Would it be wrong to just keep a spare iphone to give to whatever girl I'm dating at the time? Would it be wrong to take an ip4 back from a girl as I dump her?
Would it be wrong to just keep a spare iphone to give to whatever girl I'm dating at the time? Would it be wrong to take an ip4 back from a girl as I dump her?
I don't know about being wrong, but I would recommend getting a very strong case for it. You know, one which can survive being thrown.
If you are on Facetime call and move out of range of Wi-Fi, the call drops. The audio call does not hand-off and continue over Wi-Fi. I tried this.
i though it was supposed to hand-off, or at least try to hand-off. Has anyone else tried this?
Also, if I go to recent calls and redial, the call won't Connecticut as it is designated as a Facetime call. This is a clear bug.
Anyone else having these nusance type of problems?
Thanks,
Alan
This is not a bug. FaceTime calls do not use the cellular network. There is no handoff that happens back and forth between AT&T and your wi-fi. Apple shrewdly decided that it needed a traceable ID for FaceTime calls. If you think of all the applications (and possible abuses) of video calling, you'll understand why Apple did this. FaceTime shouldn't work if you disable caller ID.
It uses your phone number as some kind of identifier in the system when you activate FaceTime. Thereafter, calls are wifi only. Even though you're dialing a phone number, Apple only uses the phone number you dialed to check whether the other person is available for FaceTime (i.e., is it activated on his/her phone, is it set to 'On' and is the phone connected to a Wi-Fi network). Think of it as the equivalent of checking whether someone's IM is on and visible before IMing them. That's why this works even if you're on Airplane mode with Wi-Fi on.
That is, unless users can verify their phone numbers, or some other identifier that ties you back to government issued ID you showed at some point. It's typical Apple and I must admit I find it very reassuring that it seems this is the approach they are following. The technical issues are insignificant, the social and ethical issues are more complex and it shows the combination of debate that informs how tech companies must think about issues today.
This isn't uncharted territory on a technological basis, but Apple understands it's power to create new consumer behavior and is correct to be cautious about the unintended consequences of widespread video call adoption in the age of sexting teens, internet predators and widespread social media. Just as Facebook established some legitimacy by forcing most users to reveal information about their true identity, so is Apple.
It doesn't mean abuses and lapses won't occur; that's the price of an open society. Knowing that you can quickly be traced should you misbehave in unacceptable ways is a strong deterrent in most societies.
So this means I need to sit next to someone talking on their phone for hours every time I take a Wifi equipped airplane... Those people who watch DVDs on their laptops with the speakers on are bad enough.
I agree that 3gs FaceTime compatibility would be nice.
If the standard is open, why not allow devices with one camera
to either receive or send a video call?
Apple tends not to make half-assed products. There is no point in releasing FaceTime for the 3GS and 3G when they don't have a front-facing camera. It makes the entire point of creating a viable video-conferencing A/V standard based on open standards laughable while simultaneously detracting from the one device that can current showcase it well.
This does not mean that the 3G, 3GS, and even the original iPhone which cant get iOS 4.0 will not get an app that uses FaceTime, it only means that Apple will not offering it as a de facto standard on their device. This is open and the best VC platform that I've seen so I fully expect others to adopt rather quickly.
They clearly want other phones to use FaceTime but there is one caveat to consider here. They may not have an API that would allow Skype, Fringe, Beejive, Meebo, AIM, etc. to access the front-facing camera. They may want users on the iPhone 4 to use their implementation until iOS 5.0 (or forever) as not to tarnish the usability or for some other business reason.
I fully expect the next iPod Touch (and maybe the next iPod Nano) to get at least a front-facing camera for FaceTime. I also expect this to get integrated with iChat A/V for Mac OS X 10.7, even though it does appear that at this point some sort of verifiable phone number is required for use. I don't think Apple would limit it to just smartphones and still expect wide adoption and use when there are so many other internet capable devices that could utilize it.
So this means I need to sit next to someone talking on their phone for hours every time I take a Wifi equipped airplane... Those people who watch DVDs on their laptops with the speakers on are bad enough.
Apple is currently using phone numbers to get data that it needs to initiate a FaceTime call. How can they port this to a device that doesn't have a phone number?
Apple seem to have locked themselves into a corner here. Its almost as if they're creating a version of iChat that just uses a phone call to give someone the person's actual email address. That's all well and good until they try and create a version that doesn't have phones at all.
The current sequence of events:
1. I call another iPhone.
2. During the call, the other iPhone gives my iPhone a facetime ID which is saved to the database. I don't see it - I will just see it in the contacts database as the "facetime" button.
