*VoiceTime? is a trade mark owned by NasserAE. Using VoiceTime? without permission from NasserAE could result in lawsuits and fines (That include you Apple).
That makes a lot of sense. I just hope Apple would create an address book category for people in my contacts who have FaceTime.
How long before Apple release VOIP service (FaceTime without video)?
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.
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.
Isn't that only disengaging the incoming video stream, not the outgoing video stream?
I bet 80%, maybe even 90% of my phone calls are in places where I have wifi (home, work, etc), and as more and more of my friends get Facetime-enabled devices I'll use wifi more and my phone minutes less. A year from now I might only need the cellular connection for 10% of my calls. Now Verizon becomes a heck of a lot less important, which gives Verizon a lot less weight when negotiating with Apple. Verizon and AT&T are just dumb pipes most of the time, Apple's data center provides the servers for most phone calls (among other things).
Just to make it totally clear that AT&T and Verizon are just dumb pipes, the the iphone and ipod touch merge into one product with the option for 4G, just like the iPad currently has an option for 3G or not. By then the Mac Books will probably have the 4G option as well. Verizon is just another ISP option.
I could be wrong, but I don't see the point in that.
If you already have video and audio, why would you want only audio?
Maybe because you're talking to someone without video? or someone who's not on WiFi? Or someone with a slow internet connection?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150
Question is would HTC, RIM, Nokia, Samsung, and others adopt FaceTime? Especially how Apple have pissed them off recently with the whole antenna mess.
HTC, RIM, and the rest know that they got only what they deserved. If Facetime looks like it's going to catch on, they'd be scrambling to get on board.
Even Google would get on board if they could find a way to mine your video conversations for personal information.
HTC, RIM, and the rest know that they got only what they deserved. If Facetime looks like it's going to catch on, they'd be scrambling to get on board.
Even Google would get on board if they could find a way to mine your video conversations for personal information.
I?ve heard talk of Cisco already being on board. This could mean pre-loading the needed protocols to their Linksys router firmware for ideal FaceTime chat or, perhaps, the next Flip cameras which are expected to include WiFi will add a front-facing camera for FaceTime access. If they add even the half-way decent PMP to it they could be the first real competitors Apple?s iPod line has seen in awhile, and even with just a great video cam, with WiFi for easy uploads it could still take away more than a few sales.
HTC, RIM, and the rest know that they got only what they deserved. If Facetime looks like it's going to catch on, they'd be scrambling to get on board.
Even Google would get on board if they could find a way to mine your video conversations for personal information.
They'd scramble to get onboard but not necessarily the FaceTme train. Google already has video chat for PCs as does Microsoft, Yahoo, Skype, and various others. It is quite possible HTC, RIM and the rest would go with different systems. I could easily envision a future where you'd need to download a third party app to enable video chat from an Android or Windows Phone to an iPhone.
The moment several Android phones come out with Front Facing cameras, this would be a great move by Apple. In fact, I would rather prefer an Apple Face TIme client on Android, RIM, Windows Mobile 7, etc., as opposed to some other clients that might have a shoddy implementation, giving FaceTime a bad name.
The moment several Android phones come out with Front Facing cameras, this would be a great move by Apple. In fact, I would rather prefer an Apple Face TIme client on Android, RIM, Windows Mobile 7, etc., as opposed to some other clients that might have a shoddy implementation, giving FaceTime a bad name.
I don't think Apple will, but they don't need to. Remember, at the end of the FaceTime intro Jobs announced they were submitting it for open standards approval the very next day.. It's their cake and they want everyone to eat it.
...This would give Apple a leg up on competing, proprietary video chat networks such as Skype, which currently does not support video chat from mobile devices...
...However, with Skype being the primary video chat network available, and because it does not currently officially support video chat between mobile devices...
I see what you are getting at and the article might be a little ambiguous bit I don't think it's incorrect as stated. Skype officially supports a Nokia phone. That's it. Not devices. It's not open and it's designed to cover all device and device types and apps that wish to utilize it.
