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?
Humans use many secondary cues for transmitting information. Different facial expressions, shrugs and body posture changes the meaning of "I dunno" in various ways. Smilies are not really a substitute.
I doubt FaceTime will be such a big deal. It's been around in Sweden ( and many other countries) for a very long time, since 2003 I believe. Funny how Apple makes it look like a "new thing". As one analytic said "the interest for video calls are microscopic". But with the Apple way of doing things and that fact that the market might have matured it could be more than microscopic.
People said the same thing about mobile web browsers. They were around for years. Some people used them, but they never really became primary browsers. Apple changed that. Browsing on a phone is now so commonplace, it seems like everyone has been doing it forever. Same with 'music' phones. There were tonnes of these around before the iPhone, but who really used their phones as their primary MP3 player? Again, Apple changed that.
Just because no one else has implemented it in a way that people actually want to use doesn't mean Apple's implementation with automatically fail too. In fact, many things they have introduced and/or popularized over the years says they have a better than average change of changing the game. FaceTime could be another example.
People said the same thing about mobile web browsers. They were around for years. Some people used them, but they never really became primary browsers. Apple changed that. Browsing on a phone is now so commonplace, it seems like everyone has been doing it forever. Same with 'music' phones. There were tonnes of these around before the iPhone, but who really used their phones as their primary MP3 player? Again, Apple changed that.
Just because no one else has implemented it in a way that people actually want to use doesn't mean Apple's implementation with automatically fail too. In fact, many things they have introduced and/or popularized over the years says they have a better than average change of changing the game. FaceTime could be another example.
It could.
But I don't see iPhone's video calls being that different from what's been tried before. The conclusion from many here in Sweden is that video calls isn't for people on the move. It's not always desired to see the one you talk to. Voice is personal enough.
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.
The demo video of FaceTime has disclaimer text stating iPhone 4 and WiFi required. It makes no mention of cellular. That tells me that the audio is, in fact, over WiFi, too.
I can't wait to get this technology dissected. Very happy that it's open source.
Quote:
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?
I don't recall if that always happened, but I know it has happened.
That does not mean they have use audio and video combined into the same stream. They could be separate streams with any drops allowing them to automatically sync up with time stamps based on what I read from the protocols being used.
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?
Humans use many secondary cues for transmitting information. Different facial expressions, shrugs and body posture changes the meaning of "I dunno" in various ways. Smilies are not really a substitute.
I can't see people using it for everyday conversation (a 'get some bread from the dairy on your way home' conversation),
perhaps some people are forgetting that apple isn't touting this as taking over from traditional voice calls ala mid-C20 futurism.
but like on the commercial it is great for long distance stuff with people you don't see very often.
precisely. for starters at least
I doubt FaceTime will be such a big deal. It's been around in Sweden ( and many other countries) for a very long time, since 2003 I believe. Funny how Apple makes it look like a "new thing". As one analytic said "the interest for video calls are microscopic". But with the Apple way of doing things and that fact that the market might have matured it could be more than microscopic.
People said the same thing about mobile web browsers. They were around for years. Some people used them, but they never really became primary browsers. Apple changed that. Browsing on a phone is now so commonplace, it seems like everyone has been doing it forever. Same with 'music' phones. There were tonnes of these around before the iPhone, but who really used their phones as their primary MP3 player? Again, Apple changed that.
Just because no one else has implemented it in a way that people actually want to use doesn't mean Apple's implementation with automatically fail too. In fact, many things they have introduced and/or popularized over the years says they have a better than average change of changing the game. FaceTime could be another example.
People said the same thing about mobile web browsers. They were around for years. Some people used them, but they never really became primary browsers. Apple changed that. Browsing on a phone is now so commonplace, it seems like everyone has been doing it forever. Same with 'music' phones. There were tonnes of these around before the iPhone, but who really used their phones as their primary MP3 player? Again, Apple changed that.
Just because no one else has implemented it in a way that people actually want to use doesn't mean Apple's implementation with automatically fail too. In fact, many things they have introduced and/or popularized over the years says they have a better than average change of changing the game. FaceTime could be another example.
It could.
But I don't see iPhone's video calls being that different from what's been tried before. The conclusion from many here in Sweden is that video calls isn't for people on the move. It's not always desired to see the one you talk to. Voice is personal enough.
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.
The demo video of FaceTime has disclaimer text stating iPhone 4 and WiFi required. It makes no mention of cellular. That tells me that the audio is, in fact, over WiFi, too.
I can't wait to get this technology dissected. Very happy that it's open source.
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?
I don't recall if that always happened, but I know it has happened.
That does not mean they have use audio and video combined into the same stream. They could be separate streams with any drops allowing them to automatically sync up with time stamps based on what I read from the protocols being used.