3. I start a facetime. I shut down the phone call in the process.
4. I finish facetime.
5. I start facetime by hitting that button. That button links to the facetime ID and commences a call.
6. Second call starts without a phone.
Now... if you try and set this sequence up without a phone, you'll have one problem: you have no way to get that facetime ID to the other facetime device. Nor do you have a way to address a device that is not a phone.
We are using phone numbers as covers for other information. The problem comes when these devices don't have phone numbers. There's no way to pass these unseen facetime IDs around. We can't see them. We don't know how to talk to non-phone facetime devices.
I will try to answer a bit about the technical "whys" on the video connection.
For FaceTime work the way it works there is of course the need of a Gatekeeper. What is a Gatekeeper? In essence is a server that holds registration of devices according to parameters that the device sends or the gatekeeper requests. With those parameters is the Gatekeeper that will decide if the call can go ahead and be established or not.
What parameters could that be? Those would be any unique information about a device (already trying to avoid cloning) like the Device ID, serial number, phone number and so on. A parameter would be some sort of Alias, the way you have a screen name on an IM program.
Having said about Alias and Gatekeeper, Apple could decide to call the Alias for number "A", the alias for serial "B" and the alias for device ID "C".
When a device tries to make a Facetime call, it will as the gatekeeper if it knows that Alias that it is trying to reach, if the gatekeeper has it in it's database, the gatekeeper will then translate the Alias you're trying to reach into, for example, an IP address (what in this case is likely a IPv6) and you will get connected.
It is for sure possible to have non-iPhones and non-Phone devices able to communicate using Facetime. They will use one of the other Aliases that not the phone number. The Alias is just like a screen name that the real purpose is to be then translated into a real internet address.
I helped with this article, I have no FaceTime documentation yet but this is the way that makes more sense so far.
F.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G
The real question is simple:
Apple is currently using phone numbers to get data that it needs to initiate a FaceTime call. How can they port this to a device that doesn't have a phone number?
Apple seem to have locked themselves into a corner here. Its almost as if they're creating a version of iChat that just uses a phone call to give someone the person's actual email address. That's all well and good until they try and create a version that doesn't have phones at all.
The current sequence of events:
1. I call another iPhone.
2. During the call, the other iPhone gives my iPhone a facetime ID which is saved to the database. I don't see it - I will just see it in the contacts database as the "facetime" button.
3. I start a facetime. I shut down the phone call in the process.
4. I finish facetime.
5. I start facetime by hitting that button. That button links to the facetime ID and commences a call.
6. Second call starts without a phone.
Now... if you try and set this sequence up without a phone, you'll have one problem: you have no way to get that facetime ID to the other facetime device. Nor do you have a way to address a device that is not a phone.
We are using phone numbers as covers for other information. The problem comes when these devices don't have phone numbers. There's no way to pass these unseen facetime IDs around. We can't see them. We don't know how to talk to non-phone facetime devices.
This makes sense, the gatekeeper will for sure be able to authenticate a variety of aliases. However, I believe that the "root" unique ID will always be something that can be traced back to a real identity. Each phone already has a UDID, but that's not enough because of handset resale. This is will be really important and I'll be very surprised if Apple's implementation allows a spammer or a completely anonymous user e.g., JohnDoe123 of fictitious phone number 123-456-7890 to create FaceTime capability on their Apple device.
Me personally, I'm waiting for TANDBERG to utilise the iPhone 4's onboard cameras to release an iPhone version of ConferenceMe, which will allow it to connect to a real video conference system.
Of course, since TANDBERG haven't even released a Mac desktop version of ConferenceMe yet I'm not holding my breath.
On How to implement the coding for FaceTime so we can create other compatible programs, we have to wait Apple to release the documentation and necessary APIs.
About the Tandberg, yes, I'm also hoping either them or Polycom come out with a good solution, but since they are hardware sellers, I wouldn't hold my breath. Maybe someone like the guys from XMeeting come out with something. I would be happy to pay for a nice program that would connected SIP and H.323 environments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cousin Dirk
Me personally, I'm waiting for TANDBERG to utilise the iPhone 4's onboard cameras to release an iPhone version of ConferenceMe, which will allow it to connect to a real video conference system.
Of course, since TANDBERG haven't even released a Mac desktop version of ConferenceMe yet I'm not holding my breath.
On How to implement the coding for FaceTime so we can create other compatible programs, we have to wait Apple to release the documentation and necessary APIs.
About the Tandberg, yes, I'm also hoping either them or Polycom come out with a good solution, but since they are hardware sellers, I wouldn't hold my breath. Maybe someone like the guys from XMeeting come out with something. I would be happy to pay for a nice program that would connected SIP and H.323 environments.
Isn't Tandberg now a part of Cisco? Don't count on them embracing FaceTime unless it doesn't threaten their telepresence business. I expect PolyCom or HP, companies that are more embracing of open standards to work with this. I also won't be surprised if the next version of the Pre from HP/Palm to have full FaceTime compatibility.
