The website also discovered actors on Twitter who revealed that they are auditioning for the commercial. One actress in New York confirmed that the spot will be directed by Mendes, while an actor in California said last week he was off to an audition.
Hmm. What do we think are the chances of an actor who leaks Apple info getting the gig?
I'm curious to see if I actually use this feature or not. I find that after the "gee whiz" feeling wore off, I stopped using video chats on my Mac. But I could imagine that having the ability to do video chats from locations other than my office at home might make the feature more useful. We shall see...
I know it is what people say they want, video chat. Some people seem to love it. But in my experience, most people I come across are not comfortable with it. The technology has been around for a long time, yet it has never really caught on. Is that because the devices have not been good enough or because people are too vain and don't want to look bad on screen with the other party? Or both? I think it is one of those selling features that really doesn't mean much in practical use. Similar to the processor speed of a computer these days. Each successive speed increase is touted and used to sell the machine. But when it comes down to it, it is irrelevant these days to most users who only check their email, browse the web and write an occasional word doc.
I would definitely agree. If just normal use of data on an iPhone is putting such a tax on AT&T's systems, I'd hate to see what millions of simultaneous, compressed video streams would do.
Not to totally disagree but I would suspect the amount of video already being used over the networks by iPhone users is already huge. So it would not be all be additional video as when using iPhone Chat that as that user isn't using any other video at that moment (tiny effect I know but throwing it in there ). I do suspect Apple will no doubt have some super efficient video (HTML5?) for use on phone lines too.
I wonder if this might be limited to 4G or wifi ... All exciting speculation never the less.. one step closer to 'Beam me up Scotty."
Off topic slightly ... I know it's impossible and I jest - but it would be nice if iPhones (hell, all phones) could detect if you are the driver and are driving when using a phone and auto parallel park you and turn off your ignition!
I play a game now, it's called 'Spot the driver not on a cell phone'. Seriously, here in Florida it is becoming ludicrous on the roads with drivers paying little attention to their driving. It is time for a major change in the law here regarding phone use while driving.
Not a feature I'll be using. Who wants to be walking around video chit chatting with people when ATT's network won't provide good enough bandwidth? If they can't even offer tethering (might be available with 4.0), what makes people think they can handle video chats? Granted the smart people will use Wi-Fi for video chat, but I think most people will want to use it wherever they can. Dropped calls? How about dropped video chats.
Not to totally disagree but I would suspect the amount of video already being used over the networks by iPhone users is already huge. So it would not be all be additional video as when using iPhone Chat that as that user isn't using any other video at that moment (tiny effect I know but throwing it in there ). I do suspect Apple will no doubt have some super efficient video (HTML5?) for use on phone lines too.
I wonder if this might be limited to 4G or wifi ... All exciting speculation never the less.. one step closer to 'Beam me up Scotty."
I'm assuming that you mean viewing videos a la YouTube? My thought was that video chat would be an additional layer of data being used on top of whatever video browsing the user would normally do.
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple's compression is really efficient to try and offset that. I also wouldn't be surprised if AT&T enacted an additional "premium data" plan that gives you video chat at $10 more a month.
One use I can see for the video iChat on iPhone will be people initiating a call to a friend and then saying "Look at this!" and turning the phone around and holding it up. Concerts, scenery what ever ... So I hope Apple put in a lens and focusing system able to do a pretty descent job in that respect and not limit it to a face to face ability.
I'm assuming that you mean viewing videos a la YouTube? My thought was that video chat would be an additional layer of data being used on top of whatever video browsing the user would normally do.
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple's compression is really efficient to try and offset that. I also wouldn't be surprised if AT&T enacted an additional "premium data" plan that gives you video chat at $10 more a month.
Right but I would assume the user would not be streaming any other data while using iChat.
I doubt there will be a premium plan IMHO I think Apple will want this to be part of the package out of the box. Although you could be right if it were 4G only or WiFi. It would be a back door way of getting users to buy a premium package as you suggest simply by using a faster network if that indeed were charged at a higher rate.
Right but I would assume the user would not be streaming any other data while using iChat.
I doubt there will be a premium plan IMHO I think Apple will want this to be part of the package out of the box. Although you could be right if it were 4G only or WiFi. It would be a back door way of getting users to buy a premium package as you suggest simply by using a faster network if that indeed were charged at a higher rate.
Maybe it will balance out in the end. Still, it just goes to show that our handsets are starting to outpace our networks here in the US. Can't wait for the 4G pipelines to become mainstream...
[QUOTE=Predrag;1638406The fundamental difference between the iPhone and all other phones with same features is, on all those other phones, people essentially just make phone calls, occasionally snap a picture and use contact list to enter phone numbers (together with a nickname) of their friends (ex. "Laura-cell - 1824-648-2465" "Mom - 1824-545-6774"). They are mostly oblivious to all other features (IM, e-mail, web, music/video playback, FM radio, video chat, etc, etc, etc).
