do you know the poster you are replying
| to is 'demanding e2ee without fully understanding'? Also
| wondering what you mean by 'really good' encryption?
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Because such posters are always the same and make similar
| requests all the time. Say, someone makes a group chat
| product for 10000 people. They always pop up: 'but does it
| have e2ee? no? meh'. Not understanding that real e2ee makes
| no sense if you just blindly trust everyone without
| fingerprint verification, which is clearly impossible if
| you plan to use a product with thousands of people whom
| you've never met before.
|
| By 'really good' encryption I mean encryption where you do
| mutual fingerprint verification - a tiresome process that
| few users really do because they don't want all this
| hassle. Most people would be more happy with a big green
| button with a nice lock which says, 'You are really safe
| now' after pressing.
| ziddoap wrote:
| On HN, of all places, I personally prefer to give posters
| the benefit of the doubt that when asking for E2EE, they
| have some notion of what it is and entails. Your past few
| comments here are really rather condescending, assuming
| that no one (except yourself, of course) really
| understands what they mean when they ask for E2EE.
|
| >real e2ee
|
| >By 'really good' encryption
|
| These are descriptive terms I've not encountered in an
| academic setting when discussing all types of encryption.
| Is there a formal definition of 'real' vs. 'fake' E2EE?
| [deleted]
| physicsguy wrote:
| Didn't even realise Teamspeak was still running! Throw back to
| old MMO days
| Nican wrote:
| That is a name I have not seen in a long time. I remember when I
| use to game with Ventrilo/Teamspeak/Mumble about a decade ago.
|
| For anyone who still uses Teamspeak today, what do you use it
| for?
| Mo3 wrote:
| I play games with my friends and girlfriend sometimes, I host a
| TS3 server to talk to each other for several reasons -
|
| 1) Voice data stays with us, not yet again some other company
| 2) The TS Client is slim, lightweight and uses little resources
| while the Discord client is absolutely horrid, sluggish and
| quite the memory hog 3) TS has far superior voice quality
| (subjectively) and latency (due to the server being close)
| raxxorrax wrote:
| My group of friends still uses Mumble for talking to each
| other. It is hosted on our own server. It has transports to all
| sorts of messengers.
|
| I use discord for some things, but only from a browser.
| Wouldn't want to use it professionally, although it is
| relatively decent.
|
| Speech quality is far better on mumble with less latency,
| because the server is in near proximity.
|
| edit: Don't know about Mumbles text chat, it is rarely used.
| jkhsjdhjs wrote:
| I still use it for voice communication while gaming.
| dreen wrote:
| Talking to people who say they won't switch to Discord.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Both of them aren't probably going to use this either because
| <insert random tech tradeoff they believe is worth dying
| over>.
| asjkaehauisa wrote:
| A lot of Tibia's gamers use it in Poland
| [deleted]
| ch0I9daAiO wrote:
| I host my own TS3 server. It uses significantly less resources
| than the Discord client, has better audio (at least my friends
| sound better) and data is not going to Discord for whatever
| they're using data for. In case there's an issues with my
| Teamspeak server, I can solve it, instead of waiting for
| Discord.
| throwaway_ocr wrote:
| Same thing I've always used it for, talking to people I play
| games with.
|
| Teamspeak never stopped working so there was never a reason to
| switch to anything else.
| tadzik_ wrote:
| > Teamspeak never stopped working
|
| Hah, I have a different experience: my Teamspeak server
| literally stopped working once they started requiring a
| license key even for self-hosted instances. I scrapped the
| server entirely and switched to Mumble.
| lrem wrote:
| > Teamspeak never stopped working
|
| Ah, so your circle of friends does not include people with
| messed up audio. Teamspeak happily passes on whatever it got
| as input. Discord does quite a bit of filtering, able to
| salvage legibility of some of my friends.
| Mo3 wrote:
| And.. why would solving the problem on server level instead
| of client level be favorable?
