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's worth considering how video calling via UMTS works before panning Apple. I also think it's worth including some of these details in the main article to (possibly) explain why Apple hasn't chosen to implement the UMTS 'standard' for video calling.
First, a little background. Back in 2003 I worked as an architect for one of the large UK network operators. At this time, the initial roll out of UMTS had been completed, and some 3G handsets were coming on to the market. One of my projects was to assure the solution for provisioning and delivering video calling. I have since left that industry, and it's entirely possible that video calling has advanced since then. Having said that, seeing standard UMTS video calling, I doubt it.
Firstly, current IP networks just do not support video calling very well. Unlike streaming audio or video that can be buffered on the client side, voice calling cannot -- you'd end up with the classic 'satellite delay' issue. See Clive James circa late 80s early 90s for reference! Secondly, you really need a synchronous connection -- the same amount of video is going in both directions, uplink and downlink. Most DSL and high speed packet access wireless networks are asynchronous (with a much faster downlink than uplink). So, taking both these into account, the wireless industry took the seemingly unusual step of deciding to deliver UMTS video calling over a synchronous circuit switched data (CSD) network.
CSD? Sounds a bit 20th Century. Well, it is. But it does get rid of the delay problem of IP4 networks. Sadly, CSD over UMTS cannot support very high data rates. If I recall correctly, we provisioned video calling on the network with a quality of service (QoS) that resulted in 64kbs synchronous. Very very low bandwidth, in other words. On top of this, a highly compressed video codec was chosen (H.263 simple profile). All this is wrapped up in the 3G-324M protocol.
The CSD nature of the bearer means that it's very difficult to interoperate UMTS video calling with IP based systems such as Skype or iChat. This either needs some serious kit on the network operator or IP video calling suppliers end. Frankly not worth it.
This weird hybrid low bandwidth data connection results in the very poor quality of UMTS video calls, and partly explains why it hasn't taken off (I remember my recommendation at the time -- despite using a very low res screen on a cheap Samsung phone for testing -- was that VC wasn't ready for production).
While some IP based video calling applications are available for smartphones, they generally just use the standard data bearer provided by your network. and suffer the same QoS issues that don't matter so much for email and web browsing. This is why these are currently crap.
So, I can understand why Apple didn't want to follow either of the above routes. FaceTime seems to have the following goals:
Interoperate (eventually) with Internet VC (e.g. iChat, AIM, possibly Skype)
Provide a higher bandwidth than is possible via CSD UMTS video calling (thus higher resolution, faster frame-rates, and better colour than 3G-324M)
Provide specific QoS commensurate with the needs of VC (which is what I guess Apple is working with AT&T on)
If others have more up to date information on VC on mobile, I'm happy to be corrected. But, before people have a go at Apple, or claim they've had VC on their {insert name of crappy Nokia handset here} for years, please try and understand the issues...
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?
Yes, that is also my question. If the phone call is used just to start-up the FaceTime over wifi, then this would be awesome for us consumers, since we wouldn't have to maintain expensive voice calls; awesome for Apple, because they would really get us heavy-using their new open standard; awful for the mobile network operators, because we would spend less on calls. They would have to really rush for improving their networks and allowing FaceTime over 3G in order to at least collect data usage from us. That would eventually make them mobile bandwidth providers and en up burying normal voice calling once the connection / NAT issues are resolved with wide implementation of IPv6.
That would be too good to be true, I'm afraid... If the phone call needs to be maintained, and on top of it we can only do it over wifi, then FaceTime is not really an alternative to Skype, and I think the real use of it will be very limited.
It's worth considering how video calling via UMTS works before panning Apple. I also think it's worth including some of these details in the main article to (possibly) explain why Apple hasn't chosen to implement the UMTS 'standard' for video calling.
First, a little background. Back in 2003 I worked as an architect for one of the large UK network operators. At this time, the initial roll out of UMTS had been completed, and some 3G handsets were coming on to the market. One of my projects was to assure the solution for provisioning and delivering video calling. I have since left that industry, and it's entirely possible that video calling has advanced since then. Having said that, seeing standard UMTS video calling, I doubt it.
