Seriously? You can't think of a more useful and efficient way to communicate over computing device when your not in front of something other than a video chat doing sign language? How about this remarkably useful medium called writing. I bet i can write an SMS message to someone much faster and easier than making a phone call, then connecting a video call, then pulling the phone away to do a one-handed sign language to the other party. How can anyone see that as more efficient that writing?
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.
What?! Sign language to video chat with people on a computing device? I have to give FaceTime a FacePalm if you think that is going to be common use.
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.
Seriously? You can't think of a more useful and efficient way to communicate over computing device when your not in front of something other than a video chat doing sign language? How about this remarkably useful medium called writing. I bet i can write an SMS message to someone much faster and easier than making a phone call, then connecting a video call, then pulling the phone away to do a one-handed sign language to the other party. How can anyone see that as more efficient that writing?
It's more efficient because you can have actual conversations and it's more importantly more PERSONAL.
If accepted by the receiving party, it will finish the handshake and initiate the video over WiFi while still maintaining audio over cellular.
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.
They specifically stated it was iPhone 4 to iPhone 4. I see nothing that would prevent them from using the technology in iChat for this, but so far it's not mentioned, which I think means it's just not ready at this point for connecting to PCs. Perhaps they want to do it through MobileMe to utilize Wide-Area Bonjour that is found in Back to My Mac for zero config connections. They might also want it to go live on Windows at the same time.
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.
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.
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.
Besides we have had access to video chat at home for a decade and it still hasn't taken off. Why will iPhone 4 make a difference?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Looks nice, but sort of surprised it doesn't support iPhone to Mac chatting. That seemed like it would a no brainer. Wifi only is disappointing but is understandable when they have to use AT&T as the standard against which to set the bar for network capability.
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??
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.
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.
Comments
Seriously? You can't think of a more useful and efficient way to communicate over computing device when your not in front of something other than a video chat doing sign language? How about this remarkably useful medium called writing. I bet i can write an SMS message to someone much faster and easier than making a phone call, then connecting a video call, then pulling the phone away to do a one-handed sign language to the other party. How can anyone see that as more efficient that writing?
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.
What?! Sign language to video chat with people on a computing device? I have to give FaceTime a FacePalm if you think that is going to be common use.
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.
Seriously? You can't think of a more useful and efficient way to communicate over computing device when your not in front of something other than a video chat doing sign language? How about this remarkably useful medium called writing. I bet i can write an SMS message to someone much faster and easier than making a phone call, then connecting a video call, then pulling the phone away to do a one-handed sign language to the other party. How can anyone see that as more efficient that writing?
It's more efficient because you can have actual conversations and it's more importantly more PERSONAL.
If accepted by the receiving party, it will finish the handshake and initiate the video over WiFi while still maintaining audio over cellular.
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.
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.
They specifically stated it was iPhone 4 to iPhone 4. I see nothing that would prevent them from using the technology in iChat for this, but so far it's not mentioned, which I think means it's just not ready at this point for connecting to PCs. Perhaps they want to do it through MobileMe to utilize Wide-Area Bonjour that is found in Back to My Mac for zero config connections. They might also want it to go live on Windows at the same time.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
What?! Sign language to video chat with people on a computing device? I have to give FaceTime a FacePalm if you think that is going to be common use.
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.
Besides we have had access to video chat at home for a decade and it still hasn't taken off. Why will iPhone 4 make a difference?
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL
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.
This makes sense to me thanks
Looks nice, but sort of surprised it doesn't support iPhone to Mac chatting. That seemed like it would a no brainer. Wifi only is disappointing but is understandable when they have to use AT&T as the standard against which to set the bar for network capability.
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??
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.
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.
No we don't have all week... This is WWDC it's a developer conference. Period, end of sentence.
The WWDC keynote (the 1st one only) IS the 'publicly' announced news that the world gets from WWDC. That's it. Yes...
...except that Apple just now announced Safari 5.
How's that crow taste?
And there may be more, it's only monday...
What?! Sign language to video chat with people on a computing device? I have to give FaceTime a FacePalm if you think that is going to be common use.
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'
Looks nice, but sort of surprised it doesn't support iPhone to Mac chatting.
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.