|
| This is just another point for TS, frankly
| gsich wrote:
| There are various options in the client for this.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| If you have complex communication needs then this generation of
| voice software is still the best you can get.
|
| For example, I play a good amount of Eve Online and we have a
| lot of ACL shenanigans. First, you have your fleet's main
| channel where most of the membership is going to be. So far so
| good.
|
| At the top of the list are leadership channels. These guys can
| talk to and hear their own fleet but with can also instantly
| page other people in leadership (corp leadership and also other
| fleet commanders).
|
| Then at the bottom of the list are specific group sub-channels.
| For example, your scouts and your logistics players need a good
| amount of coordination with each other, so they will have a lil
| room where they can talk at each other without tying up comms
| for the main fleet or distracting leadership with stuff that
| isn't actionable to them.
|
| Then you can add in a whole extra layer of complexity if you
| are part of an alliance with multiple corps in it.
|
| You basically can't do that in discord unless you want to have
| to switch between different channels the entire time. It might
| sound overkill but if you have 90+ players in your fleet you
| cannot get away with 'just put everyone in a big room'.
| fjert wrote:
| My friends have a Teamspeak server so that's what I use when
| playing games with them. I prefer it over Discord because it's
| lightweight in comparison. Also for whatever reason, I can't
| seem to get the microphone sensitivity right in Discord the
| last few times I used it.
| yakattak wrote:
| I haven't seen groups in the games I play use Teamspeak or
| Ventrilo in probably 5-10 years. There was a push to Mumble a few
| years back and it seems like as soon as Discord hit the market it
| just took over.
|
| Do certain games still lean towards these? Perhaps older MMOs?
| I'm curious to hear which games are using it.
| sean_pedersen wrote:
| Would like to see more messaging services jump in on Matrix
| protocol. Signal would be huge.
| f1refly wrote:
| It would be more appropriate for signal to open up to the xmpp
| fediverse
| feanaro wrote:
| Why more appropriate?
| _-___________-_ wrote:
| I would hate to see Signal replace the elegant, carefully
| designed protocol they use with the bloated, carelessly
| designed, "IM-over-HTTP" mess that is Matrix.
| delfinom wrote:
| Heh, Matrix is starting to remind me of the giant shitshow
| that is Lync/Skype for Business and now known as Microsoft
| Teams with a new skin. Lync is a scary scary thing.
| anticensor wrote:
| They work quite differently under the hood: Microsoft Teams
| is thick client/thin server, Matrix is thin client/thick
| server.
| anticensor wrote:
| Binary transport is already on the roadmap.
| hans1729 wrote:
| Huge for matrix, yes. For signal to jump on the matrix train,
| matrix first needs to get their act together with respect to
| encryption.
|
| Try getting non-techsavy folk to set up multiple devices, the
| process is nowhere near viable right now
| ryukafalz wrote:
| >Try getting non-techsavy folk to set up multiple devices,
| the process is nowhere near viable right now
|
| The process of setting up e2e on a new device these days is
| basically "scan this QR code and push a button" though.
| swiley wrote:
| I'm not installing another messaging app until it's
| federated.
|
| I've told everyone sending me signal invites that they can
| email or sms me.
| poisonborz wrote:
| Note that this is only for chat functionality, not voice
| transmission.
| jhgg wrote:
| I don't think this is true, sorry. TS5 is definitely not built on
| Matrix.
|
| EDIT: Am wrong, see below! Maybe we can update the original post
| to one of the links below.
| danielsamuels wrote:
| Hmm, their developers seem to imply otherwise:
|
| > TS.ChrisR - TeamSpeak Staff - 30d
|
| > We use the Matrix protocol only for the messenger part.
|
| https://community.teamspeak.com/t/beta-signup/13749/50
|
| Other mentions of it here:
|
| https://community.teamspeak.com/t/teamspeak-development-stat...
|
| https://community.teamspeak.com/t/teamspeak-development-stat...
|
| Matrix themselves talked about it:
| https://matrix.org/blog/2020/10/09/this-week-in-matrix-2020-...
