or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iOS 4.1 beta supports for mobile-free FaceTime via email iOS 4.1 beta supports for mobile-free FaceTime via email
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iOS 4.1 beta supports for mobile-free FaceTime via email iOS 4.1 beta supports for mobile-free... - Page 2

post #41 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

@ Prof. Peabody,
I disagree with pretty much everything you've stated. There is a reason why video calling has never become the defacto option for communication even when it's been readily available, like with Skype or iChat A/V. It's simply impractical for day-to-day communication between everyone.

NasserAE's comment was basically, IMO, showing that FaceTime could be a Trojan Horse which will rip all these carriers charging for voice plans (and SMS) on top of data plans down to basic ISPs, but this can't happen without a very easy method for Voice over IP... which FaceTime is, along with Video over IP. ...

Fair enough. I started my comments with the statement that "I might be wrong... " etc. anyway.

I still think I'm right though.

My argument was strictly a technical one. Logically, there is no reason for a second set of protocols or a second "voice only" service. It would necessarily just be a duplication of the first, original Facetime service but with video disabled. I'm just saying it makes more sense to me to have the one Facetime protocol, but with the option of disabling the video.

My argument was that a second separate audio-only service makes no sense logically speaking, it adds confusion, and it muddies everything up for what is essentially no concrete gain. The responses to me seem to basically sum up as: "people don't feel comfortable with that."

If people really don't feel comfortable using video & audio at once, or don't feel comfortable simply turning off he video portion, then Apple might indeed create a whole separate service for those people since they do try to satisfy their customers. It wouldn't make much sense, but if that's what people want, then I agree that Apple might want to do that.

There are also issues of perceived competition in that Skype does do audio only calls so perhaps there will be an audio-only service for the reason of "appearing" to offer the same services as Skype.

I do think however, that for most people, Skype = videocall. At least that's what it's like in my area. I don't know anyone who uses Skype who isn't using it to do a videocall because the service just hasn't reached a state wherein one can rely on it for one's main phone number. Perhaps this is skewing my opinion, but where I live (Canada) people use a phone for a phone call and Skype for a videocall. There never have also never been any videocall services at any of the cell carriers.

No one except the cheapest of the cheap, (basically folks who don't have the ID or the credit to get a cell phone and are living in the grey economy), would use Skype for an audio call. It just doesn't work well enough and it's too complicated to set up for the average person.

Apple has a history of not doing the expected however, and also of dragging some of their older clientele kicking and screaming into the future. For this reason I'm hoping they will do the logical thing and just have the one Facetime service.

PS - Another reason is that I don't see Apple doing this to "get Skype" or "beat Skype" or something like that and for that reason, I don't see that they have to replace Skypes service item for item. If they wanted to replace Skype they could just buy them.
post #42 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post

Because Facetime uses data and not everyone has unlimited dataplans. Here in New Zealand we've got data capped with stupid pricing structures so making a video call over WiFi will chew rapidly into our data plan let alone the even more pathetic data plans on our cellphones.

Voice takes considerably less data than video.

Actually it doesn't use any data at all.

I don't know why so many people are taking me to task over my comments anyway. I don't think people are reading very closely or comprehending what's being said.

A) I am not saying, (and never have said) that there aren't going to be instances where one doesn't want the video to be on.

B) I am saying there doesn't need to be, nor should there be a second, separate audio-only protocol/service in addition to Facetime.

A and B are totally different things, that people are taking as the same thing.
post #43 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Says who?

Granted, no one else is using it yet, but that doesn't mean it's not open.

It is not a matter of saying it, but rather showing it. If you can show me a depository with the specification of FaceTime, or suggest a way to implement FaceTime in third party software, then I will believe it is open.

"We are going to the standards' bodies, starting tomorrow..." were the exact words of Steve Jobs on June 7, 2010 at the WWDC 2010. Understandably, the standardization process will take time, so I am prepared to wait. But, before this process has completed, FaceTime is still closed, despite what anyone may be saying.
post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Actually it doesn't use any data at all.

I don't know why so many people are taking me to task over my comments anyway. I don't think people are reading very closely or comprehending what's being said.

A) I am not saying, (and never have said) that there aren't going to be instances where one doesn't want the video to be on.

