Apple announces open standard FaceTime video chat for iPhone 4 - Page 2

The one thing that really surprises me is that iChat hasn't found its way to the iPhone (and PC). I wonder if there's going to be a facetime app for the Mac in the near future.

It's not about being more efficient. It's about having a better experience. If your deaf, texting is great but being able to actually see someone and interact with them could lead to a more engaging and enjoyable experience.

Another example use case, that you probably won't understand if you don't have small kids is say a father on a road trip chatting with his kids. When you have a 2 or 3 yr old on the phone, they usually say hi, start walking away while they are talking. However, when you introduce video and they can see who they are talking too, it's a completely different experience. Those parents out there that have tried this know what I'm talking about.

Those are just two examples of experiences that FaceTime can enhance and contribute to.

Interesting. I see it here all the time at the university.

One of the issues with video conferencing using sign language, is the availability of quality video sans dropped frames.

Based on the hint presented today, if the iPhone 4 can provide the necessary quality video without dropping frames via Wi-Fi, it will be quite an advancement and less expensive than the choices available now. And for those who need it most, access to technology that allows them to personally communicate faster and clearer. To my knowledge, no other cell phone is anywhere capable of doing so.

Keep in mind that the majority of people who are deaf can lip read. Imaging for a moment being able to see the person's eyes and lips while using sign language at the same time on a cell phone. Now that is magical.

It's more efficient because you can have actual conversations and it's more importantly more PERSONAL.

Here in New Zealand we've been able to do video calling since about 2003-2004 (with Vodafone). Never caught on though, I never use it.

Is there a link to that info. I was hoping it would not require the cell phone to make it appropriate for international use. Of course there is always Skype.

As we all know, Skype has been a runaway hit (in relative terms) for one-on-one live video conference. It has become as mainstream as you could possibly get. At any given time, there are about 15 million people online. Half of them have and use video. Yet, in all fairness, we must admit that Skype is most certainly NOT nearly as common, as simple and as easy as phone (landline or mobile). I use phone, even when I'm close to my computer, to call people who I know have Skype, because 19 out of 20 times, neither of us, or at most one of us online.

Video calling on the phone is likely more cumbersome than video calling at a desk (or even at laptop sitting on an end table, kitchen counter, Starbucks table...). However, what Apple did is make video calling as simple as ordinary phone calls. Once they get their way (i.e. majority of people end up with iPhone 4 or newer), it will be that simple. Most people in your iPhone address book will have iPhones (with FaceTime), so you'll be able to call them on video just like making a regular call. And I'm sure there will be frequent situations where people will be video calling rather than audio-only.

Apple just opened up possibilities. They demoed the technology, developed hardware, API, proof-of-concept (that is actually very useful) and are giving it to the creative talent out there. I have no doubt, development of all kinds of video communication apps will spring up, using that front-facing camera.

Actually its integrated into the phone, it was mentioned that you just dial the phone number and if it is to another iPhone you get video, you don't have to do anything to implement, that's what has me interested, no application to launch, or have to be logged into a client to use.

Need some technical information before I make my decision on this one.

As for the technology behind initiating a video call, my guess is the upcoming free (and mandatory, for iPhone owners) MobileMe. This would explain the rumours about making a version of MobileMe free: it would be required with iOS4. You buy an iPhone (or an iPad), you can't use it without registering first for MobileMe account. As long as there's a MobileMe address in the address book, the user can make/receive FaceTime calls. This will be exactly like iChat (which works with MobileMe, as well as AIM accounts).

As for the way it would work, there would be no initial cell "handshake" or any such thing. When you click on a video call icon, it will just initiate the WiFi video call over MobileMe servers (exactly like iChat), since your iPhone will always be logged into that MobileMe account (unlike iChat, where you can only log in when the application is running). Both audio and Video go over WiFi, and cell network is simply unnecessary. Obviously, it will be trivial to enable the same IP traffic over 3G data network, if carriers of the future eventually allow it.

Yes, and I stated that as well. It's part of the iPhone 4 OS, but that does not mean it can ONLY be used on the iPhone 4 and nowhere else. It's also an open for any other vendor to use.

When 2001: A Space Oddesy hit the silver screen in '68, I became enthralled with the prospects of video phone calls. Looks like that time has finally arrived in 2010, courtesy of Apple and a few others.

Can't wait until this feature hits the iPad (hopefully) by early next year. What a great way to keep in touch with family and friends. Put me down for 4 new iPads when that happens.

I was being a little oblique because there are children in the room.

Please take another look at the screen capture AI "happened" to use from the sign language demo.