Not a feature I'll be using. Who wants to be walking around video chit chatting with people when ATT's network won't provide good enough bandwidth? If they can't even offer tethering (might be available with 4.0), what makes people think they can handle video chats?
Teathering has been out there for almost a year. There are very few carriers in the world that don't allow it; vast majority of the world carriers does.
As for bandwidth, YouTube gobbles up much more than iChat's minimum. The official minimum bandwidth for iChat is 100kbps. I have successfully had sustained A/V iChat conversations with bandwidth dropping down to 45kbps (same as 56k modem!), with about 5fps (frames-per-second) motion video and a fairly blurry picture. At 100kbps, picture is quite decent and framerate is 15fps.
There is no reason for AT&T to prohibit this. Then again, there is little reason to prohibit tethering (people surf web, watch YouTube, upload pictures to FaceBook, directly from their iPhone; how much more bandwidth could laptop possibly use???), yet AT&T still can't seem to get it done... I really feel sorry for American mobile users; they never seem to be catching up with the rest of the world with their mobile technology.
I wasn't quoting facts; I was merely expressing opinion, based on my personal experience. In the circle of people I know (work, family, friends), the stats are as follows: out of fifty women, more than half of them have work-issued blackberries. These blackberries have a web browser, and the ability to side-load applications. Not ONE single of these women uses their blackberry for anything other than a phone, e-mail device and an occasional photo. They are oblivious to the fact that they can put music and video on their devices and play them (in fact, most of them have an iPod for music, ironically).
The point is, even though every other smartphone (and even most dumb-phones) now has a browser, an e-mail client, photo browser, video player, MP3 player, camera (with video), IM, SMS, FM radio, even ability to put applications (small java applets for dumbphones), vast majority of people (especially women) don't know about, or how to use, any of those features, other than address book, phone and possibly camera.
Again, this is my own observation. You may know many more tech women, so your experience may be different. I did see some research data, though, that supports my anecdotal observations.
I do suspect Apple will no doubt have some super efficient video (HTML5?) for use on phone lines too.
Apple is using H.264 (a component of the MPEG-4 standard) for compressing video in iChat (unlike Skype, which apparently seems to be using On2 video encoding). H.264 is a published open standard that can be licensed by anyone (MPEG-LA is the license holder). There are many video chips that can encode/decode H.264 directly, avoiding software/main CPU overhead.
HTML-5 is a mark-up language for delivering web content to a browser. It has nothing to do with video compression and encoding.
It has been recently used in the context of replacing Flash as a means for delivering MPEG4-compressed video to the web.
I would definitely agree. If just normal use of data on an iPhone is putting such a tax on AT&T's systems, I'd hate to see what millions of simultaneous, compressed video streams would do.
apple has more than just the US on it's mind, the US and AT&T are just a drop in the ocean to them. Other contries have better cellular networks.
Comments
The website also discovered actors on Twitter who revealed that they are auditioning for the commercial. One actress in New York confirmed that the spot will be directed by Mendes, while an actor in California said last week he was off to an audition.
Hmm. What do we think are the chances of an actor who leaks Apple info getting the gig?
I'm curious to see if I actually use this feature or not. I find that after the "gee whiz" feeling wore off, I stopped using video chats on my Mac. But I could imagine that having the ability to do video chats from locations other than my office at home might make the feature more useful. We shall see...
I predict an increase in nose hair clipper sales.
I predict an increase in nose hair clipper sales.
Then the iPhone should receive a government subsidy, because that would be a public good
I agree AT&T couldn't handle the load of video chat, so it will likely be Wifi only.
However it might be able to take a picture every minute or two over 3G instead of live video.
I would definitely agree. If just normal use of data on an iPhone is putting such a tax on AT&T's systems, I'd hate to see what millions of simultaneous, compressed video streams would do.
Not to totally disagree but I would suspect the amount of video already being used over the networks by iPhone users is already huge. So it would not be all be additional video as when using iPhone Chat that as that user isn't using any other video at that moment (tiny effect I know but throwing it in there
I wonder if this might be limited to 4G or wifi ... All exciting speculation never the less.. one step closer to 'Beam me up Scotty."
I play a game now, it's called 'Spot the driver not on a cell phone'. Seriously, here in Florida it is becoming ludicrous on the roads with drivers paying little attention to their driving. It is time for a major change in the law here regarding phone use while driving.