| jhgg wrote:
| Oh real interesting! Didn't realize that was the case - and
| the source linked was just a new account O:
| T3RMINATED wrote:
| Discord has killed the Teamspeak.
| 0x004C wrote:
| This is great news for Matrix also. With a widely known project
| like Teamspeak adopting it as a protocol, others might follow.
|
| Speaking of Teamspeak 5 - I hope the new client doesn't hog
| multiple gigabytes of RAM. Being lightweight is one of the
| reasons I prefer Teamspeak over Discord.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| And then we end up with unfederated networks which matrix is
| supposed to be all about.
| dsr_ wrote:
| The point of an open source federated communications tool is
| that you can make your own federation if you want to, with
| your own policy.
| cromka wrote:
| Reminds me of Jabber and how GTalk was first able to talk
| to anyone out there before they locked it down with their
| custom modifications to the protocol.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| Yeah, but it clashes with the mail analogy that is used to
| promote federation.
|
| But what makes me wonder is the choice of words "based on
| matrix" instead of "using matrix". So even if you wanted
| you couldn't federate.
| worble wrote:
| Assuming they do wish to maintain interoperability, you
| can use matrix while extending the base "events" that are
| sent to clients. So it may be that essentially Teamspeaks
| client/server will support the main specification
| "m.room" events, such as joining, leaving, adding/editing
| titles, etc, while also exposing their own
| "com.teamspeak.event" addons (which might be invites to
| voice channels or recordings or something specific like
| that), which so long as the client says "oh hey, I know
| those, speak them to me" will work fine, and any other
| client could still get the basic chat functionality.
|
| I'm not sure how exactly this works with server <->
| server federation, I've never actually looked at that
| spec.
|
| https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/r0.6.1#types-
| of-r...
| executesorder66 wrote:
| > Being lightweight is one of the reasons I prefer Teamspeak
| over Discord.
|
| Any reason you prefer teamspeak over mumble?
| 0x004C wrote:
| I just happened to setup a Teamspeak server instead of Mumble
| long time ago. Now it's hard enough to get friends use
| Teamspeak over Discord :)
| c0l0 wrote:
| Imho no, except for the network effect from when you have
| lazy friends/users who don't want to migrate away from the
| product they are already using.
| the_duke wrote:
| The big question is if they will federate with the rest of the
| Matrix ecosystem or keep it closed.
|
| It's positive for matrix either way, but federation would be
| great.
| jdellinger wrote:
| The current beta uses 7 processes with a total RAM of 139MB, so
| not as bad as some electron apps.
|
| Old TS3 client uses 60MB.
| Avamander wrote:
| I hope that Mumble does the same, to be honest. It's long
| overdue.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| At least Mumble is already open source.
|
| By the way, Teamspeak is only changing the messenger (text
| chat) part to Matrix.
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| Uhm, why exactly? It does what it is designed to do, with low
| latency and good quality. Speaking from "Desktop" perspective
| here.
| gsich wrote:
| Text chat that doesn't suck. Right now Mumble condenses all
| text messages in a single box.
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| Guess why it's called Mumble? TBH, on contemporary hardware
| it is so minimal, that I don't see a problem in using
| another program for texting in parallel that is more
| fitting for your needs, if those of Mumble don't suffice.
| gsich wrote:
| Guess what people do in voice chats. They come and go,
| post links or sometimes write when not being able to talk
| right now. Privately and in the current channel (seperate
| things).
|
| Having server messages combined with user messages and
| channel messages is not sane. This has nothing to do with
| "better suits your needs". Teamspeak (and others) solve
| this with tabs.
