Facebook Messenger Rooms offer 50-user video chats

AppleInsider

Facebook is stepping into the mass video conferencing market with Messenger Rooms, a service that allows up to 50 people to connect via webcam that directly competes with other popular services like Zoom, Houseparty, and Group FaceTime.

Mass video conferencing services capable of hosting high numbers of people have become popular in recent weeks, due to the stay-at-home orders and a push for home working prompted by COVID-19. While Zoom has gained prominence as the main service people use to host large-scale webcam meetings, with Houseparty and Group Facetime also being used for similar purposes, Facebook has waded into the marketplace with its own take on the idea.

Messenger Rooms allows people to congregate in the same video call, with rooms soon to be capable of hosting up to 50 people with no time limit. This is up from the previous Messenger video call limit, which allowed up to eight people to converse.

Users will be able to start and share a room on Facebook itself via the News Feed, Groups, and Events, though the social network also hopes to introduce ways to make rooms via Instagram Direct, WhatsApp, and Portal in the future. Rooms created by friends and communities followed by the user will be shown to them within Facebook for easy joining.

Much like Facebook Messenger, users can also take advantage of AR effects on their video feed, including adding bunny ears and other items to their face, a background, or mood lighting.

Messenger Rooms is rolling out to a few countries at first, with expansion to all other markets within weeks.

This isn't the only video-related feature Facebook has announced for its products and services. For Facebook Live, it has brought back Live With to allow multiple people to host a live video, donation buttons, and greater integration with Facebook Events.

Instagram will allow users to watch live videos from the desktop, to write comments, and to save videos to IGTV. On Portal, it will soon enable users to go live from the device to Facebook Pages and Groups, expanding from existing functionality that allows broadcasting from a user's profile.

crowley

Such a shame that a company with talented engineers that can create great services like this can't seem to make money in a way that doesn't commoditise its users and treat their privacy like a playground.

lkrupp

crowley said:

Such a shame that a company with talented engineers that can create great services like this can't seem to make money in a way that doesn't commoditise its users and treat their privacy like a playground.

At least Apple actually makes things to sell and profit from. All Facebook and Google have are their user’s information to sell. 

eightzero

My first thought on seeing this was that is FB analyzing the content, compiling information about the attendees, and using it to target ads and any other future use they will dream up to monetize. 

cpsro

Only 50?!  Even if it wasn't FB, I'd still avoid this if my meetings had any potential to go beyond 50 participants, either now or later. Why leave anyone out or have to reorganize everyone around another service that can handle the load?

Beats

Don't be surprised if Mark Zuckerberg shows up on your conference uninvited.

roake

‘Facebook now able to video monitor the insides of 50 residences simultaneously, per video call.  Cataloging all members of the residence as well as all household articles in view, and due to advanced technologies, even in reflections.’

red oak

You have to be nuts to use a Facebook video product 

litoloop

no thanks, facebook.

StrangeDays

cpsro said:

Only 50?!  Even if it wasn't FB, I'd still avoid this if my meetings had any potential to go beyond 50 participants, either now or later. Why leave anyone out or have to reorganize everyone around another service that can handle the load?

I’ve spent my career in top fortune firms, and somehow have never needed a video meeting for over 50 people. All remote meetings have been audio conference calls, and the only ones of a significant number are all-hands department meetings, where we definitely don’t need to see every attendee. 

kimberly

Beats said:

Don't be surprised if Mark Zuckerberg shows up on your conference uninvited.

    I hope he is not easily offended.

Beats

kimberly said:

Beats said:

Don't be surprised if Mark Zuckerberg shows up on your conference uninvited.

    I hope he is not easily offended.

I imagine him with a bunch of surveillance screens monitoring peoples calls.

EsquireCats

This is way too late to market. 

Also Zoom’s shortcomings have taught corporate IT and well-minded individuals to pay more attention to the privacy and security of these kinds of apps. (Of which Facebook is historically dismal.)

Panamaniak

A 50 person video call sounds like a major Cluster F___!
I hope there are some good admin options on who has audio control, main/big screen, screen/file sharing, etc. 

