Google Allo For Chrome Finally Arrives, But Only For Android Users (engadget.com) 88
Google Allo, the chat app that arrived on the iPhone and Android devices last year, now has a web counterpart. Head of product for Allo and video chat app Duo, Amit Fulay, tweeted: "Allow for web is here! Try it on Chrome today. Get the latest Allo build on Android before giving it a spin." Engadget reports: To give it a go, you'll need to open the Allo app on your device and use that to scan a QR code you can generate at this link. Once you've scanned the code, Allo pulls up your chat history and mirrors all the conversations you have on your phone. Most of Allo's key features, including smart replies, emoji, stickers and most importantly the Google Assistant are all intact here. In fact, this is the first time you can really get the full Google Assistant experience through the web; it's been limited to phones and Google Home thus far.
Oblig. Allo, allo (Score:5, Funny)
Listen very carefully, for I shall say this only once.
Re: (Score:2)
"Shut up, nospam007. You are a stupid retard."
It takes one to know one. :-)
"I turn 24 the other day, "
Then get the fuck off my lawn!
Re: (Score:2)
Listen very carefully, for I shall say this only once.
Good Moaning
Allo? (Score:2)
ALLO! http://ftpguide.com/ALLO.htm [ftpguide.com]
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds complicated. I'll stick with Hangouts. Multi-device, web and app available, group chats and single chats, audio and video..... Google should buy that if they want a good messenger.
oh.. wait a sec..
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess since I see so many people with Beats headphones, those must be good. Is that how the line of thinking goes?
Re: (Score:2)
It would help if Google would actually do some development on it, and not just keep creating replacements and abandoning what was there before.
Gchat and Google Voice are a thing, then Hangouts becomes a thing and the first to are left to wither away. Now a new chat thing comes along and Hangouts is left to wither away.
I can't imagine why people don't want to hitch to this platform, and why other apps might be more popular to use. Maybe if Google didn't fuck over every single person that ever uses one of t
The new Google+ (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Google is making a stupid decision after another lately, and their decisions over messaging applications are a poster child of this, they had a really nice thing with gtalk, decided for whatever reason create another one, hangouts, and force everyone over to that instead of improving gtalk, people didn't like that, then they did it again, but this time they've already had lost a huge base, most people were either on facebook messenger, whatsapp (which is now al
Thank goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
These days, every chat provider is just a vertical, proprietary walled off service. First they snare you with the kewl features, then they scrape your contacts. Then they start grabbing your GPS location. Then they start pushing ads and services at you "relevant to your conversations and location". Then they start integrating features of product B until the chat software is a bloated mess. Then they calve off product B into its own app but make it mandatory you install it as part of a suite. Then a new chat app comes along which claims to do away with the bloat, rinse and repeat.
Just implement a secure, federated, open protocol and stop this nonsense. At that point chat can be part of the phone software stack. Apps can compete on their front ends and other functions they offer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the man in the middle cannot read messages that you send or receive, then how can it back up your chat history to keep it accessible across all your devices? That's one reason I find IRC inconvenient as an IM protocol: I can't review previous conversations that I had on a previous device.
Re: (Score:2)
>how can it back up your chat history to keep it accessible across all your devices?
That's why you typically scan the QR code between clients, you're sharing your private key across applications. All of your chat history is stored encrypted server-side.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you typically scan the QR code between clients
That'd work for WhatsApp or Allo, both of which require the subscriber to have a phone, but not for users who use only a PC. How would a PC-only user of an app that allows PC-only users copy the private key from one copy of an application to another? Consider the case where one of those copies is a JavaScript application running in a web browser for two reasons: it could be a machine whose administrator allows the user to run JavaScript in a browser but forbids the user to permanently install native applica
Re: (Score:2)
Then which services still popular in 2017 use the method used "about a million times in the past already"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of encryption?
This magical technology would allow only the intended recipients to read it, while still allowing storage by the service provider. Crazy, right?
Who pays to store encrypted chat logs? (Score:2)
Who pays to store encrypted chat logs? I imagine that the provider of a storage facility would be unwilling to store information that it cannot decrypt because information that it cannot decrypt isn't useful for choosing the most relevant advertisements to show to the provider's users. Or would you and everyone with whom you communicate be fine with a paywall around the storage of chat logs?
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that this protocol/service is has the features DrXym mentioned:
Now imagine something like that which is federated, works over the internet, is secure and encrypted (such that nobody in the middle knows more than necessary to deliver between the sender and recipient) and you have what chat should be.
