Controversial theory as to why iPhone hasn't got iChat app yet.
Whether or not the iPhone has iChat doesn't make as much of a difference to AT&T as people think. Either way they still get their monthly fee - they still make their money.
I happen to think a possible reason why iPhone has no iChat yet is a more complex one. Lots of iPhone users are Windows users. So, when (and I think it's only a timing issue) iChat is added to the iPhone, I think it's more than a 50% possibility we will see iChat 4.0 released for Windows at the same time. Don't laugh, you may be shocked if it happens, but it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibilities. First iTunes, then Safari, now iChat.
How else would Apple ensure that they could control the experience? Bedsides, releasing iChat for Windows would be good for Apple, good for iChatting Mac users, and good for Windows users who want to chat seamlessly with both P.C., Mac and iPhone users? Don't bring the mountain to Muhammed, bring Muhammed to the mountain.
I happen to think a possible reason why iPhone has no iChat yet is a more complex one. Lots of iPhone users are Windows users. So, when (and I think it's only a timing issue) iChat is added to the iPhone, I think it's more than a 50% possibility we will see iChat 4.0 released for Windows at the same time. Don't laugh, you may be shocked if it happens, but it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibilities. First iTunes, then Safari, now iChat.
How else would Apple ensure that they could control the experience? Bedsides, releasing iChat for Windows would be good for Apple, good for iChatting Mac users, and good for Windows users who want to chat seamlessly with both P.C., Mac and iPhone users? Don't bring the mountain to Muhammed, bring Muhammed to the mountain.
Comments
While iPhone is actively transferring data over EDGE—downloading a webpage, for example—you may not be able to receive calls. Incoming calls may go to voicemail.
Unless you are connected to AT&T's NOM1 tower, which aren't as common as NOM2, an active connection to instant messaging server (via EDGE) will disrupt all incoming voice calls.
I think the answer is even simpler than that:
Unless you are connected to AT&T's NOM1 tower, which aren't as common as NOM2, an active connection to instant messaging server (via EDGE) will disrupt all incoming voice calls.
Although that's true, it's also Apple's fault for not using a Class A EDGE radio in the iPhone, as that can handle both.
I suppose, like the iTunes WiFi Store you could lock iChat so it only works on WiFi.
I happen to think a possible reason why iPhone has no iChat yet is a more complex one. Lots of iPhone users are Windows users. So, when (and I think it's only a timing issue) iChat is added to the iPhone, I think it's more than a 50% possibility we will see iChat 4.0 released for Windows at the same time. Don't laugh, you may be shocked if it happens, but it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibilities. First iTunes, then Safari, now iChat.
Interesting theory. iChat isn't like iLife, a defining feature of why you should a Mac, so I figure it's doable.
As for locking iChat to WiFi, would there be any less griping about it if it were available that way?
And, of course it's Apple's "fault" for not using Class A EDGE; that doesn't mean it's not the explanation for why iChat isn't on iPhone. I guess they figured the cost/power savings of going with a crummier radio were more important than iChat.
Apple has repeatly said that they don't want apps bring down the network. What the hell does Apple care about the network uptime. They already have your money. But I think AT&T would care though.
iChat is the biggest complaint I have about the iPhone. Even if it just updated the buddylist every couple minutes like your email then that would suffice.
As for locking iChat to WiFi, would there be any less griping about it if it were available that way?
And, of course it's Apple's "fault" for not using Class A EDGE; that doesn't mean it's not the explanation for why iChat isn't on iPhone. I guess they figured the cost/power savings of going with a crummier radio were more important than iChat.
Shrug. No idea, but it wouldn't screw with voice calls. Perhaps locked to WiFi by default, and if you change it a little pop-up bubble tells you the consequences.
It's Apple's 'fault' for choosing cost of radio over ease of use for the customer, yes, but since I believe Class B radios are much more common (thus cheaper, and more widely available) it's a reasonable thing for a big corporation to do.
That said I can't imagine a Class A EDGE radio having more than a very marginal impact on price, so perhaps they simply couldn't find a manufacture they liked enough.
I have always thought that the reason why there is no iPhone SDK is because of AT&T and not Apple.
Apple has repeatly said that they don't want apps bring down the network. What the hell does Apple care about the network uptime. They already have your money. But I think AT&T would care though.
That is one of Job's red herrings.
If AT&T didn't want 3rd party apps 'bringing down their network' then they also would ban 3rd party applications on the Symbian, Palm and Windows Mobile phones they also sell. I'd imagine AT&T would be in big trouble if it was possible for one handset to bring down it's network.
The correct answer is Apple isn't ready to let in 3rd party developers as the iPhone OS is still, at best, beta quality and constantly changing still. There's no SDK and no API nailed down yet. While it's only Apple (and Google) developing for it, they can change the API as they want without repercussions. Whether they'll ever let 3rd parties in is another question.
