Inside iPhone 4: FaceTime video calling

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 94
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post


    1. I was listening to Macbreak Weekly today and Andy Ihnatko seemed to believe, from undisclosed sources, that it was more of an issue with the iPhone than AT&T in regards to dropped calls. I'm not sure either way but it would jive with previous stories.



    News of this came out in late December from the UK's O2.



    According to O2 and as I recall, the iPhone was apparently sending excessive polling requests to the network. While this wouldn't be an issue on it's own, even though it's not correct, when you have an excessive number of these devices doing this the situation gets out of hand. I read that O2 had contacted AT&T and Apple and that Apple is now an expert in this area.



    Of course, that could all BS to keep the blame off them, but I have to believe that Apple has learned a lot in a short time and likely could learn a lot from these telcos.



    Quote:

    2. Considering the recent data cap and possible loss of exclusivity next year, there doesn't seem any reason to believe that video calling over 3G will happen in the foreseeable future. While many for now have no problems with the data cap, we are starting to see the ramifications before 4.0 is even released.



    To me, it seems likely that this will come to 3G more quickly because of the data cap since it's less likely for this service to abuse the network. Can the backend of AT&T handle it with projected sales of the iPhone in 2011? I hope so. Will they charge outrageous fees, like with SMS/MMS, on top of data fees like telcos that offer video conferenceing have been doing? I hope not.
  • Reply 22 of 94
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    The iPhone [...] already support video calls via Skype.



    Oh really? Video calls??? How?
  • Reply 23 of 94
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleSwitcher View Post


    Oh really? Video calls??? How?



    Technically, it's available however imperfect.
  • Reply 24 of 94
    skochanskochan Posts: 5member
    Excellent insight into Apple's motivation for promoting open standards.



    Cheers,



    Steve Kochan
  • Reply 25 of 94
    Of course there is the minor matter that every other 3g phone on the planet already does video calling. It is another standard part of the 3GPP specs that Apple fails to implement.
  • Reply 26 of 94
    avidfcpavidfcp Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maccherry View Post


    Video calling is crap anyway!



    My mom, dad, brother and sisters are 3200 miles away. I would enjoy sending then an iPhone 4g that they can all share to talk to me and my wife

    I just hope our pan rates gi down and since it's on wifi, the call should be free, especialy if you are adding lines and I hope it does not cost anything for facetime.
  • Reply 27 of 94
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jodyfanning View Post


    RDF strikes again

    Of course there is the minor matter that every other 3g phone on the planet already does video calling. It is another standard part of the 3GPP specs that Apple fails to implement.



    It doesn't sound like Apple didn't failed to implement it, but choose not implement it. 3GPP standards or not, the iPhone is undeniably using considerably more bandwidth than any other phone on the market. With sales presumed to skyrocket even more this year I wouldn't think it wise to unleash that on the carriers.



    There could also be issues they don't like about 3GPPs video conferencing. So far this hasn't been a great feature on phone I can recall. Consumer video conferencing in general has been for decades and it's still never gotten a foothold.



    Perhaps they want this to be a real and useful feature on phones finally; they don't want poor quality that is costly to the user so they are making it WiFi-only for now and making it an open standards. Jobs did say it will be WiFi-only through 2010, perhaps this is a warning shot to carriers.



    Maybe you're right. Maybe Apple did try to implement 3GPP's method and failed at, but that to me seems less likely than Apple trying to take a technology that has failed to become viable and redesign it to be useful. This wouldn't be the first time they've done exactly that.
  • Reply 28 of 94
    avidfcpavidfcp Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skochan View Post


    Excellent insight into Apple's motivation for promoting open standards.



    Cheers,



    Steve Kochan



    I still think apple is missing the midrange desktop with pci cards or at least express skots for the prosumer audio/ editor types. 4-8 cores. I7. Non ECC Ram. Headless. Look how many music software apps and video apps there are. The user base is huge. That said, I would like to see appe start to develop iWeb into a pro product. Work on fcp and logic updates allthe time. Don't let titles die and make motionas string as after effects.
  • Reply 29 of 94
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    it seems doubtful, but if it becomes a popular feature I can see FaceTime evolving over time to offer group chat like other A/V chats.



    The FaceTime display layout suggests up to 5, 7 or even 9 people could possibly be part of a videoconference call with all participants visible... maybe in a future iteration.
  • Reply 30 of 94
    libertyforalllibertyforall Posts: 1,398member
    I see no reason the iPhone 3GS should not also have Facetime support, even though it has just one camera...
  • Reply 31 of 94
    funkdisfunkdis Posts: 41member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post


    My mom, dad, brother and sisters are 3200 miles away. I would enjoy sending then an iPhone 4g that they can all share to talk to me and my wife

    I just hope our pan rates gi down and since it's on wifi, the call should be free, especialy if you are adding lines and I hope it does not cost anything for facetime.





    I did this in 2003 when 3g was released in Australia while living in another city, the gimmick wore off between my mum and I after about 5 video calls, it was just a hassle.



    HOWEVER that was phone to phone, if video calling will be supported by computers < -> phone that would be more useful in terms of video conferencing, business conferences.



    for now, iphone to iphone video calls are worse than 2004 when video calling actually worked with different phones and carriers.
  • Reply 32 of 94
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    i sure hope Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc. take advantage of this "Open" Tech and create their own Apps for video chat. MSN Messenger, Google Talk (meaning a REAL iPhone App, not this Google Mobile App crap that is out now), AIM I hope they all take advantage. Seems like a no-brainer. And, i hope this will support iPhone <=> iChat calls as well...Probably not right at launch, but i'd say in the next year or so we could see cross-platform compatibility?