... then federation can and will take care of it.
Want to have your chats backed up and shared across your clients with as little effort on your part as possible, all while retaining all the security and encryption?
- pay for that service
Want all of that, but don't want to pay?
- host it yourself, or join a small group of people that are doing so
Want to have all of that, but you don't want to pay, and you don't care if one provider can see
Re: (Score:2)
...which is woefully insecure and you get to pay per message sent!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when Google used to support XMPP (Jabber) protocol so chat was federated and people could use what software they liked?
I'm using my Hangup^H^Houts account with Pidgin (XMPP) right now. So yes, I do remember it rather well.
Overcomplicated or what (Score:3, Insightful)
So, in order to use this on my device, I have to go into an already installed app (so why do I need this?). Then in that app I have to use the camera to scan a QR code generated by a link, meaning it has to be on the screen of a *different* device. One that I can't use the end result on anyway.
So I need two devices to run code in the app so I don't have to use the app. TFA in this case means Totally Fucking Awful. Who signed off on this shitty process?
For people who own both a phone and a PC (Score:3)
It's for people who already use this app on a phone and want to additionally use a desktop or laptop computer with its larger screen and physical keyboard. In other words, it's a counterpart to WhatsApp web access.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, what do you do if you are on a desktop that doesn't have a camera (yes, they exist) or a laptop without a camera (they also exist).
Seems like a lot of work to use what is essentially Hangouts, which was essentially Gchat. Which was essentially many other IM products that came before it.
Maybe they could launch yet another chat service which doesn't work with the previous ones, and let the previous ones all die a death of neglect - because they've never done that before...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That makes far more sense. Thank you.
if it supported SIP (Score:2)
if it supported the standard SIP in addition to its other features then I personally would use it and I think it would get traction.
SIP support (voice and video calling) would mean I could use it for the work extension and home without multiple clients.
without SIP or some compelling feature its a also ran experiment that some will care about...
Re: (Score:2)
Your Android phone already supports SIP. You can add as many SIP accounts as you want. It's in phone under calls, calling accounts, sip accounts.
So identical to WhatsApp, then? (Score:3)
and iMessage, both of which already have a gazillion users already. Not counting FB messenger...
How Google continues to screw up this lucrative sector amazes me, with Android and Chrome as a base they should be cleaning up, especially since M$ as essentially killed-off Skype by making it unusable (except for business users).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And with the Windows installation process strongly encouraging use of a Microsoft account since Windows 8, does this mean people are required to buy a cell phone and maintain a subscription to cellular service in order to use the operating system that comes preinstalled on the vast majority of PCs in North America?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could always get a free phone number through Hangouts / Google Voice, until the inevitable demise of that service...
U.S. only and requires an existing number (Score:2)
Google Voice is unavailable outside the United States and still requires a phone number. Receiving phone calls requires either a Google Voice number or a Project Fi number, which is also available outside the United States. (Source [google.com]) Even if you are among the minority (~5%) of people who do live in the United States, signing up for Google Voice requires a phone number to which to forward calls. (Source [google.com])
CORRECTION (Score:2)
which is also available outside the United States
This should be "which is also unavailable outside the United States" as stated in the source.
Re: (Score:2)
Opensource (Score:2)
Oblig XKCD needs updating... (Score:3)
This XKCD [xkcd.com] needs updating... or does Allo have so few users it doesn't even register on the radar?
Re: (Score:2)
Surprise! Seriously - huge surprise! (Score:4, Interesting)
I just wrote a comment grousing about yet-another-walled-off-chat-app. But then I did a brief search, and...
Surprise: Allo apparently uses the Signal protocol [whispersystems.org], which is an open standard. More, it's a standard that included end-to-end encryption. Unless Google deliberately and specifically broke compatibility, it should be possible for an Allo user to communicate with a Signal user, or anyone else with an app that supports the Signal protocol.
At the moment, I stick to SMS because that lets me send a message to someone without caring about what app they happen to have installed. Everyone can receive an SMS. Kind of pathetic, but there we are. But I use Signal to send those SMS messages, so if someone has a Signal-compatible app, it should automatically upgrade the communications channel.
Here's hoping: If this is the beginning of a movement back to open protocols, the world will be a better place...
Re: (Score:2)
> nless Google deliberately and specifically broke compatibility, it should be possible for an Allo user to communicate with a Signal user, or anyone else with an app that supports the Signal protocol.