B) I am saying there doesn't need to be, nor should there be a second, separate audio-only protocol/service in addition to Facetime.

A and B are totally different things, that people are taking as the same thing.

Well that is the beauty of Skype, that it includes video, audio, text, email, VOIP, telephone numbers and sharing of files, as well as showing if your contacts are available. Since Apple named their application FaceTime it is pretty clear what the intended use was going to be. If they intended it to be a multi-use peer to peer application they would have named it something else. Maybe it will eventually become like the misnamed iTunes that encompasses many features. Once it does become a standard though it will be called some ISO#### and other companies will call it something unique to their implementation as well. It is all about marketing though. It should have just been iChat AV for iOS.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I don't know why so many people are taking me to task over my comments anyway. I don't think people are reading very closely or comprehending what's being said.

I think it may be because you misread NassarAE's comment.

Quote:
How long before Apple release VOIP service (FaceTime without video)?

I'm pretty sure he's asking for VoIP calling without first initiating it as a video call, not for new protocols to do the exactly the same thing FaceTime's audio already does.

Regardless, I think we're all on the same page now.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #46 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

It is not a matter of saying it, but rather showing it. If you can show me a depository with the specification of FaceTime, or suggest a way to implement FaceTime in third party software, then I will believe it is open.

"We are going to the standards' bodies, starting tomorrow..." were the exact words of Steve Jobs on June 7, 2010 at the WWDC 2010. Understandably, the standardization process will take time, so I am prepared to wait. But, before this process has completed, FaceTime is still closed, despite what anyone may be saying.

So Apple said it would be open, beginning June 8.

How do you know they didn't do that?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So Apple said it would be open, beginning June 8.

How do you know they didn't do that?

I see that I have to take it slowly with you.

Do you like ice cream, jragosta? OK, good. Now, close your eyes and try to imagine that I have promised to treat you to an ice cream. It is very tasty, I have had it myself, and now you will get it for free from me!

Excited? Are you with me? Good!

OK, now here comes the catch. I have all the delicious ice cream at my place. So you have to come over to have some.

No, I will not tell you where I live. And I have a doorman who won't let you in.

Capisce?
post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Actually it doesn't use any data at all.

I may be misunderstanding you, but are you trying to saying, doing a video, or voice call over IP doesn't use any data at all?
post #49 of 67
As quickly as the changes to FaceTime are appearing it looks like they may have rushed it to market in the first place. Maybe to add some wow factor distraction to the iP4 launch party since they knew, even pre-launch, there were likely going to be some controversial antenna issues popping up as soon as the public got their hands on the device.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

I may be misunderstanding you, but are you trying to saying, doing a video, or voice call over IP doesn't use any data at all?

I think there was another misunderstanding. The guy from NZ was saying that his home wifi connection to the internet was also capped. So I'm guessing that Prof.P misunderstood thinking he was referring to 3G data and since FT only uses wifi no 3G data is used.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #51 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

I see that I have to take it slowly with you.

Do you like ice cream, jragosta? OK, good. Now, close your eyes and try to imagine that I have promised to treat you to an ice cream. It is very tasty, I have had it myself, and now you will get it for free from me!

Excited? Are you with me? Good!

OK, now here comes the catch. I have all the delicious ice cream at my place. So you have to come over to have some.

No, I will not tell you where I live. And I have a doorman who won't let you in.

Capisce?

Now you're just acting like a dick, yet you are still incorrect. If a Basin Robbins in Boise, Idaho is giving away ice cream as a promotion does it mean the ice cream isn't free or just not free to me as it would cost me a very expensive plane ticket to get there? In other words, your inability to perceive FaceTime's internal workings does not mean it's not it's open, it only means it's not available to you.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Now you're just acting like a dick, yet you are still incorrect. If a Basin Robbins in Boise, Idaho is giving away ice cream as a promotion does it mean the ice cream isn't free or just not free to me as it would cost me a very expensive plane ticket to get there? In other words, your inability to perceive FaceTime's internal workings does not mean it's not it's open, it only means it's not available to you.

I agree with your observation, I was acting like a dick. My apologies to other forum members (jragosta was asking for it).

