My guess was his beard. Can't have that blasting over the airwaves now can we.
On a serious note, its a bit silly, Skype works over 3G etc why cant FaceTime?
My theory is that Apple lawyers envisioned millions of users being charged loads of money by going over their data allowance from constantly using FaceTime and then turning round, blaming Apple and starting a huge lawsuit?
I hate how Apple keeps imposing these unnecessary limitations. It should be up to the user to decide if his or her connection is good enough and data plan can handle the traffic.
I would bet some serious money that it's not Apple but the carriers imposing this limitation. The carriers don't want that kind of traffic clogging up the pipes. And what about the caps and throttling? People still don't seem to get it that mobile bandwidth is not unlimited. There are only so many channels in a given frequency range of transmission/reception.
You seem to be confusing speed and bandwidth. Imagine the cellular network as a highway. You can increase the speed limit and the top speed of the cars traveling on it, but if it's a one lane road and you have enough people driving on it at the same time you'll still get a traffic jam.
It may be true that bandwidth is the correct term, but in the common vernacular most people just say "speed." You are wrong to bring up that distinction in the context of this conversation, which has not (up until this point) been highly technical.
FaceTime, DENIED !!My theory is that Apple lawyers envisioned millions of users being charged loads of money by going over their data allowance from constantly using FaceTime and then turning round, blaming Apple and starting a huge lawsuit?
sad... if the cell companies had just ran fiber optic cable for the "backend" of the cell tower, the usa would have had the worlds best cell phone system... except (now somehow off-topic) they have become a great waster of goverment money...
so instead of billionares wasting their money on narcissistic things like the election, why can't they get togeter and upgrade the internet to fiber... (would you rather pay for what you have, or pay the same for speed?).
or put another way why can't biilionares get a president that will get rid of the road blocks stopping 100Mbit internet?... instead i guess they prefer a presidnt that protects their interests.
Apple is a US company. The US is Apple's largest single market and will likely be so until China can overtake it. The needs of a few small countries aren't going to come first with a feature they can market. As you pointed out to me people were furious that Apple included the bands for the US and Canada LTE but not for Europe even though they clearly state that the countries and carriers for which LTE will work. Imagine if they gave Finland FaceTime over 3G (and above) but not the US. The LTE thing requires HW, this is just a line or two of code. Bottom line: There are other reasons beyond our desires that need to be considered.
Single market yes, but Apple earns most of it's income from overseas markets. Pandering to whiny laggard US carriers is hardly the way to best compete overseas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Let's go with the simplest answer that was given by Steve Jobs back in 2010 and then build up to the real answer from there. Jobs said they had to work with the carriers and it wouldn't be ready in 2010. What jobs was saying is :It isn't included because it would have made FaceTime look bad thereby making Apple look bad.
It may be true that bandwidth is the correct term, but in the common vernacular most people just say "speed." You are wrong to bring up that distinction in the context of this conversation, which has not (up until this point) been highly technical.
But it's important distinction when talking about potential reasons why a tech isn't being incorporated. For one to say that LTE is fast enough is like one saying that if your car has a top speed of 200 MPH that you should be able to drive 1000 miles from one city to another in 5 hours. Speed isn't the sole factor to consider.
My background is computer network engineering. I've spent a lot of time on VoIP when it first started becoming popular. Consider that I can control the number of devices per network, that all connections are wired, and that all network speeds to each node is a constant yet even that had many issues because with VoIP you need it to be "real time" so those packets take a priority over everything else so the conversations don't have awkward pauses and there is no jitter.
Once you get that taken care of you need to make sure the rest of the network isn't bogged down by these priority packets. If that happens then packets get dropped, requests time out, etc. It's not good and unfortunately priority requests don't scale well. Note that FaceTime will never have the highest priority on a GSM/UMTS network. That will go to their voice calls first and foremost.
Remember, this is just VoIP, not VVoIP, so instead of just being voice it's voice and voice which is an entirely new level I've personally never dealt with on an enterprise scale. They have the wireless network speed. I think they probably have the backend bandwidth and necessary equipment to handle the load after 18 months sine its introduction for 100+ million devices that could potentially all FaceTime family and friends in a weekend to test it out (see Siri's debut with a couple million iPhone 4Ses) or during a holiday. These things need to be considered the same way you don't rebuild a highway based on off peak driving times. Again, all that's beside the point because it makes no sense to offer this with the new iPad when it seems ideal for iOS 6.
So you are saying that you cannot make video call from your iOS device using 3G or 4G because carriers restrictions?!