Not to totally disagree but I would suspect the amount of video already being used over the networks by iPhone users is already huge. So it would not be all be additional video as when using iPhone Chat that as that user isn't using any other video at that moment (tiny effect I know but throwing it in there
I wonder if this might be limited to 4G or wifi ... All exciting speculation never the less.. one step closer to 'Beam me up Scotty."
I'm assuming that you mean viewing videos a la YouTube? My thought was that video chat would be an additional layer of data being used on top of whatever video browsing the user would normally do.
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple's compression is really efficient to try and offset that. I also wouldn't be surprised if AT&T enacted an additional "premium data" plan that gives you video chat at $10 more a month.
I'm assuming that you mean viewing videos a la YouTube? My thought was that video chat would be an additional layer of data being used on top of whatever video browsing the user would normally do.
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple's compression is really efficient to try and offset that. I also wouldn't be surprised if AT&T enacted an additional "premium data" plan that gives you video chat at $10 more a month.
Right but I would assume the user would not be streaming any other data while using iChat.
I doubt there will be a premium plan IMHO I think Apple will want this to be part of the package out of the box. Although you could be right if it were 4G only or WiFi. It would be a back door way of getting users to buy a premium package as you suggest simply by using a faster network if that indeed were charged at a higher rate.
while i really do hope this is true, let's remember that the "source" for this info is a tweet from a starving actor about an audition.
And as someone else already commented ... one that probably wasn't hired after that tweet!
Right but I would assume the user would not be streaming any other data while using iChat.
I doubt there will be a premium plan IMHO I think Apple will want this to be part of the package out of the box. Although you could be right if it were 4G only or WiFi. It would be a back door way of getting users to buy a premium package as you suggest simply by using a faster network if that indeed were charged at a higher rate.
Maybe it will balance out in the end. Still, it just goes to show that our handsets are starting to outpace our networks here in the US. Can't wait for the 4G pipelines to become mainstream...
[/QUOTE]
Where do you get your facts?
I've never heard such claims.
Not a feature I'll be using. Who wants to be walking around video chit chatting with people when ATT's network won't provide good enough bandwidth? If they can't even offer tethering (might be available with 4.0), what makes people think they can handle video chats?
Teathering has been out there for almost a year. There are very few carriers in the world that don't allow it; vast majority of the world carriers does.
As for bandwidth, YouTube gobbles up much more than iChat's minimum. The official minimum bandwidth for iChat is 100kbps. I have successfully had sustained A/V iChat conversations with bandwidth dropping down to 45kbps (same as 56k modem!), with about 5fps (frames-per-second) motion video and a fairly blurry picture. At 100kbps, picture is quite decent and framerate is 15fps.
There is no reason for AT&T to prohibit this. Then again, there is little reason to prohibit tethering (people surf web, watch YouTube, upload pictures to FaceBook, directly from their iPhone; how much more bandwidth could laptop possibly use???), yet AT&T still can't seem to get it done... I really feel sorry for American mobile users; they never seem to be catching up with the rest of the world with their mobile technology.
Where do you get your facts?
I've never heard such claims.
I wasn't quoting facts; I was merely expressing opinion, based on my personal experience. In the circle of people I know (work, family, friends), the stats are as follows: out of fifty women, more than half of them have work-issued blackberries. These blackberries have a web browser, and the ability to side-load applications. Not ONE single of these women uses their blackberry for anything other than a phone, e-mail device and an occasional photo. They are oblivious to the fact that they can put music and video on their devices and play them (in fact, most of them have an iPod for music, ironically).
The point is, even though every other smartphone (and even most dumb-phones) now has a browser, an e-mail client, photo browser, video player, MP3 player, camera (with video), IM, SMS, FM radio, even ability to put applications (small java applets for dumbphones), vast majority of people (especially women) don't know about, or how to use, any of those features, other than address book, phone and possibly camera.
Again, this is my own observation. You may know many more tech women, so your experience may be different. I did see some research data, though, that supports my anecdotal observations.
I do suspect Apple will no doubt have some super efficient video (HTML5?) for use on phone lines too.
Apple is using H.264 (a component of the MPEG-4 standard) for compressing video in iChat (unlike Skype, which apparently seems to be using On2 video encoding). H.264 is a published open standard that can be licensed by anyone (MPEG-LA is the license holder). There are many video chips that can encode/decode H.264 directly, avoiding software/main CPU overhead.
HTML-5 is a mark-up language for delivering web content to a browser. It has nothing to do with video compression and encoding.
It has been recently used in the context of replacing Flash as a means for delivering MPEG4-compressed video to the web.
I would definitely agree. If just normal use of data on an iPhone is putting such a tax on AT&T's systems, I'd hate to see what millions of simultaneous, compressed video streams would do.
apple has more than just the US on it's mind, the US and AT&T are just a drop in the ocean to them. Other contries have better cellular networks.