Apple is trying to reinvent group audio chat with no cell or WiFi needed

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware

Apple is developing technology that would allow any number of willing people in close proximity to start an audio chat, using only an iPhone and a headset like AirPods, with no WiFi or cell service needed.

Two figures with headsets, connected to wireless transceivers and communication modules. Arrows illustrate audio communication between them.
Using an iPhone and a headset, many people could talk with others nearby.



Instantaneous communication like the Walkie-Talkie feature on the Apple Watch would be possible but with groups of people instead of individuals.

Unlike the Walkie-Talkie feature, this new technology would eliminate the roundtrip to Apple's cloud servers, a step that makes Walkie-Talkie unreliable at times. Also, unlike Walkie-Talkie, this would allow groups of willing people to talk to each other simultaneously.

In a newly published patent application Apple details a system for person-to-person communications directly between devices that would communicate directly rather than using the internet to transmit messages.

This technology would usher in a new communication experience, allowing users to select one or more people to talk to with seamless functionality, using only the iPhone in their pocket.

In practice, this would function much like AirDrop, but for conversations. With AirDrop, iPhone users can connect to another user and share files without needing to connect to a network or use the cloud for transmission. This proposed technology would allow one-to-many connections, where all group members can talk to each other at the same time.

For example, a group of people at a crowded festival could communicate with each other to discuss where they are going to meet up. The iPhone would display how close people are based on the same technology that shows the direction and distance to your AirTag.

Apple's Ultra Wide Band (UWB) technology already allows the iPhone and Apple Watch to detect the location of a person or object. UWB works a bit like echolocation, sending out radio waves and measuring the return signals.

The UWB chip is what gives iOS and watchOS the ability to get compass like directions to devices like the AirTag and get a live update of the distance.

This could also be used to meet new people. Those same festival goers could chat with other willing attendees, sharing tips or providing guidance on the best things to do. The distance and direction to other people could help groups meet up.

Diagram of multiple stick figures in a grid pattern, with arrows indicating communication between them and external nodes.
Apple's system could allow groups to talk to anyone nearby.



Another powerful use would be in emergency response situations. Teams could coordinate without needing the same physical walkie-talkie system and frequencies.

Cell phone networks are often overloaded or not functional in an emergency. Apple's technology would allow coordination even if cell connections are down.

The patent shows an interface where nearby people are displayed in a proximity circle. People inside the main circle are closest, and people farther away are shown in a larger circle.

The rings of the circle indicate the distance that this ad-hoc network between people would work.

Like AirDrop, the new technology would allow people to add members to the chat even if they're not in a user's contact list. People known to the user would display their names, while unknown people would also appear on the interface based solely on distance.

Simply tapping on a name would add someone to the conversation, and users could tap as many nearby people as they'd like. People could be added to a conversation as they came into range.

Presumably, unknown people could share a contact card and photo, like when you start a Message conversation with a group.

The patent application specifically shows an iPhone and a headset as the central technology for this to work. Still, it's not difficult to imagine using headsets like the Apple Vision Pro for these point-to-point communications.

As these systems get smaller, perhaps to the size of the much-rumored Apple glasses, having the ability to chat with people in your area directly would become even easier.

The patent application is credited to Esge B. Andersen and Cedrik Bacon. Andersen filed the original patent in 2022 with the same name.



Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,104member
    Perhaps more precisely: 'Apple is trying to reinvent group audio chat with no cell or WiFi network needed'.

    I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that the devices would link directly using the iPhones' WiFi radios. 
    beowulfschmidtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 13
    I have been hoping for years that walkie-talkie would be exported to AirPods.  

    My vision was that one could create ad hoc voice groups in small geographies that allowed regular people to have the same sort of always on communications as you see for security teams (like in the movies, but in less exciting situations).  My use case was for situations like crowds or walking with a group down a city street where, with noise cancellation, you could have a conversation without yelling or needing to stand right next to someone.  

    And, in some future vision, if AI got good enough, it might be able to guess whom you were speaking with (maybe the start of the conversation is with all but then narrows to a pair when obvious whom the participants are).  And dynamically adjust volume so others can sort of hear but assume they don't really need to pay attention until context makes it clear that something was meant for everyone.
    darbus69shaminoAppleZuluwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 13
    shaminoshamino Posts: 533member
    AppleZulu said:
    I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that the devices would link directly using the iPhones' WiFi radios. 
    The article and the abstract of the patent say just that.  The devices establish a connection over an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network, much like how AirDrop works.
    My vision was that one could create ad hoc voice groups in small geographies that allowed regular people to have the same sort of always on communications as you see for security teams (like in the movies, but in less exciting situations).  My use case was for situations like crowds or walking with a group down a city street where, with noise cancellation, you could have a conversation without yelling or needing to stand right next to someone.
    The patent has several diagrams of a hypothetical UI.  See the collection of "Figure 6" drawings, and text starting from paragraph 95 (page 12).

    From my quick scan of the text, they are describing a UI where you are an icon in the center of the screen.  Surrounded by two circles, one representing the range within which you can detect people and open connections (e.g. Wi-Fi range), and an outer one representing the range within which you can detect people but not open ad-hoc network connections (e.g. Ultra Wideband range).  Nearby people are presented as icons in locations corresponding to their distance and direction from you.

    It then depicts you tapping on a person to initiate a conversation, the other person getting a confirmation, after which a connection is established.  They seem to be describing a separate point-to-point ad-hoc network link for each such conversation.