He's saying that FaceTime not being enabled to work on the cellular network is a carrier restriction. Jobs said as much in 2010, but there is probably more to the story than finger pointing away from Apple. Jobs also said FaceTime would be open sourced and we haven't seen that either. Frankly I'm just glad they have made Messages for OS X that includes FaceTime and iMessages in one app.
Can anyone confirm if this is currently possible with an iPad 2 tethered with an iPhone?
I thought the distinctive tethering icon means apple devices treat tethered wifi connections differently to vanilla wifi.
Google '3g FaceTime' to see how you can use FaceTime over 3G without jail breaking. I assume the same thing works with LTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Well that's a bit silly isn't it... we finally get Cellular networks the speed of Wi-Fi and they don't allow you to use FaceTime. It just goes to show the reason it was not allowed on 3G was never about bandwidth, it was about keeping the carriers happy.
Why are the two mutually exclusive? Couldn't it be about bandwidth - which is why the carriers were unhappy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
So the carriers are writing iOS are they? Or do you mean they requested Apple to nobble their products? If it is that latter then it is not carrier imposed, it is Apple enforcing the limitation.
The trouble with Apple imposing such restrictions is that their devices are sold world-wide. Carriers in other countries, perhaps Japan and South Korea, might well have the capacity to allow these features to operate, but with Apple universally imposing such restrictions because of US carriers requests, users in such countries are in effect being penalised by the collusion that occurs in the US.
Is it the concept of a contract that has you confused? If the carriers insist on a clause in the contract, Apple has to enforce it - or lose the contract. Do you think customers would be happier if they lost their AT&T service entirely because Apple wouldn't enforce the terms in the contract?
It's a minor problem that's easily worked around. Most of the time when I want to use FaceTime, I have WiFi around. You shouldn't be using FaceTime when driving, you know. And when I don't have WiFi, I can make a normal call. And if that's not enough, it's easy enough to make it work (see above).
On a serious note, its a bit silly, Skype works over 3G etc...
This^^^
Skype has consistently provided video chat on all sorts of devices and over all sorts of connections for years. No need to bother with the limited alternatives.
I hate how Apple keeps imposing these unnecessary limitations. It should be up to the user to decide if his or her connection is good enough and data plan can handle the traffic.
It may be true that bandwidth is the correct term, but in the common vernacular most people just say "speed." You are wrong to bring up that distinction in the context of this conversation, which has not (up until this point) been highly technical.
The world is flat. Evolution is a myth. :-)
But seriously, asci, imho you're just wrong on this one. I'm not a techie, but the bandwidth/speed distinction was clear to me from the start, missed by a few, and mentioned correctly several times. We shouldn't be resistant to precision in discussing issues like this. Nor should we resist learning something new.
LTE/4G is a high speed data-centric network and as this is all data traffic there should be no reason why any particular application is blocked.
FaceTime / Skype should be usable at rates sub-2Mbps which over wifi or broadband eventually ends up in the core network and out of a similar connection at the other end. A streamed video session is anywhere from 512 - 4 Mbps to be usable.
Over LTE, at rates > 100Mbps there will be no call-connection issues however each mast will not be able to sustain huge numbers of terminals but then how many people will be 'mobile' while making calls? Most users will be at a fixed location within reach of wi-fi / broadband access which should be capable of 8 - 100 Mbps, eventually and perhaps 1Gbps, if we live in the right country.
Whats the difference between watching a streamed video from You-tube/iPlayer or a FaceTime call from one side of the country to the other? Both are currently free to the user, both could be revenue generating but crucially 'free' P2P calls (video and audio only) are currently replacing a paid-for service which used to generate huge revenues and is dwindling faster that water levels in SE england. I say 'free' because the user still pays broadband connection / usage / mobile monthly or PAYG.
The network and usage has to be paid for whether fixed broadband or mobile LTE but like any new service, it will evolve and once the circuit-switched (PSTN) telephony is resigned to the museum and we only have the much-vaunted all-IP network running at speeds we can currently only dream about, we will all be wondering what the fuss was about.
FaceTime / Skype should be usable at rates sub-2Mbps which over wifi or broadband eventually ends up in the core network and out of a similar connection at the other end. A streamed video session is anywhere from 512 - 4 Mbps to be usable.
9to5 tested FaceTime when it first arrived and found that it used 14.7 MB (total, Tx/Rx) over a 5 minute call. Assuming my calculations are correct that's only 401.41 Kb/s. That's a lot lower than I would have expected.
Comments
My guess was his beard. Can't have that blasting over the airwaves now can we.
On a serious note, its a bit silly, Skype works over 3G etc why cant FaceTime?