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| I didn't use TS because at the times I compared it with
| Mumble, it looked better(but only initially), but also
| felt more heavy. Both client and server. Also not open-
| source, so no go for exotic platforms. What I can say for
| Mumble is that you can customise it. I couldn't care less
| about redundant server messages spamming me with the
| rejoins from someone with a bad connection, for instance.
| Furthermore you can have different users colored
| differently. Emulation layers for running TS would have
| eliminated Mumbles rather minimal resource usage.
|
| So... _shrug_ ?
| gsich wrote:
| There is no customization that adds tabs. All the things
| you mentioned don't change the textbox behaviour.
|
| See also: https://github.com/mumble-
| voip/mumble/issues/2521
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| I didn't mention tabs.
| gsich wrote:
| But I did.
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| I noticed.
| gsich wrote:
| Then why shift the topic to something that can't fix the
| problem?
|
| Remember this is the problem:
|
| >Text chat that doesn't suck. Right now Mumble condenses
| all text messages in a single box.
| MayeulC wrote:
| I saw that forum post earlier yesterday. What makes it credible?
|
| It's a post by a very recent account, that didn't write that much
| to begin with.
|
| With that said, screenshots look similar to the Element Matrix
| client: https://community.teamspeak.com/t/wishlist/1436/283
|
| Even if TS5 was to be based on a Matrix client, that doesn't
| imply it supports the official Client-Server nor Server-Server
| APIs.
|
| I've argued that Matrix was a good fit for integrating into
| Mumble, I am still of that opinion.
| MayeulC wrote:
| Regarding Matrix+Mumble, here was my plea:
| https://github.com/mumble-voip/mumble/issues/1813#issuecomme...
|
| Currently, I am envisioning posting `mumble:` links in matrix
| channels, maybe pinning the message, together with a bit more
| info in custom events.
|
| If a Matrix client doesn't integrate mumble client
| functionality, you could still click on links. If it does,
| there could be some further integration with authentication.
| ds wrote:
| Not to be negative, but teamspeak and ventrilo represent some of
| the biggest failures of 'getting stuck in your lane' ever. They
| got fat on hosted server revenue and never iterated. Both of them
| had years (decade?) on discord and never thought to make their
| product free, web based or have a better chat. Ventrilo still has
| no official ios/android app (lol). Both remind me of craigslist,
| actually- Except that craigslist is still going strong (for now).
|
| Both still exist, granted- And many still use them. Its just that
| discord really shouldnt exist, it should have been one of these
| players. The head start they had should have been insurmountable.
|
| Also, apologies for not really commenting on the subject at hand
| (TS supporting matrix) - Its just I so rarely hear about TS/Vent
| that I thought it worth me shouting into the ether my
| disappointment I am not talking to all my friends on vent/ts in
| 2021.
| _n_b wrote:
| In both cases, I feel like they just stopped moving altogether.
| It wasn't even that they didn't innovate or add new features,
| they stopped even improving the features they had.
|
| I feel like there's huge market space for an application like
| Ventrilo that just does a simple voice server really well,
| without all the frills and bulk that more fully-featured app
| like Discord has.
|
| I know that we aren't entitled to software support from devs
| who get what they want out of their software and then move
| on... but I'm right there with you in being sad that vent/ts
| haven't stayed the test of time. Discord saw the stagnancy in
| the market and just ate it right up.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I think Mumble tries to be what you're describing:
| https://www.mumble.info/
|
| I've used it and it does indeed work well, but I think it
| struggles with adoption in part because--it turns out--all
| those frilly features do in fact drive engagement, help suck
| users into the ecosystem, etc. Basically it's a repeat of
| IRC->Slack; people tend to migrate away from things that are
| easy to migrate away from toward things that are hard to
| migrate away from.
| trophycase wrote:
| I can't understand the argument that Mumble is functionally
| better. I used Vent/TS/Mumble/Skype for years while playing
| WoW and within 2 minutes of downloading Discord it clearly
| blew all of them out of the water. Joining a new server was
| frictionless, channels and settings were clear and
| understandable. It combined everything from those 4
| services into 1 and did it better. I wouldn't call that
| "frilly features" it's just a flat out superior product.
