Must Have Chat Options

Andrew, the new chat is nice, but if not utilize correctly with OPTIONS, it will be a waste for mobile users.

I basically asked "please add additional code to make this chat operate using the server bandwidth...everyone connects to the server so that MOBILE users can videochat more effortlessly"

Reason being is because about 95% of mobile users who are on 3g/4g connections have data caps, 2gb, 5gb, 4gb, etc.,

The same is true for most or at least half of pc/laptop owners...the ISP over here in the states are limiting how much bandwidth you can consume within a month, around a couple hundred gigs.  But thats not the point, the point is that mobile users are NOT going to want to spend time video chatting at the expense of their precious data, therefore Chat will be ultimately be pointless, no matter how advance, unique, and pretty it appears to be.

Please add the ability/option for those of us who have dedicated servers to host the chat so that we can use our bandwidth and make it convenient for our users. 

Your response to when I first asked about this "Multiple streams can be assisted with a 3rd-party server, and yes, the Chat already has settings that you can use to limit multi-stream videos. For example, you can allow them in one-to-one chats and private groups, but not in public channels"

Thats not a solution and that is not going to cut it.  I dont want to limit their multi-stream video chat, I want to limit how much bandwidth they'd consume by using chat by using my own server bandwidth so that they can happily chat as much as they would like to.

Would you drive if gas costed you a few hundreds per gallon?  Thats the point!  User will not chat at the expense of $5 per 1gb of mobile data.  You've been doing a great job lately, please continue to do so :)

bump

OK, Junior - in the preferences section that each user has under "My Account" - there is an option called "Save Mobile Bandwidth" Here, it allows the users to specifically select for themselves. Is this what you are looking for?

What exactly happens when this option is selected.

No idea - yet. Havent gotten to that part of testing yet. As I am connected to WiFi 98% of the time I use my phone (even when out in public there are several Cox wifi hotspots that I connect to) I have not noticed any significant data usage.

The concern is having streaming webcams; video is what will eat into bandwidth and data caps.

Professor, I haven't looked over into that area yet for "save mobile bandwidth", but what Im guessing that does is probably degrade the quality of the video stream they're making/viewing.  Either case (and if true) that isn't what I mean.

What Im looking or wanting to do is host their video stream myself from my server.  

Say for example, if you made a video chat from your phone/tablet, and if 20 users tried to watch your video chat, then there will be some problems.  Majority of the ISP's have a much higher download vs upload data rate (10mb down & 1mb up).  As a mobile user, it will be impossible for you to have several users to watch your stream because you can only upload 1mb of data.  

Now this may be irrelevant to others (due to majority of everyone here sites are for desktop users) but for me personally, its very much relevant because over 90% of my users are mobile users.  So, I'd like to not have Chat as a peer to peer chat service, but peer > server > peer.  That would allow hundreds/thousands to connect and watch a stream from 1 person at the expense of my server bandwidth and not my mobile users very limited bandwitdh.

Interesting concept Jun1or. But, unfortunately - it may not be doable - just because of the design itself. My interpretation is that Peer to Peer was specifically constructed in order to lessen the load on servers and to make user experience better by making it a direct connection. Much like Blackberry Messenger - messages are sent from one device directly to another and not stored on a server anywhere. I have been playing around with the Chat+ and I guess the real test would be to get 20+ devices on a single chat and see what happens.

I understand what you're saying Professor.  While its core design may be peer to peer, I seriously pray that what I desire is possible somehow.  Chat that involves flash weren't peer to peer, but the short coming of that is that it wasn't mobile friendly.  Although the technology behind this chat is very mobile friendly, it shouldn't be limited to only peer to peer (although that is its core design), but if so, then it will be equally crippled to chat that uses flash.

Im just hoping that I can have the best of both worlds, new mobile friendly chat that uses server resources, for crying out loud, its 2016, the technology is here, and the only limitation(s) should only revolve around actual hardware, oh and budget too. 

Where are you Andrew & Alex T?

bump

Because Apple figured they could bugger their users and the users would smile while they did it; and as we know, Apple users are exactly like that.  For example, only being able to download an app from Apple; where Apple gets a cut.  If Microsoft tried that everyone would be yelling and demanding that something be done but not Apple users; hell, Apple could bugger them with a pitchfork and they would smile while Apple did it..

Peer to peer; peer to many - let's explore what this Chat+ does.  I thought Chat+ was a chat room like the current Flash chat.  If so, then that would be peer to many so the server would have to come into play, delivering the content to many who are logged into the chat room.  I send a message to the chat room (or data from my webcam) and from the chat room that content is sent out to each person's device that is connected to the chat room.

Let's look at bittorrent, which is a peer to many arrangement.  Data flows between each peer in the transfer of bits of the complete file.  The more peers I connect to, the more bandwidth I use. Junior is wondering if this Chat+ is a peer to many arrangements, meaning that I share my webcam and I send the data bits of that video to a peer that is connected to my feed; the more peers that connect to me, peer to many, means that my data transfer increases each times someone wants to see my webcam feed.

Now if my webcam connects to a server, I only transfer data to the server; the server then sends that data out to each one that wants to see my webcam.  It does not matter how many people logs on to see my webcam; my data flow to the server stays the same; I only have one data connection, from my webcam to the server.  I send a packet to the server, then the server sends that packet out to each one that wants to view my webcam.

What we want to know is exactly what goes on if I share my webcam using Chat+

From my understanding - and I could be totally wrong - Chat+ is not peer to peer itself - but uses WebRTC which uses peer to peer for video and audio chatting. One of the articles I read included this:

"One area of confusion in WebRTC has been the comment that it is real-time communications for browsers. I have repeatedly heard this in discussions and seen it in public comments. While the first places the WebRTC standard is being implemented is in browsers, there is no real limitation on WebRTC locations or devices. The standard is written to provide two basic defined functions: a standard set of APIs that a server can use to manage endpoint behavior and a set of protocol to enable peers to talk. There is no requirement that a peer be a browser, only that it must conform to a very basic set of RTP and API standards."

For starters - I would highly suggest researching WebRTC to get a definitive answer on peer to many functionality. Will post more info later.