Firstly, current IP networks just do not support video calling very well. Unlike streaming audio or video that can be buffered on the client side, voice calling cannot -- you'd end up with the classic 'satellite delay' issue. See Clive James circa late 80s early 90s for reference! Secondly, you really need a synchronous connection -- the same amount of video is going in both directions, uplink and downlink. Most DSL and high speed packet access wireless networks are asynchronous (with a much faster downlink than uplink). So, taking both these into account, the wireless industry took the seemingly unusual step of deciding to deliver UMTS video calling over a synchronous circuit switched data (CSD) network.
CSD? Sounds a bit 20th Century. Well, it is. But it does get rid of the delay problem of IP4 networks. Sadly, CSD over UMTS cannot support very high data rates. If I recall correctly, we provisioned video calling on the network with a quality of service (QoS) that resulted in 64kbs synchronous. Very very low bandwidth, in other words. On top of this, a highly compressed video codec was chosen (H.263 simple profile). All this is wrapped up in the 3G-324M protocol.
The CSD nature of the bearer means that it's very difficult to interoperate UMTS video calling with IP based systems such as Skype or iChat. This either needs some serious kit on the network operator or IP video calling suppliers end. Frankly not worth it.
This weird hybrid low bandwidth data connection results in the very poor quality of UMTS video calls, and partly explains why it hasn't taken off (I remember my recommendation at the time -- despite using a very low res screen on a cheap Samsung phone for testing -- was that VC wasn't ready for production).
While some IP based video calling applications are available for smartphones, they generally just use the standard data bearer provided by your network. and suffer the same QoS issues that don't matter so much for email and web browsing. This is why these are currently crap.
So, I can understand why Apple didn't want to follow either of the above routes. FaceTime seems to have the following goals:
Interoperate (eventually) with Internet VC (e.g. iChat, AIM, possibly Skype)
Provide a higher bandwidth than is possible via CSD UMTS video calling (thus higher resolution, faster frame-rates, and better colour than 3G-324M)
Provide specific QoS commensurate with the needs of VC (which is what I guess Apple is working with AT&T on)
If others have more up to date information on VC on mobile, I'm happy to be corrected. But, before people have a go at Apple, or claim they've had VC on their {insert name of crappy Nokia handset here} for years, please try and understand the issues...
I guess they can use HSPA for vcalling, and not CS?! That's IP afterall, gives a good enough uplink bandwidth for a video session, so it shall work... I guess.
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.
iWeb Pro would be very welcome. Since Adobe took over Macromedia they have racked up their prices beyond belief. Also, I know it's off topic but what happened to iLife 10 and iWork 10? Is Apple going to keep it's annual updates or do we have to wait until 2011 instead?
i was sure that apple was going to release iChat along with the new iphone. hopefully they will release it this fall when along with itunes-in-the-cloud and free basic mobile me. fingers crossed!
Apple wants to make mobile video chat an open standard for interoperable video chat sessions, so it adopted the neutral FaceTime name rather than calling the service iChat, which is very much an Apple-sounding name.
Great article, but you don't see the relation between QuickTime (very "Apple-sounding") and FaceTime? That was my first association upon hearing that name.
Apple similarly pushed Internet email on the iPhone in preference to SMS and MMS mobile standards, which continue to charge archaic per message fees wildly out of proportion to the actual amount of data they deliver.
No they do not.
To get E-Mail to replace SMS/MMS you need to get your E-Mail rigth away.
They have suport for MS Exchange. but most mail servers do not support that (Not an Open Standart)
So they need to support IDLE-IMAP/PUSH-IMAP
And they need to do it on sub folders as well.
(There MS Exchange has the same problem)
If you run mail filters on your mail server, you wont get notic real time, if the mail go to a sub folder.