| carstenhag wrote:
| Oh yeah, that reminds me of the one time I wanted to join
| a TeamSpeak server, but my "security level" was not high
| enough. My CPU had to calculate some stuff for 2 minutes
| to get that required security level, it's apparently an
| anti Spammer measurement.
| _n_b wrote:
| Yea, you hit the nail on the head. Mumble is super
| functional, but ui/ux is tough to chew.
|
| Engagement is so interesting to me. The notion that an app
| can be functionally better but practically worse in a
| marketplace because it doesn't have enough psychological
| hooks to keep users engaged. What an interesting software
| development challenge to face.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Agree! As an interesting counterexample to the trend, see
| video conferencing platforms over the past year: despite
| contact lists, calendar integration, cross platform
| whatever and decades of brand recognition, it wasn't Meet
| and Skype that got all the initial mindshare around
| pandemic WFH video calling-- it was relative newcomer
| Zoom, whose killer feature was that you could just click
| a link and be in the meeting.
|
| On the other hand, once Meet finally ripped off that
| feature, I basically switched to using it all the time.
| So maybe Zoom's ease-of-entry was an initial winner, but
| ultimately there was nothing keeping me there when Google
| offered the same but without the freemium time limits.
| Perhaps there is a parallel here with a service like
| Mumble?
| Macha wrote:
| Meet had that feature long before the pandemic? Certainly
| was using it when it was just branded "Hangouts" (no
| relation to the end user Hangouts) in like 2018.
|
| Google's loss was that they had pushed Meet (formerly
| Hangouts Meet, formerly "Hangouts, no the other
| Hangouts") as a business only thing while they were
| pushing Allo/Duo as the consumer apps and chasing the
| whatsapp/imessage market that year because of their
| addiction to launching a new chat app every year.
|
| (Hangouts anecdote: In the early days,
| hangouts.google.com went to the more well known hangouts
| for users app which had a contact list UI and a different
| video call interface. There was another link on the same
| domain to go to the meeting listing/creation screen now
| at meet.google.com. I don't think there was any way from
| one to the other in the UI, Google had a g.co/hangouts
| link to get to it and I think the unshortened URL just
| had an extra underscore component in the path. I guess
| they were still on the fence over whether to launch Meet
| as its own thing or as part of old Hangouts, before they
| decided to shut down old hangouts)
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I had used Meet in a Gapps context pre-pandemic, and
| perhaps due to the confusion you describe was unable to
| create a meeting in my GMail account and get a link for
| people to click on to join-- the closest I could do was
| send them a calendar invite, and that was unacceptable.
|
| Later on, it became possible to just go to
| meet.google.com and click "Start a Meeting".
| deelowe wrote:
| Where I live, craigslist has all but been replaced by facebook
| marketplace. There are too many scammers and too much spam on
| craigslist.
| benbristow wrote:
| Doesn't help that Craiglist haven't updated their UI for
| years, isn't the most user friendly site.
|
| Also having fixed locations isn't great, esp. in the UK.
| Cities are covered but smaller towns are chopped off under
| bigger city 'communities'.
| 650REDHAIR wrote:
| As a part-time reseller most of the scams and headaches come
| from platforms other than CL (FB, Mercari, OfferUp, Poshmark,
| etc).
|
| Maybe it's just the Bay Area, but CL is almost always better
| for me. If it's a niche item I'll try Reddit or eBay and have
| pretty much written off the others.
| benbristow wrote:
| Teamspeak Server seems to be free for 32 players now.
|
| No idea why you wouldn't just use Discord though.
| vinckr wrote:
| For bigger groups it is actually quite good. Its also a more
| lightweight experience as opposed to Discord with all the
| chat ect. functionality. And I have found it to be more
| ressourceful than Discord.
|
| That being said nowadays I use Discord 95% of the time.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| I don't know if it's actively maintained anymore because it's
| been a while since I played, but there was a mod for Arma 2
| that simulated real radio physics and depended on Teamspeak.