    Fingers Crossed!!!
  • Reply 33 of 94
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    No offence and maybe you didn't intend it to come across this way, but this just sounds like a lot of whiny griping to me.



    First off, the product was only announced yesterday and isn't even available yet, you might want to hold your long feature request list until the product actually arrives?



    you know, i hear this response on AI all the time..."just wait 'till the release, it just came out". Well, you know what? Things don't really change between the demo and roll out. I'd love to see a list of examples on how the Demo/Press Release is any different from the Roll-out product. It took Apple to Generation 4 of the iPhone to put a forward facing camera; even though the fanboys/girls out there have been "requesting" one be included since Generation 1 iPhone.



    As if Apple (or SJ) reads all our comments and feverishly works his "Geniuses" to the bone to update the product to meet the consumer "wish-lists" by launch. Believe me, i have my want list as well, and that's my entitled opinion; but i certainly am not holding my breath for some magic/mystery/non-existent new features included at launch.



    It's as if the enthusiast community thinks know more/better than the "Geniuses" at Apple. I'm sure Apple has perfectly good reasons for including some features and not others; or addressing certain things and not others.



    And don't say "no offence", then bust someone's chops. Saying "no offence" is just a cop-out. If you're gonna call-someone out, do it full bore, mang! It doesn't sweeten anything when the next statement is completely negative and insulting to one's particular opinion; which they are completely entitled to on AI or any other fansite.
  • Reply 34 of 94
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    Facetime ? such a great name, I truly hope they rebrand iChat to Facetime as well



    About the design of the new iPhone: it seems I will have to eat all my words. That's going to be a hell of a dinner/supper
  • Reply 35 of 94
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mr O View Post


    Facetime ? such a great name, I truly hope they rebrand iChat to Facetime as well



    It makes me wonder: it'd be great if you could iChat/facetime directly from your iMac to an iPhone 4? That would dramatically expand the use of Facetime, wouldn't it?
  • Reply 36 of 94
    cedriccedric Posts: 28member




    Cam Cardow, The Ottawa Citizen
  • Reply 37 of 94
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Technically, it's available however imperfect.



    Oh, ok, but that's not what I meant... I thought of a video call as being 2-way... but anyway, that just proves that Skype would be more than ready to make good use of the front-facing camera in the iPhone...



    And that's the one big question here: is Apple going to allow the front-facing cam to be used by the Skype app? No, I don't think it is anytime soon, and I think the article doesn't cover this important matter properly.



    If Apple did allow it, since Skype already works over wifi and 3G, then it would be a win for Skype's proprietary tech, because it would kill FaceTime before it could take-off. I know that you need a login, and a buddy list, and a separate app and blah blah, but FaceTime currently needs you to place a call and keep it burning your pocket too, while Skype-to-Skype calls on iOS4 (keeps you logged in) would probably be great and totally free on wifi.



    I live in HK, have relatives in Europe and South America and friends all over that I love to Skype with (on my Mac). Would be great to do video call them with the iPhone. But I will never FaceTime them because of the international call rates. Besides, usually when people wanna video-call each other, it may be that they have something to quickly show, but most of the times they just want to chat, catch-up etc, and these calls are usually long-distance and long-duration, so they are not ideal to be locked to an expensive voice call. Quick practical calls, which are the cheap ones, I don't need video for.



    Although Skype may be proprietary, it is great, and as the article says, it accomplishes something Apple never could with open standards in iChat, which is the sureness of the voice and video connection over the internet. I tried iChat many times and although the quality of the image is great, many times I just can't connect the video or even voice call.



    From what I understand, Apple got FaceTime to be reliable (I'm sure it will be) by using the voice call to help make the link that allows for video over the wifi (data) network. They probably still can't make it work properly over data only, like iChat can't and Skype can.



    So, it is anticompetitive if Apple doesn't allow Skype to use the iPhone cam like it does on the Mac. It's in favor of promoting open standards, but in this case, it is at the expense of the consumer, because Skype would be so much better, for not depending on voice calls.



    That said, I love iPhone 4 and will get it as soon as it comes, but not for this feature. I'm sure it is the killer feature for the hearing impaired people. But calls like that one from the pregnant wife to the soldier in the middle-east would cost a fortune. I think we are still a long way from being comfortably set in the Jetsons reality.



    UPDATE: If upon activating FaceTime you go exclusively to WiFi and stop spending voice minutes, then I'll bite my tongue. Can anybody confirm if it does or doesn't?
  • Reply 38 of 94
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member


    Knowledge (useless) hurricane, as usual. NAT-tschnat...



    Until recently, carriers plainly & simply kept SIP ports closed on 3G networks. For everyone everywhere. It's got started changing just some months ago. But common observation has it telco guys now manage to narrow the bandwidth to odious values, hence the disgusting video call quality...
  • Reply 39 of 94
    eauviveeauvive Posts: 237member
    I wonder when at last IPv6 will be deployed. It is, after all, the only elegant solution to those kinds of technical hurdles caused by NAT. Get free of NATs, use IPv6 !
  • Reply 40 of 94
    shubiduashubidua Posts: 157member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CU10 View Post






    Also, iPod touch update with video chat would be welcome.



    I was thinking about that too, but they called FIRST, and then they started facetime. Any thoughts on that?



    That's why I don't see them putting it on the Mac either, unless you have a phone in the app, and then switch to facetime.



    Another question is whether the phone connection is maintained or not during the process?
Sign In or Register to comment.