YOU NEED TO GET REAL TIME NOTICH when you get a E-Mail if it wants to replace SMS/MMS
And then you can customize the sound you when you get a SMS/MMS and you can see it on you lock screen.
The sound for E-Mail, if low, and short, and easy so over hear. And you do not get any info on you lock screen.
So if they want E-Mail to replace SMS/MMS. Then they have to do some work, so it can compeat with it.
Personly I can't see how it can replace SMS. But MMS, would be easy to replase
I guess they can use HSPA for vcalling, and not CS?! That's IP afterall, gives a good enough uplink bandwidth for a video session, so it shall work... I guess.
HSPA (specifically the HSUPA element of it) will help. But, roll out of HSUPA is still patchy, and you still get severe latency issues (compared to WiFi) that cause delay.
It would be interesting to see if someone can get FaceTime to work over and HSPA network, and compare the quality to a 11n WiFi connected call (disclaimer: I've not seen FaceTime in action).
I think he decided the last minute to announce Face to Face - as a way to offset the "Nothing we haven't seen or read over the last 2 months (leak photo's and such) dilemma". Which is why it's not yet available or what everyone is hoping it would be when rolled out.
I don't know about you,
- but no OS up-date information at a developers conference?
This could easily to retitled the WIPC (World iPhone Conference)
Ok, so how long before Apple splits the company into 2 or 3 parts.
1) Computer (or maybe they just close this part down)
Also, I know it's off topic but what happened to iLife 10 and iWork 10? Is Apple going to keep it's annual updates or do we have to wait until 2011 instead?
I'm expecting an update which makes use of some of the snow leopard goodies (OpenCL, GCD). I don't know if they are still written in Carbon or if they are cocoa. In any case I think they do some major work on them, and it takes time. iWork X and iLife X should be out this year, and IMO they will rock!
P.S. I don't know how they will handle compatibility with Leopard (my guess is PPC and Tiger support will be dropped).
So basically because one phone company can't handle network traffic, they've crippled FaceTime to Wi-Fi for the rest of us. That doesn't exactly help spur innovation.
All it does it help save AT&T/Apple from embarrassment. This is just like imposing a trade block or a tariff barrier to prevent local industry from being the best it can be.
The best thing Apple could do it make it 3G and create maximum pressure to get that network right.
I'm expecting an update which makes use of some of the snow leopard goodies (OpenCL, GCD). I don't know if they are still written in Carbon or if they are cocoa. In any case I think they do some major work on them, and it takes time. iWork X and iLife X should be out this year, and IMO they will rock!
P.S. I don't know how they will handle compatibility with Leopard (my guess is PPC and Tiger support will be dropped).
It's OT, but what type of specific new functionality is likely to be part of the new iLife?
If others have more up to date information on VC on mobile, I'm happy to be corrected. But, before people have a go at Apple, or claim they've had VC on their {insert name of crappy Nokia handset here} for years, please try and understand the issues...
You didn't really cover any issues with video calls on current phones, you just talked about your experiences around the time it originally started, we are currently six years past that, how relevant is what you said to today?
Also, why single out Nokia, just about all UTMS phones have video call functionality, the iPhone was just about the only one excluding this feature.
You didn't really cover any issues with video calls on current phones, you just talked about your experiences around the time it originally started, we are currently six years past that, how relevant is what you said to today?
Pretty relevant, I think.
Let's face it, VC hasn't taken off. At all. So, can any operator build a business case around radically improving the service? I doubt it. Aside from a small bump in bandwidth (from 64kbps synchronous to 150kps synch) that someone stated above, UMTS video calling is still basically the same.
It's OT, but what type of specific new functionality is likely to be part of the new iLife?
Not expecting any features in particular, but as shown in other major overhauls (like snow leopard, safari and iTunes) the overall performance can increase in important ways. So I'm expecting some under the hood improvements in these applications as well. Currently the whole iLife, iWork suites are rather sluggish on my early 2008 mid-range Macbook.