I see what you are getting at and the article might be a little ambiguous bit I don't think it's incorrect as stated. Skype officially supports a Nokia phone. That's it. Not devices. It's not open and it's designed to cover all device and device types and apps that wish to utilize it.
It is incorrect. A Nokia phone is a device and two Nokia phones of the same model are two devices.
But let's not split hairs here. FaceTime will be great when it is really open. For now, it isn't.
They'd scramble to get onboard but not necessarily the FaceTme train. Google already has video chat for PCs as does Microsoft, Yahoo, Skype, and various others. It is quite possible HTC, RIM and the rest would go with different systems. I could easily envision a future where you'd need to download a third party app to enable video chat from an Android or Windows Phone to an iPhone.
That doesn't make sense. Your scenario would have 100 different inconsistent standards that wouldn't speak to each other.
Apple has released FaceTime as an open standard which could conceivably work with all phones. So if you're Google, do you use an open standard that will work when the Android user is talking to an iPhone customer (or a PalmOS customer or a Symbian customer, etc) or do you create a non-standard that is clunky and doesn't work?
Well yeah, but my point was that with this particular technology, there is never going to be a case where the video portion of the call is impractical. Video calls on Facetime only become impractical for reasons based on the users whims, not for any functional reason.
Thus my argument that while there may be a feature for blocking the video portion of the call (basically when you are indisposed, naked, etc.), there is no reason to have an audio-only service. Certainly no reason to have a separate second service.
It's WiFi. The network will never be that constricted that the audio alone will be a better, or more functional choice than both together. The only reason not to have video is if the user chooses to turn that portion of the communication off for personal reasons.
I (and others) don't always want to be seen. Voicetime would indeed be great feature.
Well yeah, but my point was that with this particular technology, there is never going to be a case where the video portion of the call is impractical. Video calls on Facetime only become impractical for reasons based on the users whims, not for any functional reason.
I agree with you on the 'user whim' part but I believe the people who use it will often only want to use the audio part. I use Skype all the time for business as well as pleasure because it is really convenient and inexpensive for international communication. Even though it has video we never use it. It is much more practical to use audio or even the text feature. Video is for close family and special occasions only. I takes too much work to do video. With voice you can be cooking, eating, walking around, whatever and still carry on a conversation. No need to send or receive the video data either as others have mentioned.
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.
I think it's inevitable and so far the future of cellular calls will require VoIP, even if it gets routed to the carrier's PBX as there is no provision for a dedicated voice channel in LTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
It is incorrect. A Nokia phone is a device and two Nokia phones of the same model are two devices.
But let's not split hairs here. FaceTime will be great when it is really open. For now, it isn't.
I get your point and agree that it's most correct but stand the interpretation and ambiguity of the article's statement.
That doesn't make sense. Your scenario would have 100 different inconsistent standards that wouldn't speak to each other.
Yep it is a pretty bad scenario and I agree it doesn't make sense; unfortunately, I can easily see it happening. Just look at instant text messaging. Lots of different and often propriety systems. Some can talk to each other (such as Yahoo to MSN Messenger), but if you want to reach everyone you need multiple accounts.
Quote:
Apple has released FaceTime as an open standard which could conceivably work with all phones. So if you're Google, do you use an open standard that will work when the Android user is talking to an iPhone customer (or a PalmOS customer or a Symbian customer, etc) or do you create a non-standard that is clunky and doesn't work?
Google already has video chat on the desktop. Microsoft also already has video chat on the desktop. 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'm inclined to think there's an good argument for the voice only feature too. Though if the phone companies see Facetime as a trojan horse who knows what they'll pull in trying to slow adoption unless they generate a big increase in data use when people eventually facetime via 3G. For many phone companies, mobile and mobile data is the only thing really keeping them viable.
The other thing is that whilst Apple are submitting this as a set of open standards that's really only the beginning. Microsoft have plenty of reasons why they want to keep people on MSN and not build in the open standards into their forthcoming Windows phone. The same goes for Google, RIM etc.