Or maybe AT&T put the kybosh on using one of these Class A EDGE radios because they didn't want their bandwidth / network upgrade costs increasing while at the same time lowering data access charges with the iPhone rollout.
The Sidekick, if I recall correctly, used a Class A radio.
I have always thought that the reason why there is no iPhone SDK is because of AT&T and not Apple.
Apple has repeatly said that they don't want apps bring down the network. What the hell does Apple care about the network uptime. They already have your money. But I think AT&T would care though.
Aegisdesign is right. A At&T exec even said in an interview that, from their side, there is no reason why Apple can't allow 3rd party apps. It's Apple. I really think that Apple isn't totally sure what they're doing and are making things up as they go along to a great extent. I also feel strongly that Leopard was holding the iPhone software back in the same way the iPhone held up Leopard.
There is currently no SDK or framework or set of guidelines for iPhone apps. Developing that sort of documentation and meta-applications is a task quite separate from making iPhone's OS and applications. Apple has obviously been very busy working on iPhone and its apps; putting together a playground for developers to use to create their own iPhone apps won't only be a strategic feat, but a production one as well.
We all realize that many a developer at Apple has worked furiously on iPhone and Leopard, and I'm sure that some have also been working on an iPhone SDK (while Jobs & Co. are also thinking about how they want to present said SDK to the world).
If it were only a strategic matter and Apple decided to allow 3rd party apps, what would their next step be? Simply saying "ok go"? Apple probably doesn't want to simply "allow" 3rd party iPhone apps; they also want to provide guidelines and tools (and limits, set by strategic goals).
This means that it's going to take time, and that's exactly what Jobs has said multiple times. The alternatives were:
1) Allowing 3rd party development without providing any assistance to the developers, resulting in the strange menagerie of apps currently available for iPhone (or at least they were available before the last update)
2) Delaying iPhone until its hardware, software, and SDK were ready.
You could argue that the former is what happened anyway; Apple isn't "forbidding" 3rd party apps, they're just not making any effort to support them.
For years I've wondered why it hasn't taken off. Sparked whole communities of people using it. Video conferencing has never looked so good....and yet...nada.
I too am surprised Apple didn't push for ichat to be the must have app on the iphone. Its like a marriage made in heaven. Imagine video chatting with your friends on your iphone? It would instantly become the ipod of the cell phone market. 10 million units? Ha! Try 100 million.
Seriously.
Why haven't they made an ichat version for windows yet? Macs run both windows and mac apps now. It'd be a home run.
Anyway...somethin to think about. :-)
So your theory that AT&T wouldn't like ichat doesn't make sense. (no offense). :-)
I mean...FLASH and the internet go together like peanut butter & jelly.
It must be something to do with Adobe.
Because a wifi device that surfs the web, BUT yet can't run flash or show webpages that use flash...is definitely a negative.
Don't get me wrong, I love Apple and have only ever used a mac...and I'll be getting the ipod touch for sure. Its just strange...I mean why not include everything that will ensure complete and total smooth internet experience since its a wifi device and runs osx and safari.
Anyway...no biggie...I'll just down load the flash software update when its available. :-)
I dunno about that. There has got to be a better reason.
I mean...FLASH and the internet go together like peanut butter & jelly.
It must be something to do with Adobe.
Because a wifi device that surfs the web, BUT yet can't run flash or show webpages that use flash...is definitely a negative.
Don't get me wrong, I love Apple and have only ever used a mac...and I'll be getting the ipod touch for sure. Its just strange...I mean why not include everything that will ensure complete and total smooth internet experience since its a wifi device and runs osx and safari.
Anyway...no biggie...I'll just down load the flash software update when its available. :-)
Why does it have to be contraversial?
Nokia S60 devices have had Adobe flashlite player for years now yet they still dont have the flash plugins so what does that tell you? Nothing
You talk about goign together like peanut butter and jelly.
Well youtube goes together with video blogging but wait......theres no video recording or method to picture blog.
A2DP Bluetooth profiles and modern media centric phones go together but wait.......theres no such profile on the iphone.
Portable storage devices go together with mass storage mode for easy access but wait......we have to use itunes.
This isnt a moan, just to tell you to stop moaning and stop looking for contraversial reasons for something your finally upset about with the iphone. If you think this is bad wait till it hits the UK.
I am not one of those Apple heads who do that. I mean, if I had waited online and bought the iphone the day it came out and then the price dropped $200 2 months later...I wouldn't be one of those whinny people.
I totally understand what Apple is doing. By not including everything, they have room to grow.
I will buy the ipod touch and be totally happy with it, just like all the apple products I've bought.
I was just pointing out some areas I look forward to them imroving on. :-)