    They also depict connections over a public network to reach users further away than an ad-hoc network can reach, but without (I think) going through a central server.  Basically a peer-to-peer Internet link.

    It looks like they are deliberately not establishing multicast connections for group conversations, but are sticking with multiple unicast connections.  Which probably makes sense since you may want to selectively add/drop people, have multiple private conversations, and permit roaming/handoff between networks as your peers move closer and further away.

    If the UI for this feature is sufficiently, convenient, this could easily implement your vision.
    edited July 11 ForumPostwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 13
    mpantonempantone Posts: 2,108member
    AppleZulu said:
    Perhaps more precisely: 'Apple is trying to reinvent group audio chat with no cell or WiFi network needed'.

    I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that the devices would link directly using the iPhones' WiFi radios. 
    This walkie talkie function could easily be done over Bluetooth networking. We already know that Bluetooth is perfectly capable of handling audio data transfer.

    And we know that Bluetooth works fine without WiFi or cellular data connectivity. Just switch your phone to airplane mode then enable Bluetooth.
    edited July 11
  • Reply 5 of 13
    So….FireChat?
    NotSoMuch
  • Reply 6 of 13
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 2,928member
    So… like Ericsson did decades ago? 
    nubusNotSoMuch
  • Reply 7 of 13
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,104member
    mpantone said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Perhaps more precisely: 'Apple is trying to reinvent group audio chat with no cell or WiFi network needed'.

    I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that the devices would link directly using the iPhones' WiFi radios. 
    This walkie talkie function could easily be done over Bluetooth networking. We already know that Bluetooth is perfectly capable of handling audio data transfer.

    And we know that Bluetooth works fine without WiFi or cellular data connectivity. Just switch your phone to airplane mode then enable Bluetooth.
    WiFi has greater range and capability of transmitting through walls and other obstacles, but sure, go with Bluetooth if that doesn’t matter to you. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 13
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,400member
    I can see this being popular on planes of all sizes. 
    It would be good if they allowed an emergency broadcast frequency so to speak. 


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 13
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,406member
    So… like Ericsson did decades ago? 
    It does seem to be similar in utility to the old Nextel push to talk feature that also didn't need cellular. After a hurricane knocked out cell systems here in Florida years ago, the Nextel/Sprint feature kept some of us in touch. Us oldies surely remember, but the younger iPhone users probably never heard of it. 
    https://www.rent2way.com/sprint-nextel-walkie-talkie/
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 13
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,104member
    I have been hoping for years that walkie-talkie would be exported to AirPods.  

    My vision was that one could create ad hoc voice groups in small geographies that allowed regular people to have the same sort of always on communications as you see for security teams (like in the movies, but in less exciting situations).  My use case was for situations like crowds or walking with a group down a city street where, with noise cancellation, you could have a conversation without yelling or needing to stand right next to someone.  

    And, in some future vision, if AI got good enough, it might be able to guess whom you were speaking with (maybe the start of the conversation is with all but then narrows to a pair when obvious whom the participants are).  And dynamically adjust volume so others can sort of hear but assume they don't really need to pay attention until context makes it clear that something was meant for everyone.
    With the noise level in a lot of restaurants, this could perhaps be useful for carrying on conversations with others at your table. As I think about it, though, a side effect of background noise cancellation and close-miked voice isolation could be amplified lip-smacking, chewing and swallowing, so that could be a little gross.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 13
    I've spent a bit of time working on an app which does this using Bluetooth LE (so I'm kind of hoping that would count as prior art re. the patent application...). It's still a little rough - but works on Android and iOS and is available in the respective app stores 'Murmur : Bluetooth Group Calls'. I've been using it for cycling with my family.

    Of course Apple can use Coded Phy for increased range, and send BLE advertisements when the screen is off - so their implementation will likely be free of the artificial restrictions on iOS.




    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 13
    AppleZulu said:
    WiFi has greater range and capability of transmitting through walls and other obstacles, but sure, go with Bluetooth if that doesn’t matter to you. 
    This isn't true - Both use 2.4GHz (and 5GHz does not go through walls anywhere near as well). Your WiFi router likely has a huge antennae on it which isn't really a fair fight - try using the WiFi hotspot from a phone for a fair comparison.

    There are also two levels of 'long range' in Bluetooth 5 - Coded Phy S2 and S8. They increase the range between handsets to ~100m. Apple doesn't expose these to developers for use in iOS - but all iPhones since iPhone X support it (they were briefly available in an iOS 13 beta I think). Android does have APIs for using these long range modes. From first hand experiments - Bluetooth LE Coded Phy S8 travels further than a WiFi hotspot from the same phone.
    muthuk_vanalingamgatorguyavon b7watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 13
    shaminoshamino Posts: 533member
    jallison said:

    There are also two levels of 'long range' in Bluetooth 5 - Coded Phy S2 and S8. They increase the range between handsets to ~100m.
    Yes, but as with all things, there are tradeoffs.

    The Coded Phy systems gain greater range and reliability through transmission of additional (quite a lot of) error-correcting data.  So the overall bandwidth goes way down.  The high-speed 2Mbps data rate has a range of about 80% of the "standard" 1Mbps rate.  The Coded S2 PHY doubles the range, but cuts the bandwidth in half - to 500 kbps.  Coded S8 doubles that range (4x the standard range), but reduces the bandwidth by another 75% - to 125 kbps.

    Now, 125 kbps is sufficient for a voice call (voice land lines digitize to 56 kbps), but would that be enough for modern users who are used to the quality of a VoLTE call?




    muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.