Certainly not, unless Google got an agreement with Open Whisper Systems that they can federate with their servers, and giving OWS's history (they have already bad experiences with Cyanogen in the past on that) I doubt they'll do that.
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment, I stick to SMS because that lets me send a message to someone without caring about what app they happen to have installed. Everyone can receive an SMS.
Wrong, since you need a cellular radio (or some other SMS gateways) and a phone number to receive SMS. You can't receive an SMS on a regular PC.
Most people carry cell phones (Score:2)
I think bradley13's point is that almost everybody with a valid reason to communicate with bradley13 already carries a device with a cellular radio on a plan with at least several hundred monthly sent and received messages, and those few who do not (such as damn_registrars [slashdot.org] and irrational-design [slashdot.org]) can easily acquire one.
But I wonder how many people in bradley13's circle of friends have North American pay-as-you-go plans. Carriers in the U.S. and Canada bill both the sending account and the receiving account f
Re: (Score:2)
The point is not whether someone carries a phone or not.
Why would I type on a small phone when I sit in front of a big display and keyboard? An Internet-connected PC which is much more convenient to reply? Sending SMS and forcing people to reply from a phone is rude.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I type on a small phone when I sit in front of a big display and keyboard?
In order to send messages between those times when you "sit in front of a big display and keyboard". Or do you have a laptop on your person everywhere you go?
Sending SMS and forcing people to reply from a phone is rude.
Is it also rude for someone to have an IM waiting for him but not read it nor reply to it because he subscribes to SMS but not cellular data and is away from home, work, or a public hotspot?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I type on a small phone when I sit in front of a big display and keyboard?
In order to send messages between those times when you "sit in front of a big display and keyboard". Or do you have a laptop on your person everywhere you go?
Since when do you need a laptop to read messages received over the Internet, such as emails and instant messages? A smartphone can do it just fine.
Sending SMS and forcing people to reply from a phone is rude.
Is it also rude for someone to have an IM waiting for him but not read it nor reply to it because he subscribes to SMS but not cellular data and is away from home, work, or a public hotspot?
No, it isn't. Just like it isn't rude to send an email to such a person.
Also that person can use an email to SMS gateway if he/she wants to read messages on the go.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I type on a small phone when I sit in front of a big display and keyboard?
[...]
Since when do you need a laptop to read messages received over the Internet, such as emails and instant messages? A smartphone can do it just fine.
Because it's inconvenient to reply to "messages received over the Internet" "on a small phone".
Re: (Score:2)
What is so hard to understand? If I am close to my PC, I want to reply from my PC. If I am not, I may want to be able to reply from my phone as a backup.
Re: (Score:2)
It sucks that none of the contacts have SIgnal to encrypt our SMSes. I wish SMSes had encryption already. :(
Re: (Score:2)
It's not for the Web, it's only for Chrome (Score:2)
In fact, it even blocks non-Chrome Chromium browsers such as Opera etc!
About time (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah, all the comments about yet another chat app, and how Google has 20 of them...
Allo is actually pretty nice, with the integrated assistant and all. My kids are all using it, but the mobile-only aspect killed me. I'm old, and I hate typing on a mobile keyboard, plus I spend a big chunk of my waking hours in front of a real keyboard. I like being able to use my phone when I'm away from the computer, but it's so much better to have a real keyboard, where I can type 100 wpm, rather than 2.
This wil
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't use a mobile keyboard. Buy a full-size USB keyboard and a USB OTG adapter, and physically plug it into your phone's USB port. You can even get a Model M from Unicomp if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping the name? (Score:2)
Typo in post (Score:2)
Re: Typo in post (Score:1)
DOA (Score:2)
Browser-specific? What is this, the 1990s and Microsoft? I don't use Chrome.
And tied to a specific device, which has to be operational? One of the reasons we love and use Hangouts is because it works no matter what the state of your other device(s) is. Sometimes phones break or become inoperable. The fact that I can still hop in a web browser (ANY web browser) and still access my text messages (Google Voice) and IMs is a lifesaver.
This is boneheaded, and makes Allo even more DOA than it was before.
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise known as "Let's copy WhatsApp Web".
Pain for no gain. (Score:2)
So it's like Hangouts, but with the extra inconvenience of being tied to your mobile number instead of something easily memorized.
And with the added pain of REQUIRING YOUR PHONE TO USE THE WEB VERSION.
It's a pain and does nothing more of value than existing applications. Why does it even exist?
Needs node.js/electron and nosql engine w/flat UI (Score:2)
Can't see it take off with all the new kewl millennial kids otherwise