I would not argue that I am able to understand how FaceTime works. All I argue is that nobody but Apple understands that. Do you?

Now, until everyone can see the specifications of the protocol, it is closed.

Today, August 8 2010, FaceTime is a closed proprietary protocol by Apple based on assorted standards and (hopefully) undergoing a process of opening and standardization.
post #53 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

I agree with your observation, I was acting like a dick. My apologies to other forum members (jragosta was asking for it).

By pointing out how stupid your comments were. Funny how you think it's OK to attack other people - simply because you can't come up with a rational argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

I would not argue that I am able to understand how FaceTime works. All I argue is that nobody but Apple understands that. Do you?

Now, until everyone can see the specifications of the protocol, it is closed.

Today, August 7 2010, FaceTime is a closed proprietary protocol by Apple based on assorted standards and (hopefully) undergoing a process of opening and standardization.

Once again, you're imagining that and pretending that it's closed simply because YOU don't have access to it. To use your inane example, you're living in New York and claiming that Baskin Robins isn't giving away free ice cream in Boise because you can't have any.

How do you know that people inside other companies have not received the details of FaceTime? How do you know that the appropriate standards body has not received it?

I guess in your bizarre logic, the fact that you didn't get a personal phone call from Jobs and Apple didn't hand deliver all the FaceTime specs TO YOU means that they were lying about turning it over to a standards body. It's really sad how lame the Apple bashers have gotten these days.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #54 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

By pointing out how stupid your comments were. Funny how you think it's OK to attack other people - simply because you can't come up with a rational argument.

Once again, you're imagining that and pretending that it's closed simply because YOU don't have access to it. To use your inane example, you're living in New York and claiming that Baskin Robins isn't giving away free ice cream in Boise because you can't have any.

How do you know that people inside other companies have not received the details of FaceTime? How do you know that the appropriate standards body has not received it?

There is only one way to prove that anyone but Apple has the FaceTime specification: give me an example.

It is simple. One example.
post #55 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

...
"We are going to the standards' bodies, starting tomorrow..." were the exact words of Steve Jobs on June 7, 2010 at the WWDC 2010. Understandably, the standardization process will take time, so I am prepared to wait. But, before this process has completed, FaceTime is still closed, despite what anyone may be saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

...
I guess in your bizarre logic, the fact that you didn't get a personal phone call from Jobs and Apple didn't hand deliver all the FaceTime specs TO YOU means that they were lying about turning it over to a standards body. It's really sad how lame the Apple bashers have gotten these days.

jragosta, I have quoted my post that you must have missed, where I clearly say that standardization may take time and I am prepared to wait until FaceTime is released as an open standard. I did not bash Apple and I did not accuse anyone of lying.
post #56 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Actually it doesn't use any data at all.

I don't know why so many people are taking me to task over my comments anyway. I don't think people are reading very closely or comprehending what's being said.

A) I am not saying, (and never have said) that there aren't going to be instances where one doesn't want the video to be on.

B) I am saying there doesn't need to be, nor should there be a second, separate audio-only protocol/service in addition to Facetime.

A and B are totally different things, that people are taking as the same thing.

Totally agree with B too. There's already too many competing protocols in IM land and there's no need for separate voice protocols. As others have mentioned if Skype can handle people's different preferences Apple certainly can.
post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDIOWarrior View Post

Time to start shorting AT&T and Verizon.

Uhm....Verizon comes into play how exactly?? Unless you're using a MiFi which IMHO is just plain stupid when you have AT&T's network....MiFi broadband plans with Verizon are a total ripoff..
post #58 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by cart0194 View Post

Already possible, once you have initiated a video call you each hit the home button. This leaves the audio and stops streaming the video - uses way less data then video and doesn't use your cell minutes.

Facetime doesn't use cell minutes...where have you been?
post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

There is only one way to prove that anyone but Apple has the FaceTime specification: give me an example.

It is simple. One example.

Sorry, YOU are the one claiming that it is not Open Source. Prove it.

I don't know who Apple has given the specifications to, so I don't have any way to provide an example. But by the rules of logic, I don't need to. You made a claim. It's up to you to prove your claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

jragosta, I have quoted my post that you must have missed, where I clearly say that standardization may take time and I am prepared to wait until FaceTime is released as an open standard. I did not bash Apple and I did not accuse anyone of lying.