Let's face it, VC hasn't taken off. At all. So, can any operator build a business case around radically improving the service? I doubt it. Aside from a small bump in bandwidth (from 64kbps synchronous to 150kps synch) that someone stated above, UMTS video calling is still basically the same.
Well in saying that, I am at a loss to think why Apple can change this, the user experience will be exactly the same, so if people aren't doing it now, why will they do it when it is limited to one device?
I see no reason the iPhone 3GS should not also have Facetime support, even though it has just one camera...
Because with only one camera, on the back, you can't see the screen and shoot video of yourself at the same time. I suppose someone could make an accessory that consists of a set of mirrors that clips onto your iPhone and allows you to do that, but...
Well in saying that, I am at a loss to think why Apple can change this, the user experience will be exactly the same, so if people aren't doing it now, why will they do it when it is limited to one device?
It has to be remembered that Apple do have a significant amount of power with most of the major networks right now. They all want a bit of the Apple 'magic' to rub off on them.
Firstly: I'm not sure why you think the UX will be the same. UMTS VC is rubbish. FaceTime seems to run at a far higher bandwidth (higher res, frame rate and better colour). This UX cannot be delivered using traditional VC.
Secondly: the networks have stuck with a VC solution that was designed in the late 90s because there has been no reason to change. Devices haven't offered a new way of doing VC. Customer take up has been slow. In fact, anecdotally, I'd say there are fewer handsets with front facing cameras now than there were in 2004/5. There simply hasn't been a business case for change. Where other offerings have come along (Skype, etc.), these have been seen as a threat as they use resources (bandwidth) and cannot easily be monetised above and beyond a basic data plan. For this reason, SIP and similar protocols are blocked by most networks.
Thirdly: Apple devices sell sufficiently, to customers with a sufficiently high ARPU, for it to be possible to build a business case around the proposition. This will be particularly so if the networks can charge (either in terms of bundled minutes, or 'add ons' or even per second) for it. Then it becomes a convenience thing (you're not near a WiFi hotspot) and people are willing to pay for that. That's why I bought a 3G iPad (despite not having actually used the 3G aspect yet!). I know I can jailbreak my iPhone to create a wireless Hotspot, but it's less convenient.
Now, I'm not saying any of this will happen. A lot of operators will think it not worth it (not every operator ranging the iPhone offers Visual Voicemail, for instance -- even though that's dead easy, you only need an IMAP email server and a bit of configuration of your SMSC). But Apple have a habit of making things happen with operators. Even ones as recalcitrant as AT&T!
Yes, that is also my question. If the phone call is used just to start-up the FaceTime over wifi, then this would be awesome for us consumers, since we wouldn't have to maintain expensive voice calls; awesome for Apple, because they would really get us heavy-using their new open standard; awful for the mobile network operators, because we would spend less on calls.
I also worry about that. I tried to tell from the demo - it starts as a phone call and switches to Facetime. The video was jumpy but audio was perfect so might have been using the cell network... BUT he barely spoke so not enough to tell. If the phone call was dropped it did it seamlessly, there was no evidence of it dropping. BUT, the Facetime icon was there before the call started even if it wasn't used, and the standards show support of AAC which is the audio component of the video conference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee
Ok, so how long before Apple splits the company into 2 or 3 parts.
1) Computer (or maybe they just close this part down)
2) idivision
3) Software and other parts
Nah, didn't happen 10 years ago, won't happen now. Though I'd kind of like to see Apple spin off a majority-owned "Business Computing" division - MacPros, server stuff, filemaker, and a solutions consultancy. Mainly so that a separate management can focus on that kind of thing - Apple has some good products for that market but not much interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
iWeb Pro would be very welcome... Also.. what happened to iLife 10 and iWork 10? Is Apple going to keep it's annual updates or do we have to wait until 2011 instead?