| bovine3dom wrote:
| Still maintained: https://github.com/IDI-Systems/acre2
|
| It looks like progress is being made on Mumble support:
| https://github.com/IDI-Systems/acre2/pull/980
| Macha wrote:
| It remains to be seen if Discord has a long term viable
| business model or whether it will get dumped like Skype, AIM,
| etc. when they need to monetise it and users get put off by the
| attempts.
|
| That said, the move will likely be to the next highly funded
| product in that case, not back to TS/Mumble.
| solatic wrote:
| We use Discord in a professional context as a kind of virtual
| office, with voice channels set up for team offices and
| meeting rooms. The persistent voice channel is the absolutely
| crucial benefit above and beyond the "click-to-start-a-call"
| UX on other platforms.
|
| We only pay $75/month, for two levels of server boosting.
| It's so underpriced for the corporate usecase, it's
| practically criminal. We'd probably be willing to pay four or
| five times as much, especially if it would allow us to host
| video/screen-shares with more people.
|
| I appreciate that Discord is gamer-focused branding, but
| their inability to launch more or less the same product under
| a professional brand is astounding. They're leaving huge sums
| of money on the table. For example, being able to run a
| public Discord instance for customer support, with individual
| rooms per customer, and customer screen sharing and get
| _anybody_ in the company to leave their team office on the
| private instance and join the support call in _two clicks_ is
| _mind-blowing_.
| reissbaker wrote:
| I am similarly astounded that Discord hasn't tried to reach
| for the enterprise market -- if they had good multi-account
| support, and the ability to have audit logging on corp
| accounts, I think it would be hands down better than Slack
| for that use case. It's already better than Slack for
| personal use cases IMO.
|
| I hope they monetize in that direction rather than ads
| (Discord seems to still be pretty reliant on VC funding,
| which makes sense to me since Nitro is pretty cheap and not
| particularly necessary to use the product) -- it seems less
| soul-eating. They've been dialing back the gamer branding
| at least, which could help reach a broader audience.
| gsich wrote:
| It's basically a Slack with more useful features and no
| bullshit.
| ds wrote:
| Id be willing to bet discord makes more gross profit from
| nitro sales in one week than TS/Vent make in a year,
| combined.
| schmorptron wrote:
| Does anyone know how efficient / cheaply they can use their
| servers? I'm guessing the chat part of the service save for
| file / image hosting is probably pretty cheap, but the low
| latency voice chats might be pretty costly, even if they
| can efficiently host them on virtual servers.
| zaksoup wrote:
| Discord's voice chats have no apparent upper limit in how
| many concurrent users they support - they basically say
| "the upper limit is how many your client device is able
| to support without crapping out".
|
| I haven't read into this but it seems like they're doing
| peer-to-peer for audio or the server load is INCREDIBLY
| efficient, given this.
| Macha wrote:
| It's not P2P. Here's a technical overview:
| https://blog.discord.com/how-discord-handles-two-and-
| half-mi...
|
| This is observable to still be the case as an end user.
| When the discord servers are having issues, people's
| voices become inaudible. This can be resolved by moving
| the server to a different, less loaded region, even if
| that region should have worse connectivity to the users
| in the voice chat. For example, my raid group often have
| to bounce our server from Europe to the US to workaround
| reliability issues on the EU servers.
| KallDrexx wrote:
| Discord might have a lot of Nitro sales, but that's
| probably dwarfed by their CDN and bandwidth costs of all
| the streaming that goes on with it. The infrastructure to
| relay massive scale of streams (even without transcoding)
| is not cheap. There's only so many streaming minutes at
| 720p that a single $9.99 nitro sub can support.
|
| They also do gif transcoding and a bunch of other things
| that do take actual compute resources that cost money.
| newfeatureok wrote:
| I highly doubt it - what are you basing this on? I
| personally don't know a single person who actually pays for
| discord. Most people I know who use Teamspeak pay for it.
| That being said, Discord is way more popular than
| Teamspeak, it does remain to be seen if they can heavily
| monetize.
