Talk:Google Duo

New Logo

Hello there, since my account has not been confirmed I cannot upload files to wikipedia so to those who have had their account confirmed I should make you aware that the logo for Duo has changed and it now looks like this.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmswell (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

They changed the logo again: https://www.google.com/images/branding/product/2x/duo_512dp.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosJJ (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@CarlosJJ: & @Jrmswell:Hi. I've only just seen this, but have just updated the logo on the article. Thanks! LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 16:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead

@LocalNet: Take a look at WP:LEDE. The lead section is only supposed to SUMMARISE the KEY POINTS from the body and should focus on essential characteristics of the article subject. Download statistics are irrelevant to knowing what Google Duo is and how it works. Having the same longish sentence twice in such a short article makes it sound repetitive. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: You know I can understand what you're trying to say without GOING ALL CAPS, right? It doesn't somehow enhance others' understanding hehe. The lead isn't exclusively supposed to tell readers how something works. That's not the point of the lead. It should summarize the most important aspects of the article, no matter the contents of the article. Right now, the article features information on the History of the service, as well as Features. Both of those are written about in the lead. Its surge of popularity can be notable, and the subsequent decline surely is interesting. Without the context of how it was received, I believe the lead is actually missing information. Please note that "Having the same longish sentence twice in such a short article makes it sound repetitive" is misunderstanding the point of the lead summary. It's supposed to summarize the article, which means repeat. For example, keep in mind that mobile users visiting the page for the first time don't even see information in the actual article (they see the sections as closed, with an option to open them), but the lead is fully visible from the start. It "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". LocalNet (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: Yes but what you restored was not a "summary of most important aspects" but a long sentence repeated verbatim further down and promotional in character. No, I disagree, information on a Google service showing as #1 on Google's systems is neither reliable nor needed. Please, there is a different "#1 app" on Google Play, iOS Store, etc., every single week. This measure is promotional in nature and of no encyclopaedic value. Mention this further down if you really need it here. — kashmiri ^TALK 07:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Hmm... "Promotional in nature" - it actually states that it dropped in popularity quite drastically. There's about one sentence explaining its number 1 spot, and the next shows that it did not maintain that. However, while I disagree with you that the measurement is not reliable, I do see your point that there is usually a different app on the top charts every week, thus eliminating its uniqueness. Are you thinking that the information is not notable enough for the lead, or do you think it's not even suitable for the article as a whole? LocalNet (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Free or Pay?

This article fails to explain where if any payment becomes necessary. If users are contacting via WiFi, the connection should be free – but what about instances in which one or more users are using telephony to connect?

This is a fact-focused question that should help explain Google Duo's possible longevity and so of interest to any and all readers of this article, IMHO. --Aboudaqn (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Recreate screenshot

We should be able to recreate the screenshot on this page using Google Duo to do a video call. The screenshot would likely not contain any Google-copyrighted elements based on the fact that the current image just has two profile pictures (or video stills) in it. I'm neither photogenic nor willing to post pictures of myself here, but if anyone is willing to volunteer to make this, all you would have to do is start a video call with another person and take a screenshot. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 21:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Google Required Apps

In the main section of the page, the following is said: “...Google Duo replaced Hangouts within the suite of Google apps Android phone makers must pre-install on devices...” What concerns me is the “must”. As far as I'm aware, it is completely optional on whether an Android phone has any Google apps, of course most released in the Western world do because of the Play Store, however as far as I am aware, this is completely optional. Devices sold by Amazon as well as devices for the Chinese market lack any Google apps. Anyway, what I am asking here is if anyone has any further knowledge on this topic and whether the wording should be ammended to exclude the idea that the install of Duo is mandatory? TheEthan8or (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Merger with Meet

@Kashmiri: I don't see how it is relevant that the merger has not been fully completed, all that matters is that it has begun (per the many sources). Google's app updates have always rolled out in a gradual way rather than on a set date, so it is expected that not all devices will immediately receive the update. Also, I don't see how this has anything to do with WP:NOTNEWS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Primo, you kept adding that Meet was merged with Duo. No, it's not yet merged. The merger started in June, when Duo received a feature update, and is to complete by the end of 2022, when the Duo web app will be retired.

Secundo, you kept adding that Duo is a "discontinued service". As sources state unambiguously, Duo service is being rebranded as Meet. What's being discontinued is the legacy Meet app and service. And, of course, Duo is not yet discontinued – it works perfectly well and just received a feature update.

Wikipedia is not a product announcement. If and when the Duo or Meet service/app will stop working or will otherwise stop being worked on by the manufacturer, we'll mark it is as discontinued. Don't kill a product before the manufacturer does – because as of now, both services and apps are working and receive regular updates. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Okay, fine, I agree that we can wait until the merger has rolled out to a majority of devices before making those changes. But when that happens, I still believe we should consider Duo discontinued, and any information about the new Meet app should go on Google Meet to avoid overcomplicating the situation. The reason why is because the alternative would be to move Google Duo to Google Meet and move Google Meet to ... where? That would just make things confusing. Might as well treat Duo (the service, not necessarily the mobile app) as dead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we'll have to make significant edits that will deal with (1) branding, i.e., the discontinuation of the Duo brand in favour of the Meet brand, (2) Mobile apps, i.e., the Duo app rebranded to Meet by September 2022 and the original Meet app renamed to Meet Legacy (before discontinuation), (3) Web app, i.e., the Duo web app planned to be retired in December 2022. It's a bit more complicated than simply saying that Duo is a "discontinued service" ;) — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Google Duo, as a service, will effectively be dead. The new app is hosted at the old Duo app, but it's a brand new app created as part of the merger. BUT, to avoid complicating things, we can just add those information to the Google Meet article rather than have duplicate articles for the old Meet and new Meet. My edit which you reverted, which I'm about to partially restore, explains this clearly. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)