Yes I was hoping for that. Guess they know they need to add iAds into iWeb, and integrate the two iMovies
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice
It's OT, but what type of specific new functionality is likely to be part of the new iLife?
iPhoto: remove slideshows - instead create a 'movie' in iMovie, from photos, with exactly the same easy steps (no need to separate those!). Make "Photo iBooks" as well as printable books
iMovie: slideshows (as above). Show the length of the clip visually like the iPhone version does! Same picture enhancements as iPhoto. Enhance audio quality. Automatic beat finding. Not a lot really.
... Perhaps FinalCutExpress should become a natural inbetween from Pro to iMovie? Oh, it'd be nice if they fixed HD exports to current AppleTV (I have to manually specify 720p25) but that won't rate as important.
... perhaps exporting of low quality video for off-line (on-iPad) editing, that's later mastered on the Mac?
iWeb -newer standards of course. Otherwise I think mainly an integration with the other apps. Options to show latest updates of photos (auto updates, like it does on MobileMe), lists of recently purchased music, most listened to songs?, recent movies, favourite youtube, iCal calendars etc.
iDVD.. hard to describe
1) like now, but create a HD/720p menu that can be shared onto iPads, AppleTVs etc (your own or via the web). ie: Instead of just publishing a Quicktime movie to friends, publish a whole DVD structure including the movies.
....maybe it should merge with iWeb?
2) burn HD 720p with menus onto a REGULAR DVD using h264 files (bluray compatible)
Comments
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's worth considering how video calling via UMTS works before panning Apple. I also think it's worth including some of these details in the main article to (possibly) explain why Apple hasn't chosen to implement the UMTS 'standard' for video calling.
First, a little background. Back in 2003 I worked as an architect for one of the large UK network operators. At this time, the initial roll out of UMTS had been completed, and some 3G handsets were coming on to the market. One of my projects was to assure the solution for provisioning and delivering video calling. I have since left that industry, and it's entirely possible that video calling has advanced since then. Having said that, seeing standard UMTS video calling, I doubt it.
Firstly, current IP networks just do not support video calling very well. Unlike streaming audio or video that can be buffered on the client side, voice calling cannot -- you'd end up with the classic 'satellite delay' issue. See Clive James circa late 80s early 90s for reference! Secondly, you really need a synchronous connection -- the same amount of video is going in both directions, uplink and downlink. Most DSL and high speed packet access wireless networks are asynchronous (with a much faster downlink than uplink). So, taking both these into account, the wireless industry took the seemingly unusual step of deciding to deliver UMTS video calling over a synchronous circuit switched data (CSD) network.
CSD? Sounds a bit 20th Century. Well, it is. But it does get rid of the delay problem of IP4 networks. Sadly, CSD over UMTS cannot support very high data rates. If I recall correctly, we provisioned video calling on the network with a quality of service (QoS) that resulted in 64kbs synchronous. Very very low bandwidth, in other words. On top of this, a highly compressed video codec was chosen (H.263 simple profile). All this is wrapped up in the 3G-324M protocol.
The CSD nature of the bearer means that it's very difficult to interoperate UMTS video calling with IP based systems such as Skype or iChat. This either needs some serious kit on the network operator or IP video calling suppliers end. Frankly not worth it.
This weird hybrid low bandwidth data connection results in the very poor quality of UMTS video calls, and partly explains why it hasn't taken off (I remember my recommendation at the time -- despite using a very low res screen on a cheap Samsung phone for testing -- was that VC wasn't ready for production).
While some IP based video calling applications are available for smartphones, they generally just use the standard data bearer provided by your network. and suffer the same QoS issues that don't matter so much for email and web browsing. This is why these are currently crap.
So, I can understand why Apple didn't want to follow either of the above routes. FaceTime seems to have the following goals:
- Provide specific QoS commensurate with the needs of VC (which is what I guess Apple is working with AT&T on)
If others have more up to date information on VC on mobile, I'm happy to be corrected. But, before people have a go at Apple, or claim they've had VC on their {insert name of crappy Nokia handset here} for years, please try and understand the issues...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?