| kungito wrote:
| Go to any public discord server with hundreds of users
| and you'll see them. I got my friends to pitch in to
| boost the server so that we can stream to each other in
| 60 fps but turns out our internet connections cannot
| handle it
| jowsie wrote:
| Majority of people I speak with on Discord do infact pay,
| nitro and server boosting, etc. Both our examples are
| anecdotal, though.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I don't know a single person who uses Teamspeak, and
| every discord server I'm on has at least one person
| boosting it. I was paying for discord for a while until I
| did a trim of my budget - but it gets you a shiny icon,
| you get to use more emojis, and other little things. You
| may call me a chump, but Discord is a product I value
| (like public radio ;) ) and so I tossed a coin to them.
| geek_at wrote:
| you're under 20, right?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Please, go on and tell me how my comment led you a
| conclusion about my age.
| Karunamon wrote:
| Any person who uses animated emotes/reacts is paying for
| discord nitro. It's not just the people who pay for
| server boosts, that's a higher tier.
| gsich wrote:
| They probably need it, using someone else's computer is not
| cheap.
| dancemethis wrote:
| They already have plenty. Personal user data and metadata.
| Remember this is the child of OpenFeint.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I've met the owner of Ventrilo a few times at Quakecon a few
| years back. Super nice guy, pretty smart and nerdy in a good
| way. Seems to me the guy got pretty wealthy off Ventrilo in its
| heyday, and was happy with it. Because as people can go search,
| Ventrilo is essentially abandonware.
|
| Discord's main benefits are the persistent chat with "slack-
| like" link embeds, emojis, and whatnot; as well as easier role
| management; and finally, federated identity.
|
| If Mumble, for instance, could make their chat interface more
| appealing, and if someone had a lightweight user directory for
| it and friend management, it might have a chance of competing.
| But Discord has really taken over.
| Firehawke wrote:
| Yeah, it became obvious around 2010 that Ventrilo was dead
| and that no further development was going to happen. That's
| when my group moved to Mumble, which was significantly better
| (and cheaper for hosting costs) but in the end Discord ended
| up being a significantly better product in pretty much every
| way.
| COGlory wrote:
| Good for him. Not every business needs to last and grow
| forever. That's a mandate that can't be met without selling
| your soul to VC.
| aseipp wrote:
| Discord also has a big lead in video support that, IMO, now
| exceeds anything else. It has flexible group based video chat
| that naturally extends voice chat. It has broadcasting
| support so you can stream your gameplay to each other, as
| well as player-in-player, pop out support, and side-by-side
| view. Almost all of these features work on mobile as well,
| including PIP/broadcasting (e.g. I streamed Genshin Impact
| directly off my phone.)
|
| These may seem like gimmicks, but I use all these features
| extensively in a server of ~8 regulars to the point we
| reflexively broadcast to each other and regularly watch each
| others gameplay, comment, or just use it to hang out. I think
| this stuff will probably significantly solidify Discord's
| lead, especially considering the technical infrastructure
| necessary for features like this.
|
| Before all that though, the slack-like features, and
| definitely the moderation features for bigger channels, were
| - still are! - major attractions.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Completely forgot about seamless video conferencing and
| screensharing.
| gsich wrote:
| I disagree. WebRTC is utter nonsense. You neither want to
| implement nor use it. You never know if it's working. With
| Mumble (TCP and UDP, both can be used for voice) and Teamspeak
| you know that when you connect to a server, your connection is
| working. With WebRTC you only have a vague idea, since HTTP is
| working, but that doesn't mean much.
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator's_Dilemma
|
| > _Clayton Christensen demonstrates how successful, outstanding
| companies can do everything "right" and still lose their market
| leadership - or even fail - as new, unexpected competitors rise
| and take over the market._
| oauea wrote:
| Yes, let's all centralize and commercialize everything and stop
| making software that you can self host.
| snet0 wrote:
| Why not both?