Beats

Panamaniak said:

A 50 person video call sounds like a major Cluster F___!
I hope there are some good admin options on who has audio control, main/big screen, screen/file sharing, etc. 

cgWerks

Sheesh, don't use Facebook (insert technology) to do real stuff.
If you need your account to run ads on, or to keep in touch with family who won't use something else, fine.
But, don't use any of their tech (groups, etc.) to base anything on.
When will people learn?!?!

zoetmb

cpsro said:

Only 50?!  Even if it wasn't FB, I'd still avoid this if my meetings had any potential to go beyond 50 participants, either now or later. Why leave anyone out or have to reorganize everyone around another service that can handle the load?

As a former executive at three major companies as well as an independent consultant to others, I can guarantee you that any meeting with anywhere near that number of people will be an unproductive and useless meeting (as opposed to a presentation where the "audience" doesn't need to be seen).  

zoetmb

eightzero said:

My first thought on seeing this was that is FB analyzing the content, compiling information about the attendees, and using it to target ads and any other future use they will dream up to monetize. 

Maybe  it's because I'm not the target demographic, but I don't see that many ads on Facebook and the ones I do see are largely harmless, mainly people selling bags, wallets and belts and I just skip over them in any case.   

Scrolling down FB right now and I see an add for Dimlits, which is an adhesive backed film for reducing the brightness of LED lights on devices; BeltBro, a belt that uses only two belt loops; a personalized bar necklace from Oak & Luna; a phono preamp from Bellari Audio (ok, that one probably is targeted at me); TapRM, which seems to be a beer or something; The Atlantic magazine; the Vermont Country Store; "Stop Republicans", The Lincon Project; "Tracks of the New York City Subway" book; Phil Araballo for Congress; Allbirds (shoes); Wayfair; B&H Photo; Popov Leather and a few others. 

Now that's more ads than  I expected, but I guess I don't notice them because I usually just scroll right past.   All of these were properly identified as "Sponsored".   I don't see what the big deal is - just like commercial radio, TV or newspapers, that's their financial model.   Would you pay for a FB without ads?   I wouldn't.   I might pay a small fee for a FB that collected no personal data.   They know little about me anyway - I lied when I gave them the little bit of data necessary when I signed up. 

I suppose anything is possible, but I simply don't get what they can analyze out of a talking head aside from gender and possibly age.  They can't even tell if you're in an apartment or house.   They would know who your "friends" are, but they already know that. 

TimothyAllen

Think I'll pass on this, Facebook takes so much information from us already, imagine what they can do with that

cgWerks

zoetmb said:
Maybe  it's because I'm not the target demographic, but I don't see that many ads on Facebook and the ones I do see are largely harmless, mainly people selling bags, wallets and belts and I just skip over them in any case.   

Scrolling down FB right now and I see an add for Dimlits, which is an adhesive backed film for reducing the brightness of LED lights on devices; BeltBro, a belt that uses only two belt loops; a personalized bar necklace from Oak & Luna; a phono preamp from Bellari Audio (ok, that one probably is targeted at me); TapRM, which seems to be a beer or something; The Atlantic magazine; the Vermont Country Store; "Stop Republicans", The Lincon Project; "Tracks of the New York City Subway" book; Phil Araballo for Congress; Allbirds (shoes); Wayfair; B&H Photo; Popov Leather and a few others. 

Now that's more ads than  I expected, but I guess I don't notice them because I usually just scroll right past.   All of these were properly identified as "Sponsored".   I don't see what the big deal is - just like commercial radio, TV or newspapers, that's their financial model.   Would you pay for a FB without ads?   I wouldn't.   I might pay a small fee for a FB that collected no personal data.   They know little about me anyway - I lied when I gave them the little bit of data necessary when I signed up. 

I suppose anything is possible, but I simply don't get what they can analyze out of a talking head aside from gender and possibly age.  They can't even tell if you're in an apartment or house.   They would know who your "friends" are, but they already know that. 

I think they just want all the data because they know they can sell it to people who think all that stuff matters (and I follow a number of Marketing podcasts... and those people seem to think it matters). But, yeah, I don't know if the problem is that assumption, or with the AI algorithms, but all this 'smart targeting' and 'smart content' and such is pretty darn stupid in every way I can see.

The problem, with any kind of artificial intelligence, is typically context. It might have a point of data, but without understanding the context, it tends to make all kind of wrong assumptions about trying to apply it.