Comments
You know, my wife has an iPhone4, but I still have a 3GS.
I'd like to receive a call with her showing me some product she's buying or some weird thing my daughter did.
It'd be awesome if FaceTIme worked with non-front-camera-enabled devices like the 3GS to at least allow reception of video calls.
Well..ask your wife to buy an iPhone4... Rufus!
You know, my wife has an iPhone4, but I still have a 3GS.
I'd like to receive a call with her showing me some product she's buying or some weird thing my daughter did.
It'd be awesome if FaceTIme worked with non-front-camera-enabled devices like the 3GS to at least allow reception of video calls.
Would it be wrong to just keep a spare iphone to give to whatever girl I'm dating at the time? Would it be wrong to take an ip4 back from a girl as I dump her?
I don't know about being wrong, but I would recommend getting a very strong case for it. You know, one which can survive being thrown.
i though it was supposed to hand-off, or at least try to hand-off. Has anyone else tried this?
Also, if I go to recent calls and redial, the call won't Connecticut as it is designated as a Facetime call. This is a clear bug.
Anyone else having these nusance type of problems?
Thanks,
Alan
If you are on Facetime call and move out of range of Wi-Fi, the call drops. The audio call does not hand-off and continue over Wi-Fi. I tried this.
i though it was supposed to hand-off, or at least try to hand-off. Has anyone else tried this?
Also, if I go to recent calls and redial, the call won't Connecticut as it is designated as a Facetime call. This is a clear bug.
Anyone else having these nusance type of problems?
Thanks,
Alan
This is not a bug. FaceTime calls do not use the cellular network. There is no handoff that happens back and forth between AT&T and your wi-fi. Apple shrewdly decided that it needed a traceable ID for FaceTime calls. If you think of all the applications (and possible abuses) of video calling, you'll understand why Apple did this. FaceTime shouldn't work if you disable caller ID.
It uses your phone number as some kind of identifier in the system when you activate FaceTime. Thereafter, calls are wifi only. Even though you're dialing a phone number, Apple only uses the phone number you dialed to check whether the other person is available for FaceTime (i.e., is it activated on his/her phone, is it set to 'On' and is the phone connected to a Wi-Fi network). Think of it as the equivalent of checking whether someone's IM is on and visible before IMing them. That's why this works even if you're on Airplane mode with Wi-Fi on.
This isn't uncharted territory on a technological basis, but Apple understands it's power to create new consumer behavior and is correct to be cautious about the unintended consequences of widespread video call adoption in the age of sexting teens, internet predators and widespread social media. Just as Facebook established some legitimacy by forcing most users to reveal information about their true identity, so is Apple.
It doesn't mean abuses and lapses won't occur; that's the price of an open society. Knowing that you can quickly be traced should you misbehave in unacceptable ways is a strong deterrent in most societies.
If the standard is open, why not allow devices with one camera
to either receive or send a video call?
I agree that 3gs FaceTime compatibility would be nice.
If the standard is open, why not allow devices with one camera
to either receive or send a video call?
Apple tends not to make half-assed products. There is no point in releasing FaceTime for the 3GS and 3G when they don't have a front-facing camera. It makes the entire point of creating a viable video-conferencing A/V standard based on open standards laughable while simultaneously detracting from the one device that can current showcase it well.
This does not mean that the 3G, 3GS, and even the original iPhone which cant get iOS 4.0 will not get an app that uses FaceTime, it only means that Apple will not offering it as a de facto standard on their device. This is open and the best VC platform that I've seen so I fully expect others to adopt rather quickly.
They clearly want other phones to use FaceTime but there is one caveat to consider here. They may not have an API that would allow Skype, Fringe, Beejive, Meebo, AIM, etc. to access the front-facing camera. They may want users on the iPhone 4 to use their implementation until iOS 5.0 (or forever) as not to tarnish the usability or for some other business reason.
I fully expect the next iPod Touch (and maybe the next iPod Nano) to get at least a front-facing camera for FaceTime. I also expect this to get integrated with iChat A/V for Mac OS X 10.7, even though it does appear that at this point some sort of verifiable phone number is required for use. I don't think Apple would limit it to just smartphones and still expect wide adoption and use when there are so many other internet capable devices that could utilize it.
So this means I need to sit next to someone talking on their phone for hours every time I take a Wifi equipped airplane... Those people who watch DVDs on their laptops with the speakers on are bad enough.
There are solutions to every problem...Some more aggressive than others...
Apple is currently using phone numbers to get data that it needs to initiate a FaceTime call. How can they port this to a device that doesn't have a phone number?