Open standards is great but it does nothing to compensate for the perceived or real risk that Microsoft and others will see from losing eyeballs on their products.
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.
Comments
I think I got to trade mark it VoiceTime?
*VoiceTime? is a trade mark owned by NasserAE. Using VoiceTime? without permission from NasserAE could result in lawsuits and fines (That include you Apple).
Ouch. Voicepalm.
That makes a lot of sense. I just hope Apple would create an address book category for people in my contacts who have FaceTime.
How long before Apple release VOIP service (FaceTime without video)?
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.
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.
Isn't that only disengaging the incoming video stream, not the outgoing video stream?
Just to make it totally clear that AT&T and Verizon are just dumb pipes, the the iphone and ipod touch merge into one product with the option for 4G, just like the iPad currently has an option for 3G or not. By then the Mac Books will probably have the 4G option as well. Verizon is just another ISP option.
I could be wrong, but I don't see the point in that.
If you already have video and audio, why would you want only audio?
Maybe because you're talking to someone without video? or someone who's not on WiFi? Or someone with a slow internet connection?
Question is would HTC, RIM, Nokia, Samsung, and others adopt FaceTime? Especially how Apple have pissed them off recently with the whole antenna mess.
HTC, RIM, and the rest know that they got only what they deserved. If Facetime looks like it's going to catch on, they'd be scrambling to get on board.
Even Google would get on board if they could find a way to mine your video conversations for personal information.
HTC, RIM, and the rest know that they got only what they deserved. If Facetime looks like it's going to catch on, they'd be scrambling to get on board.
Even Google would get on board if they could find a way to mine your video conversations for personal information.
I?ve heard talk of Cisco already being on board. This could mean pre-loading the needed protocols to their Linksys router firmware for ideal FaceTime chat or, perhaps, the next Flip cameras which are expected to include WiFi will add a front-facing camera for FaceTime access. If they add even the half-way decent PMP to it they could be the first real competitors Apple?s iPod line has seen in awhile, and even with just a great video cam, with WiFi for easy uploads it could still take away more than a few sales.
HTC, RIM, and the rest know that they got only what they deserved. If Facetime looks like it's going to catch on, they'd be scrambling to get on board.
Even Google would get on board if they could find a way to mine your video conversations for personal information.
They'd scramble to get onboard but not necessarily the FaceTme train. Google already has video chat for PCs as does Microsoft, Yahoo, Skype, and various others. It is quite possible HTC, RIM and the rest would go with different systems. I could easily envision a future where you'd need to download a third party app to enable video chat from an Android or Windows Phone to an iPhone.
The moment several Android phones come out with Front Facing cameras, this would be a great move by Apple. In fact, I would rather prefer an Apple Face TIme client on Android, RIM, Windows Mobile 7, etc., as opposed to some other clients that might have a shoddy implementation, giving FaceTime a bad name.
.. from building a FaceTime client for Android?
The moment several Android phones come out with Front Facing cameras, this would be a great move by Apple. In fact, I would rather prefer an Apple Face TIme client on Android, RIM, Windows Mobile 7, etc., as opposed to some other clients that might have a shoddy implementation, giving FaceTime a bad name.
I don't think Apple will, but they don't need to. Remember, at the end of the FaceTime intro Jobs announced they were submitting it for open standards approval the very next day.. It's their cake and they want everyone to eat it.
...This would give Apple a leg up on competing, proprietary video chat networks such as Skype, which currently does not support video chat from mobile devices...
...However, with Skype being the primary video chat network available, and because it does not currently officially support video chat between mobile devices...
Get your facts straight.
http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-sky...in/nokia-n900/
Get your facts straight.
http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-sky...in/nokia-n900/
I see what you are getting at and the article might be a little ambiguous bit I don't think it's incorrect as stated. Skype officially supports a Nokia phone. That's it. Not devices. It's not open and it's designed to cover all device and device types and apps that wish to utilize it.