Because it fits in your hand. Even while at home, no one wants to sit at a desk for every average phone call. Despite that, whatever "taken off" means, I'm pretty sure Skype has come close.

Disconnecting the audio call, the part that is harder to get QoS and real time over WiFi and more neccessary for proper communication is unlikely to me. Having a a few video frames drops isn't a big deal, but not getting audio correctly is. Plus, the transfer from one medium to the other is an issue, and if the WiFi drops or you end the video portion you also lose the audio unless you call that person again.

LOL I hadn't even noticed that. I completely change my stance on video chat for sign language and agree that the user experience is better than text.

I might have to create the website and iOS app FaceTimeRoulette to cash in on this.

This makes sense to me thanks

My first instinct was "awwe only wifi", but after thinking about it, I'm sure the 3G while come along when AT&T can figure out how to handle the traffic but do any other phones with video chat offer the ability to do it over wi-fi?? don't they all require it to be sucking up data??

I'm fairly certain this is iChat for the iPhone.. I would say its a similar if not the same application structure.

I of course am just basing this on my own opinions but I think there is probably 2 major reason why they didn't call this "iChat".

1. iChat is a messanger service. Granted it has great video chat but at the end of the day it is still a messenger service, and I think based on where they are going with it I think they want mobile video chat to be its own animal.

2. Their main intent seems to be to get other phone makers on board with their service. I think Nokia would be much more willing to embrace a service called FaceTime, then something called iChat. Although that being, they were more discussing the video itself being open standard, so maybe they just want it to be able to work with other phones regardless of what they will call their service.

Again just my opinions.

...except that Apple just now announced Safari 5.

How's that crow taste?

And there may be more, it's only monday...

Since when is writing better than face to face, except when you have mere fact to communicate?

Geez Soli - is that a little disappointment leaking out around the edges of your posts?

I mean - look we even have lil icon thingys to expand on the dryness of the written word here...

just sayin'

If it becomes an open standard, somebody will make that possible, even if Apple does not.

I would bet on Skype incorporating FaceTime compatibility into its video chatting.

1) An SMS only works if your message happens to be less than <160 characters (this is called a "Tweet", not a conversation)

2) Why do people talk at all, if they can text and email each other? Because it is natural, fast, emotive, and 100 other things.

3) As you can see in the video, the iPhone 4 can stand vertically. Someone who is hard of hearing could easily initiate a FaceTime call, set it down and begin signing. Have you ever seen someone sign before? It is many times faster than typing a text message.

Sign language between deaf people using an iPhone? Brilliant bit of marketing. That's an untapped market I hadn't even thought of before, and that was the part of the FaceTime video that actually got me choked up.

Crow ... THIS proved my point! Apple DID NOT make any mention of Safari at the Steve Jobs keynote... It wasn't pertinent to the important points Steve wanted to GET OUT to the public.

He did exactly that!

The OP was PO'd because Steve didn't intro about a dozen of the rumored things Apple is said to be working on.. and I said he was wrong to think Steve would ever have a WWDC keynote that was a random mishmash of aTV and macmini and ipods and laptops and desktops and magicpads and safari 5 and etc etc etc. I told the OP that Steve generally likes to have very focused keynotes whenever possible and not throw something in when he could have... Safaris 'post keynote' announcement all but made my point.

- it was ready

- it didn't fit nicely with the rest of the keynote (all about iOS and the new iPhone)

- it didn't get any mention at all from Steve

- yet it was still released with little more than a PR and maybe now a mention on the homepage

1) SMS isn't limited to 160 characters on modern phones, at least not in the US.

2) Sign language isn't vocal speech and holding a phone with one hand to sing with the other hand is not not as efficient as typing, hence, this won't be much like that.

3) If you think people are going to sit their phone down vertically, after setting up a video chat just do the simplest and most mundane conversation then you are gravely mistaken. It's like all video chat has ever been.

It's a novelty that limited use. It's to see people you haven't seen for awhile (note: to see them, not to communicate vasts amount of data with your face or hand(s).

The exception are things you can't quickly express into words, like an event happening that would require the backside camera, not the novelty, front-facing camera. This tech has been around since the 1980s and has been a staple of computers for years now and still isn't the most common way everyone communicates with other.

Novelty or no, if people like it and use it once in a while, it's a good feature. Who cares if it gets into "common use" (whatever that means).

FaceTime will revolutionize... THE ADULT ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. Another masturbatory tool.

iMovie will revolutionize INSTANT AND REAL WORLD PORN...

The San Fernando Valley will love iPhone 4.

Anyways... I'm definitely getting it June 24.