Apple seem to have locked themselves into a corner here. Its almost as if they're creating a version of iChat that just uses a phone call to give someone the person's actual email address. That's all well and good until they try and create a version that doesn't have phones at all.
The current sequence of events:
1. I call another iPhone.
2. During the call, the other iPhone gives my iPhone a facetime ID which is saved to the database. I don't see it - I will just see it in the contacts database as the "facetime" button.
3. I start a facetime. I shut down the phone call in the process.
4. I finish facetime.
5. I start facetime by hitting that button. That button links to the facetime ID and commences a call.
6. Second call starts without a phone.
Now... if you try and set this sequence up without a phone, you'll have one problem: you have no way to get that facetime ID to the other facetime device. Nor do you have a way to address a device that is not a phone.
We are using phone numbers as covers for other information. The problem comes when these devices don't have phone numbers. There's no way to pass these unseen facetime IDs around. We can't see them. We don't know how to talk to non-phone facetime devices.
Daniel can't write but thank God he learned to catch up quickly when someone around finds the good topic.
A phone number in Contacts is transferred to a phone, which is not iPhone 4. Then what?
I will try to answer a bit about the technical "whys" on the video connection.
For FaceTime work the way it works there is of course the need of a Gatekeeper. What is a Gatekeeper? In essence is a server that holds registration of devices according to parameters that the device sends or the gatekeeper requests. With those parameters is the Gatekeeper that will decide if the call can go ahead and be established or not.
What parameters could that be? Those would be any unique information about a device (already trying to avoid cloning) like the Device ID, serial number, phone number and so on. A parameter would be some sort of Alias, the way you have a screen name on an IM program.
Having said about Alias and Gatekeeper, Apple could decide to call the Alias for number "A", the alias for serial "B" and the alias for device ID "C".
When a device tries to make a Facetime call, it will as the gatekeeper if it knows that Alias that it is trying to reach, if the gatekeeper has it in it's database, the gatekeeper will then translate the Alias you're trying to reach into, for example, an IP address (what in this case is likely a IPv6) and you will get connected.
It is for sure possible to have non-iPhones and non-Phone devices able to communicate using Facetime. They will use one of the other Aliases that not the phone number. The Alias is just like a screen name that the real purpose is to be then translated into a real internet address.
I helped with this article, I have no FaceTime documentation yet but this is the way that makes more sense so far.
F.
The real question is simple:
Apple is currently using phone numbers to get data that it needs to initiate a FaceTime call. How can they port this to a device that doesn't have a phone number?
Apple seem to have locked themselves into a corner here. Its almost as if they're creating a version of iChat that just uses a phone call to give someone the person's actual email address. That's all well and good until they try and create a version that doesn't have phones at all.
The current sequence of events:
1. I call another iPhone.
2. During the call, the other iPhone gives my iPhone a facetime ID which is saved to the database. I don't see it - I will just see it in the contacts database as the "facetime" button.
3. I start a facetime. I shut down the phone call in the process.
4. I finish facetime.
5. I start facetime by hitting that button. That button links to the facetime ID and commences a call.
6. Second call starts without a phone.
Now... if you try and set this sequence up without a phone, you'll have one problem: you have no way to get that facetime ID to the other facetime device. Nor do you have a way to address a device that is not a phone.
We are using phone numbers as covers for other information. The problem comes when these devices don't have phone numbers. There's no way to pass these unseen facetime IDs around. We can't see them. We don't know how to talk to non-phone facetime devices.
Of course, since TANDBERG haven't even released a Mac desktop version of ConferenceMe yet I'm not holding my breath.
About the Tandberg, yes, I'm also hoping either them or Polycom come out with a good solution, but since they are hardware sellers, I wouldn't hold my breath. Maybe someone like the guys from XMeeting come out with something. I would be happy to pay for a nice program that would connected SIP and H.323 environments.
Me personally, I'm waiting for TANDBERG to utilise the iPhone 4's onboard cameras to release an iPhone version of ConferenceMe, which will allow it to connect to a real video conference system.
Of course, since TANDBERG haven't even released a Mac desktop version of ConferenceMe yet I'm not holding my breath.
On How to implement the coding for FaceTime so we can create other compatible programs, we have to wait Apple to release the documentation and necessary APIs.
About the Tandberg, yes, I'm also hoping either them or Polycom come out with a good solution, but since they are hardware sellers, I wouldn't hold my breath. Maybe someone like the guys from XMeeting come out with something. I would be happy to pay for a nice program that would connected SIP and H.323 environments.
Isn't Tandberg now a part of Cisco? Don't count on them embracing FaceTime unless it doesn't threaten their telepresence business. I expect PolyCom or HP, companies that are more embracing of open standards to work with this. I also won't be surprised if the next version of the Pre from HP/Palm to have full FaceTime compatibility.