I see what you are getting at and the article might be a little ambiguous bit I don't think it's incorrect as stated. Skype officially supports a Nokia phone. That's it. Not devices. It's not open and it's designed to cover all device and device types and apps that wish to utilize it.
It is incorrect. A Nokia phone is a device and two Nokia phones of the same model are two devices.
But let's not split hairs here. FaceTime will be great when it is really open. For now, it isn't.
They'd scramble to get onboard but not necessarily the FaceTme train. Google already has video chat for PCs as does Microsoft, Yahoo, Skype, and various others. It is quite possible HTC, RIM and the rest would go with different systems. I could easily envision a future where you'd need to download a third party app to enable video chat from an Android or Windows Phone to an iPhone.
That doesn't make sense. Your scenario would have 100 different inconsistent standards that wouldn't speak to each other.
Apple has released FaceTime as an open standard which could conceivably work with all phones. So if you're Google, do you use an open standard that will work when the Android user is talking to an iPhone customer (or a PalmOS customer or a Symbian customer, etc) or do you create a non-standard that is clunky and doesn't work?
Well yeah, but my point was that with this particular technology, there is never going to be a case where the video portion of the call is impractical. Video calls on Facetime only become impractical for reasons based on the users whims, not for any functional reason.
Thus my argument that while there may be a feature for blocking the video portion of the call (basically when you are indisposed, naked, etc.), there is no reason to have an audio-only service. Certainly no reason to have a separate second service.
It's WiFi. The network will never be that constricted that the audio alone will be a better, or more functional choice than both together. The only reason not to have video is if the user chooses to turn that portion of the communication off for personal reasons.
I (and others) don't always want to be seen. Voicetime would indeed be great feature.
Well yeah, but my point was that with this particular technology, there is never going to be a case where the video portion of the call is impractical. Video calls on Facetime only become impractical for reasons based on the users whims, not for any functional reason.
I agree with you on the 'user whim' part but I believe the people who use it will often only want to use the audio part. I use Skype all the time for business as well as pleasure because it is really convenient and inexpensive for international communication. Even though it has video we never use it. It is much more practical to use audio or even the text feature. Video is for close family and special occasions only. I takes too much work to do video. With voice you can be cooking, eating, walking around, whatever and still carry on a conversation. No need to send or receive the video data either as others have mentioned.
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.
I think it's inevitable and so far the future of cellular calls will require VoIP, even if it gets routed to the carrier's PBX as there is no provision for a dedicated voice channel in LTE.
It is incorrect. A Nokia phone is a device and two Nokia phones of the same model are two devices.
But let's not split hairs here. FaceTime will be great when it is really open. For now, it isn't.
I get your point and agree that it's most correct but stand the interpretation and ambiguity of the article's statement.
FaceTime will be great when it is really open. For now, it isn't.
Says who?
Granted, no one else is using it yet, but that doesn't mean it's not open.
That doesn't make sense. Your scenario would have 100 different inconsistent standards that wouldn't speak to each other.
Yep it is a pretty bad scenario and I agree it doesn't make sense; unfortunately, I can easily see it happening. Just look at instant text messaging. Lots of different and often propriety systems. Some can talk to each other (such as Yahoo to MSN Messenger), but if you want to reach everyone you need multiple accounts.
Apple has released FaceTime as an open standard which could conceivably work with all phones. So if you're Google, do you use an open standard that will work when the Android user is talking to an iPhone customer (or a PalmOS customer or a Symbian customer, etc) or do you create a non-standard that is clunky and doesn't work?
Google already has video chat on the desktop. Microsoft also already has video chat on the desktop. 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?
The other thing is that whilst Apple are submitting this as a set of open standards that's really only the beginning. Microsoft have plenty of reasons why they want to keep people on MSN and not build in the open standards into their forthcoming Windows phone. The same goes for Google, RIM etc.
Open standards is great but it does nothing to compensate for the perceived or real risk that Microsoft and others will see from losing eyeballs on their products.
@ 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.