Except Apple. Apple said that FaceTime would be open source beginning June 8. You said that FaceTime is NOT open source. Seems to me that you're accusing Apple of lying. Without any proof or evidence, whatsoever.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sorry, YOU are the one claiming that it is not Open Source. Prove it.

I don't know who Apple has given the specifications to, so I don't have any way to provide an example. But by the rules of logic, I don't need to. You made a claim. It's up to you to prove your claim.

Except Apple. Apple said that FaceTime would be open source beginning June 8. You said that FaceTime is NOT open source. Seems to me that you're accusing Apple of lying. Without any proof or evidence, whatsoever.

This is turning into a theological argument. No, I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist. Enjoy your presents.

I will read your next comment after this one but will not reply even if you address me. I will understand if you share this attitude and also put me on your ignore list. We'll save everyone else here the anguish.

PS. Some links for the interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1521169
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...light=Facetime
post #61 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

This is turning into a theological argument. No, I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist. Enjoy your presents.

I will read your next comment after this one but will not reply even if you address me. I will understand if you share this attitude and also put me on your ignore list. We'll save everyone else here the anguish.

Yes. that's the type of post that people make when they've lost the argument.

You claimed that Apple hasn't made FaceTime an open standard. There are two possibilities:

1. You are making it up and telling lies to try to make yourself feel important.

or

2. You have evidence to back up your position - in which case you should be able to provide that evidence.

Now, either provide the evidence or admit that you were lying all along. There's no other alternative.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #62 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

Skype already has video chat on the desktop. Which do you really think is more realistic: they rewrite their existing software to use the FaceTime standard or they release a mobile client for their existing system?

I think it is worth noting that at the WWDC 2010 Keynote, Steve Jobs listed the standards used by Facetime.

It was just a list of standard names, in a single slides, but it says a *lot* if you the names;
essentially, the listed standards cover the basic of the VoIP telephony and add the video standards in top of it; from that list it is safe to assume that Facetime, as such, add relatively little with respect to existing standards (probably some registry added on top of SIP, and a few more things here and there); this is a *good* thing, because:

1) Facetime is based on proven standards and technologies: large scale deployment can be very fast.

2) Opening up the Facetime specific protocols will be relatively cheap; there is less to document, explain and support that a complete Voice/Video on IP stack.

3) Adoptions will be easier:standards are known, competences are availables, interconnecting with existing, standard based services will be easier.

I think we will see some interesting evolution around the end of the year ....

Bappo
post #63 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by bappo View Post

I think it is worth noting that at the WWDC 2010 Keynote, Steve Jobs listed the standards used by Facetime.

It was just a list of standard names, in a single slides, but it says a *lot* if you the names;
essentially, the listed standards cover the basic of the VoIP telephony and add the video standards in top of it; from that list it is safe to assume that Facetime, as such, add relatively little with respect to existing standards (probably some registry added on top of SIP, and a few more things here and there); this is a *good* thing, because:

1) Facetime is based on proven standards and technologies: large scale deployment can be very fast.

2) Opening up the Facetime specific protocols will be relatively cheap; there is less to document, explain and support that a complete Voice/Video on IP stack.

3) Adoptions will be easier:standards are known, competences are availables, interconnecting with existing, standard based services will be easier.

I think we will see some interesting evolution around the end of the year ....

Bappo

I would expect desktop chat programs, like Adium, to adopt it very quickly. I think even a working Beta may come within a few days of the release.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #64 of 67
Hard to believe that there's been no fix for the proximity sensor issue on the iPhone 4, almost two months after launch. This is the one true problem with the iPhone 4. Is anyone else as mad as I am?.
post #65 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHsf View Post

Hard to believe that there's been no fix for the proximity sensor issue on the iPhone 4, almost two months after launch. This is the one true problem with the iPhone 4. Is anyone else as mad as I am?.

Have you called Apple about this? My boss had the proximity problem, called and they said they would replace the phone.....and they did.
post #66 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yes. that's the type of post that people make when they've lost the argument.