I'm glad it's WiFi only. How many car crashes do we have now with people talking on the phone & running red lights, cutting people off, swerving in their lanes,etc. Its 5 times worse with texting, people still texting after the light turned green for 5-8seconds, nearly rear-ending people on the freeway, then not going swerving lanes. How much worse would video chatting beat 50 mph slamming into a bunch of cars stopped for a red light, or going straight when the freeway curves to the left! If they add 3g-4g, the phone should disable video chat if moving over 5 mph!\

Ironically, this newest phone might be the one I jailbreak because you know someone is going to figure out how to make video chatting universal on all Apple machines and devices. To be able to video chat with my Mum in Canada from where ever I am here in Japan will be golden.

previously the quality of "video calls" was hugely suspect, on top of which the cost of data for said calls was ridiculous to the point of being prohibitive - why bother to pay over the top for rubbish quality? With FaceTime as it's on wi-fi, it's free, and the quality of the feed on a decent screen makes it a much more attractive function. I have to agree with Predrag:

Hmmmm

I don't think Face Time is just a cute name. Face Time / Facebook..... I smell something brewing.

FaceTime comes from the commonly used phrase... for example, "Let's spend some facetime going over these final details on the house before we demo."

According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facetime

You have to give me a Wiki link for that? LOL I thought the history behind the use of Face Time was obvious.

I'm saying I don't think it's a coincidinkle.

Ahem, that's how it's been done for the last 7 years on 3GPP (i.e. open standards) compatible phones. iOS4 may use open standard protocols, but it's currently an implementation that is incompatible with the rest of the world. Propably for a very commercial reason.

Making video calls so far has been as simple as selecting "video call" (or internet call for that matter) when selecting a contact to call instead of just pressing the green button. Practically all phones with front facing cameras have the feature.

However very few people actually use it due to reasons stated before (lowish bitrate, difficulty in holding the phone so others can see you etc.).

It will likely not be the hit many here envision, but with the Apple momentum going, there may be new apps and a new "try" for video chat. Who knows.

we all know it's been available for years. however, we all know that it has sucked b@lls for years and costs a boatload. it's all about the implementation.

I don't see how Apple's implementation solves the biggest issue - the problem with holding the phone at the right distance/angle for long periods of time.

Having to hold the phone with one hand makes it useless for (British) sign language too.

Maybe we'll see an accessory that attaches your iPhone to your head via a pole. That would solve the problem.

Well, Steve chose to dazzle me.

As I said before, I will try this:

i don't see how this has been the biggest issue for video calling. besides, an iPhone dock solves that quite simply, if it's a problem for you.

Yeah I have never used it here as I don't know anyone with a video capable phone and like Sennen said above, the picture was always small and crappy.
I used to sell phones over in Ireland and it was a great hook for getting people to buy them at the end of the sales process but I never saw anyone use them in the wild there either because the screen quality was bollocks and the software kinda buggy, but the potential was there.

In fact the only time I have seen it in use was in the movie "Sione's Wedding"

If Apple can make it easier to do then people will use it. However they need to get other manufacturers behind them to make it more ubiquitous and cross platform. I can't imagine Skype will get behind it as they are all about closed, proprietary protocols and they will see this as competition, however I bet they are trying to use the front camera API's as we speak for their own app.

I can't see people using it for everyday conversation (a 'get some bread from the dairy on your way home' conversation), but like on the commercial it is great for long distance stuff with people you don't see very often.

I am in the same situation. Good stuff.


PatentlyApple showed a patent a few months back which Apple had for opening a data connection during a phone call. Both phones, connected only by the phone call, could send some sort of data between them. This would be the method they use to open up a video connection between the phones.

This could open up lots of other possibilities too. Generally, this open standard could enable any sort of data sharing between phones - either encoded into the audio stream for very low bandwidth, or more likely using that encoded data to open other bigger data connections (whether 3G or wifi or whatever).


I'm worried about what we've seen.
Is there any evidence that the original phone call was ever disconnected?

I mean - in "FaceTime" - is the audio routed through the regular cell network, while the video goes through wifi? They could add a small delay to audio to match video, and get great audio quality via the cell network while adding video to whatever quality is possible. It bypasses any problems with home QoS setups etc.

BUT... it means that instead of calling my parents for 20 minutes on a landline or Skype, I am actually using my mobile phone minutes. That is a show stopper.

On the other hand - if it uses it to make the connection and then drops the cell call entirely, it's a nice way to have guaranteed connections to whoever I'm calling, and switch to no-charge if we're both on wifi. We don't even need video.

edit:
Asked another way - I don't have access to the keynote stream - when the video was choppy due to the wifi problems, did the audio ever miss a beat?