My theory is that Apple lawyers envisioned millions of users being charged loads of money by going over their data allowance from constantly using FaceTime and then turning round, blaming Apple and starting a huge lawsuit?
I hate how Apple keeps imposing these unnecessary limitations. It should be up to the user to decide if his or her connection is good enough and data plan can handle the traffic.
I would bet some serious money that it's not Apple but the carriers imposing this limitation. The carriers don't want that kind of traffic clogging up the pipes. And what about the caps and throttling? People still don't seem to get it that mobile bandwidth is not unlimited. There are only so many channels in a given frequency range of transmission/reception.
You seem to be confusing speed and bandwidth. Imagine the cellular network as a highway. You can increase the speed limit and the top speed of the cars traveling on it, but if it's a one lane road and you have enough people driving on it at the same time you'll still get a traffic jam.
It may be true that bandwidth is the correct term, but in the common vernacular most people just say "speed." You are wrong to bring up that distinction in the context of this conversation, which has not (up until this point) been highly technical.
FaceTime, DENIED !!My theory is that Apple lawyers envisioned millions of users being charged loads of money by going over their data allowance from constantly using FaceTime and then turning round, blaming Apple and starting a huge lawsuit?
Bingo! +1
The carriers impose these limitations, not Apple.
Probably. But, as you can clearly see in this thread, Apple gets the blame anyway.
so instead of billionares wasting their money on narcissistic things like the election, why can't they get togeter and upgrade the internet to fiber... (would you rather pay for what you have, or pay the same for speed?).
or put another way why can't biilionares get a president that will get rid of the road blocks stopping 100Mbit internet?... instead i guess they prefer a presidnt that protects their interests.
Apple is a US company. The US is Apple's largest single market and will likely be so until China can overtake it. The needs of a few small countries aren't going to come first with a feature they can market. As you pointed out to me people were furious that Apple included the bands for the US and Canada LTE but not for Europe even though they clearly state that the countries and carriers for which LTE will work. Imagine if they gave Finland FaceTime over 3G (and above) but not the US. The LTE thing requires HW, this is just a line or two of code. Bottom line: There are other reasons beyond our desires that need to be considered.
Single market yes, but Apple earns most of it's income from overseas markets. Pandering to whiny laggard US carriers is hardly the way to best compete overseas.
Let's go with the simplest answer that was given by Steve Jobs back in 2010 and then build up to the real answer from there. Jobs said they had to work with the carriers and it wouldn't be ready in 2010. What jobs was saying is :It isn't included because it would have made FaceTime look bad thereby making Apple look bad.
That was then, this is now.
This is not Apple - it's a carrier restriction.
So you are saying that you cannot make video call from your iOS device using 3G or 4G because carriers restrictions?!
It may be true that bandwidth is the correct term, but in the common vernacular most people just say "speed." You are wrong to bring up that distinction in the context of this conversation, which has not (up until this point) been highly technical.
But it's important distinction when talking about potential reasons why a tech isn't being incorporated. For one to say that LTE is fast enough is like one saying that if your car has a top speed of 200 MPH that you should be able to drive 1000 miles from one city to another in 5 hours. Speed isn't the sole factor to consider.
My background is computer network engineering. I've spent a lot of time on VoIP when it first started becoming popular. Consider that I can control the number of devices per network, that all connections are wired, and that all network speeds to each node is a constant yet even that had many issues because with VoIP you need it to be "real time" so those packets take a priority over everything else so the conversations don't have awkward pauses and there is no jitter.
Once you get that taken care of you need to make sure the rest of the network isn't bogged down by these priority packets. If that happens then packets get dropped, requests time out, etc. It's not good and unfortunately priority requests don't scale well. Note that FaceTime will never have the highest priority on a GSM/UMTS network. That will go to their voice calls first and foremost.
Remember, this is just VoIP, not VVoIP, so instead of just being voice it's voice and voice which is an entirely new level I've personally never dealt with on an enterprise scale. They have the wireless network speed. I think they probably have the backend bandwidth and necessary equipment to handle the load after 18 months sine its introduction for 100+ million devices that could potentially all FaceTime family and friends in a weekend to test it out (see Siri's debut with a couple million iPhone 4Ses) or during a holiday. These things need to be considered the same way you don't rebuild a highway based on off peak driving times. Again, all that's beside the point because it makes no sense to offer this with the new iPad when it seems ideal for iOS 6.
So you are saying that you cannot make video call from your iOS device using 3G or 4G because carriers restrictions?!
He's saying that FaceTime not being enabled to work on the cellular network is a carrier restriction. Jobs said as much in 2010, but there is probably more to the story than finger pointing away from Apple. Jobs also said FaceTime would be open sourced and we haven't seen that either. Frankly I'm just glad they have made Messages for OS X that includes FaceTime and iMessages in one app.