You claimed that Apple hasn't made FaceTime an open standard. There are two possibilities:

1. You are making it up and telling lies to try to make yourself feel important.

or

2. You have evidence to back up your position - in which case you should be able to provide that evidence.

Now, either provide the evidence or admit that you were lying all along. There's no other alternative.

Well, if you'g going to be a giant dick about I guess you deserve to be called out.

You're asking for proof of a negative, which is a logical fallacy. You're wrong. Period.

The assertion is "Facetime is an open standard." Proof of that statement would lie in an example of a standards body having access to the code and its availability for developers to build on, sans licensing costs. That's what open standard means.

"Proving" the negative simply isn't possible, since there always exists the possibility that the code is available and we're just not aware of it, or the process is well under way and we're just shy of an announcement, or the like.

It's like being called on to prove you're not a murderer. It may be possible to prove that you are, but the negative requires every moment of your life thus far to be available for examination-- hence the fallacy.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #67 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think it may be because you misread NassarAE's comment.



I'm pretty sure he's asking for VoIP calling without first initiating it as a video call, not for new protocols to do the exactly the same thing FaceTime's audio already does.

Regardless, I think we're all on the same page now.

It's an interesting question, though: Apple has a potential VoIP solution, but may choose to market it subsumed into the FaceTime brand.

I agree that that isn't necessarily a good idea. There are real psychological barriers to the adoption of video chat, and people who may be ready and eager to embrace an Apple branded VoIP service might not be particularly interested in having their heads displayed to the caller.

Yes, video could be disabled, but that still feels like a video call with the picture turned off, which still evokes those same psychological barriers. I think Apple could address this by segregating out the voice portion of the service and allowing it to have its own brand. No new standard or technology, just a little savvy market positioning.

I realize Apple wanted a splashy tech win for their platform, but I actually think they might have a better adoption rate if they sold this as VoIP with video being a toggle-able extra. My suspicion is that most people just don't like video chat (for a variety of reasons that maybe boil down to "I'm not really up for anyone looking at me right now"), at least at the moment.

FYI, Davd Foster Wallace has a hilarious bit about the rise and fall of videophones in his novel Infinite Jest. The relevant passage (I cribbed this from Kotke, it was the only online citation I could find):

Quote:
Good old traditional audio-only phone conversations allowed you to presume that the person on the other end was paying complete attention to you while also permitting you not to have to pay anything even close to complete attention to her. A traditional aural-only conversation [...] let you enter a kind of highway-hypnotic semi-attentive fugue: while conversing, you could look around the room, doodle, fine-groom, peel tiny bits of dead skin away from your cuticles, compose phone-pad haiku, stir things on the stove; you could even carry on a whole separate additional sign-language-and-exaggerated-facial-expression type of conversation with people right there in the room with you, all while seeming to be right there attending closely to the voice on the phone. And yet -- and this was the retrospectively marvelous part -- even as you were dividing your attention between the phone call and all sorts of other idle little fuguelike activities, you were somehow never haunted by the suspicion that the person on the other end's attention might be similarly divided.

Video telephony rendered the fantasy insupportable. Callers now found they had to compose the same sort of earnest, slightly overintense listener's expression they had to compose for in-person exchanges. Those caller who out of unconscious habit succumbed to fuguelike doodling or pants-crease-adjustment now came off looking extra rude, absentminded, or childishly self-absorbed. Callers who even more unconsciously blemish-scanned or nostril explored looked up to find horrified expressions on the video-faces at the other end. All of which resulted in videophonic stress.

And the videophonic stress was even worse if you were at all vain. I.e. if you worried at all about how you looked. As in to other people. Which all kidding aside who doesn't. Good old aural telephone calls could be fielded without makeup, toupee, surgical prostheses, etc. Even without clothes, if that sort of thing rattled your saber. But for the image-conscious, there was of course no answer-as-you-are informality about visual-video telephone calls, which consumers began to see were less like having the good old phone ring than having the doorbell ring and having to throw on clothes and attach prostheses and do hair-checks in the foyer mirror before answering the door.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • iOS 4.1 beta supports for mobile-free FaceTime via email iOS 4.1 beta supports for mobile-free FaceTime via email
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iOS 4.1 beta supports for mobile-free FaceTime via email iOS 4.1 beta supports for mobile-free FaceTime via email