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Due to network effects, users are a tragedy-of-the-commons
| resource. The more people use one type of solution, the
| less people there are to use another. We have to choose, as
| a society as well as individual agents, which types of
| solutions we use _on principle_ , not merely what's most
| popular _in the moment_ , lest we find ourselves stuck in
| local optima.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| Are you familiar with Matrix though? Its very design is
| intended to mitigate this effect. You can use Matrix and
| still communicate via a bridge with users on other
| platforms.
|
| https://matrix.org/docs/guides/introduction
| baldfat wrote:
| Well they never were for a seamless purpose. We would mesh
| Ventrilo and IRC into a real awesome tool but I think we were
| the intended audience. There weren't millions of us there were
| tens of thousands of us.
|
| It wasn't till there was millions of users that Discord started
| targeting them. First there was Curse that got bought out by
| Twitch and then Discord jumped in.
|
| I still am the cranky guy who thinks IRC is the best
| communication tool out there and get mad looking at my Slacker
| screen.
| VectorLock wrote:
| I used IRC regularly for ~20 years and still don't miss it
| compared to Slack.
|
| I miss the people and the tone of the conversations and some
| of the aesthetic of clients like BitchX but as a technology,
| I don't really care.
| rhodozelia wrote:
| Wow!! I haven't thought of BitchX in about 15 years. I
| wonder if my eggdrops are still up?
| Firehawke wrote:
| Basically this. IRCv3 never really took off and it's not
| really feature-comparable to the modern chat clients. I
| still connect to IRC for one project I'm on, but I think
| IRC will likely be just the last few holdouts from here on
| out as it's way too late to pull people back in.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| > They got fat on hosted server revenue and never iterated.
| Both of them had years (decade?) on discord and never thought
| to make their product free, web based or have a better chat.
|
| > Also, apologies for not really commenting on the subject at
| hand (TS supporting matrix)
|
| As a former developer of a chat app that used Matrix, I'm
| actually thinking that this is a good direction for Teamspeak
| and has the potential to make it a viable alternative to
| Discord. Matrix has some decentralization that should allow for
| censorship-resistant use cases.
|
| And this is of course something the world badly needs right
| now.
| baby wrote:
| > Matrix has some decentralization that should allow for
| censorship-resistant use cases.
|
| As an ex-heavy user of teamspeak I can tell you that nobody
| cared about that.
| wink wrote:
| Yes, I think I joined a TS server twice in my life when it
| wasn't part of a guild or clan or something for online
| gaming.
|
| So it 100% did what it should do. These days most people
| seem to use Discord which also works fine for up to 30
| people (didn't try more) or Mumble (works fine for
| hundreds), in my filter bubble
| Fnoord wrote:
| It matters. In some parts of competitive gaming scene,
| Teamspeak requires a VPN because of DDoS attacks. Discord
| doesn't suffer from this, neither does Matrix.
| baby wrote:
| How so? That seems like an extraordinary claim.
| Justsignedup wrote:
| Teamspeak and those tools currently have cross-channel
| communication which is very useful for large squad games. They
| are definitely a minority as most games are like 5 players per
| team.
|
| So they have their niche uses (mumble too). guilded.gg is
| trying to fix that issue.
|
| Having said all that, TS is definitely not a freemium business
| model. And they did well for themselves. But they are certainly
| stuck in their old ways.
|
| Craigslist had many attempts to modernize. Turns out... people
| like the minimalistic nature of it. There are like a billion
| competitors, and they all failed.
| krrrh wrote:
| I wouldn't say that all the Craigslist competitors failed.
| Dozens of successful startups represent the unbundling of a
| single category on Craigslist into a more feature rich
| experience.
| Cactus2018 wrote:
| > unbundling
|
| and re-bundling:
|
| https://acrowdedspace.com/post/166470695392/the-re-
| bundling-...
| uncoder0 wrote:
| I'm a member of several squad gaming communities on discord.
| We always do our briefings in teamspeak for the better audio
| codecs and features for ducking and crowd control.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-12 23:00 UTC)