Can anyone confirm if this is currently possible with an iPad 2 tethered with an iPhone?
I thought the distinctive tethering icon means apple devices treat tethered wifi connections differently to vanilla wifi.
Google '3g FaceTime' to see how you can use FaceTime over 3G without jail breaking. I assume the same thing works with LTE.
Well that's a bit silly isn't it... we finally get Cellular networks the speed of Wi-Fi and they don't allow you to use FaceTime. It just goes to show the reason it was not allowed on 3G was never about bandwidth, it was about keeping the carriers happy.
Why are the two mutually exclusive? Couldn't it be about bandwidth - which is why the carriers were unhappy?
So the carriers are writing iOS are they? Or do you mean they requested Apple to nobble their products? If it is that latter then it is not carrier imposed, it is Apple enforcing the limitation.
The trouble with Apple imposing such restrictions is that their devices are sold world-wide. Carriers in other countries, perhaps Japan and South Korea, might well have the capacity to allow these features to operate, but with Apple universally imposing such restrictions because of US carriers requests, users in such countries are in effect being penalised by the collusion that occurs in the US.
Is it the concept of a contract that has you confused? If the carriers insist on a clause in the contract, Apple has to enforce it - or lose the contract. Do you think customers would be happier if they lost their AT&T service entirely because Apple wouldn't enforce the terms in the contract?
It's a minor problem that's easily worked around. Most of the time when I want to use FaceTime, I have WiFi around. You shouldn't be using FaceTime when driving, you know. And when I don't have WiFi, I can make a normal call. And if that's not enough, it's easy enough to make it work (see above).
People just love to complain.
..
On a serious note, its a bit silly, Skype works over 3G etc...
This^^^
Skype has consistently provided video chat on all sorts of devices and over all sorts of connections for years. No need to bother with the limited alternatives.
I hate how Apple keeps imposing these unnecessary limitations. It should be up to the user to decide if his or her connection is good enough and data plan can handle the traffic.
duhhhh, it's the phone company I think ...
It may be true that bandwidth is the correct term, but in the common vernacular most people just say "speed." You are wrong to bring up that distinction in the context of this conversation, which has not (up until this point) been highly technical.
The world is flat. Evolution is a myth. :-)
But seriously, asci, imho you're just wrong on this one. I'm not a techie, but the bandwidth/speed distinction was clear to me from the start, missed by a few, and mentioned correctly several times. We shouldn't be resistant to precision in discussing issues like this. Nor should we resist learning something new.
Two fallacious statements and an insult without a single point made. Impressive in its own way.
You know what's an insult? Coming here over-analyzing the obvious, making it look important.
You know what's an insult? Coming here over-analyzing the obvious, making it look important.
Sorry. I can't help it if you're insulted because I'm more cogent and reasoned than you. All I can suggest is "Buck up!"
FaceTime / Skype should be usable at rates sub-2Mbps which over wifi or broadband eventually ends up in the core network and out of a similar connection at the other end. A streamed video session is anywhere from 512 - 4 Mbps to be usable.
Over LTE, at rates > 100Mbps there will be no call-connection issues however each mast will not be able to sustain huge numbers of terminals but then how many people will be 'mobile' while making calls? Most users will be at a fixed location within reach of wi-fi / broadband access which should be capable of 8 - 100 Mbps, eventually and perhaps 1Gbps, if we live in the right country.
Whats the difference between watching a streamed video from You-tube/iPlayer or a FaceTime call from one side of the country to the other? Both are currently free to the user, both could be revenue generating but crucially 'free' P2P calls (video and audio only) are currently replacing a paid-for service which used to generate huge revenues and is dwindling faster that water levels in SE england. I say 'free' because the user still pays broadband connection / usage / mobile monthly or PAYG.
The network and usage has to be paid for whether fixed broadband or mobile LTE but like any new service, it will evolve and once the circuit-switched (PSTN) telephony is resigned to the museum and we only have the much-vaunted all-IP network running at speeds we can currently only dream about, we will all be wondering what the fuss was about.
Roll-on progress.
FaceTime / Skype should be usable at rates sub-2Mbps which over wifi or broadband eventually ends up in the core network and out of a similar connection at the other end. A streamed video session is anywhere from 512 - 4 Mbps to be usable.
9to5 tested FaceTime when it first arrived and found that it used 14.7 MB (total, Tx/Rx) over a 5 minute call. Assuming my calculations are correct that's only 401.41 Kb/s. That's a lot lower than I would have expected.