Yes, that is also my question. If the phone call is used just to start-up the FaceTime over wifi, then this would be awesome for us consumers, since we wouldn't have to maintain expensive voice calls; awesome for Apple, because they would really get us heavy-using their new open standard; awful for the mobile network operators, because we would spend less on calls. They would have to really rush for improving their networks and allowing FaceTime over 3G in order to at least collect data usage from us. That would eventually make them mobile bandwidth providers and en up burying normal voice calling once the connection / NAT issues are resolved with wide implementation of IPv6.
That would be too good to be true, I'm afraid... If the phone call needs to be maintained, and on top of it we can only do it over wifi, then FaceTime is not really an alternative to Skype, and I think the real use of it will be very limited.
It's worth considering how video calling via UMTS works before panning Apple. I also think it's worth including some of these details in the main article to (possibly) explain why Apple hasn't chosen to implement the UMTS 'standard' for video calling.
First, a little background. Back in 2003 I worked as an architect for one of the large UK network operators. At this time, the initial roll out of UMTS had been completed, and some 3G handsets were coming on to the market. One of my projects was to assure the solution for provisioning and delivering video calling. I have since left that industry, and it's entirely possible that video calling has advanced since then. Having said that, seeing standard UMTS video calling, I doubt it.
Firstly, current IP networks just do not support video calling very well. Unlike streaming audio or video that can be buffered on the client side, voice calling cannot -- you'd end up with the classic 'satellite delay' issue. See Clive James circa late 80s early 90s for reference! Secondly, you really need a synchronous connection -- the same amount of video is going in both directions, uplink and downlink. Most DSL and high speed packet access wireless networks are asynchronous (with a much faster downlink than uplink). So, taking both these into account, the wireless industry took the seemingly unusual step of deciding to deliver UMTS video calling over a synchronous circuit switched data (CSD) network.
CSD? Sounds a bit 20th Century. Well, it is. But it does get rid of the delay problem of IP4 networks. Sadly, CSD over UMTS cannot support very high data rates. If I recall correctly, we provisioned video calling on the network with a quality of service (QoS) that resulted in 64kbs synchronous. Very very low bandwidth, in other words. On top of this, a highly compressed video codec was chosen (H.263 simple profile). All this is wrapped up in the 3G-324M protocol.
The CSD nature of the bearer means that it's very difficult to interoperate UMTS video calling with IP based systems such as Skype or iChat. This either needs some serious kit on the network operator or IP video calling suppliers end. Frankly not worth it.
This weird hybrid low bandwidth data connection results in the very poor quality of UMTS video calls, and partly explains why it hasn't taken off (I remember my recommendation at the time -- despite using a very low res screen on a cheap Samsung phone for testing -- was that VC wasn't ready for production).
While some IP based video calling applications are available for smartphones, they generally just use the standard data bearer provided by your network. and suffer the same QoS issues that don't matter so much for email and web browsing. This is why these are currently crap.
So, I can understand why Apple didn't want to follow either of the above routes. FaceTime seems to have the following goals:
- Provide specific QoS commensurate with the needs of VC (which is what I guess Apple is working with AT&T on)
If others have more up to date information on VC on mobile, I'm happy to be corrected. But, before people have a go at Apple, or claim they've had VC on their {insert name of crappy Nokia handset here} for years, please try and understand the issues...I guess they can use HSPA for vcalling, and not CS?! That's IP afterall, gives a good enough uplink bandwidth for a video session, so it shall work... I guess.
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.
iWeb Pro would be very welcome. Since Adobe took over Macromedia they have racked up their prices beyond belief. Also, I know it's off topic but what happened to iLife 10 and iWork 10? Is Apple going to keep it's annual updates or do we have to wait until 2011 instead?
i was sure that apple was going to release iChat along with the new iphone. hopefully they will release it this fall when along with itunes-in-the-cloud and free basic mobile me. fingers crossed!
Apple wants to make mobile video chat an open standard for interoperable video chat sessions, so it adopted the neutral FaceTime name rather than calling the service iChat, which is very much an Apple-sounding name.
Great article, but you don't see the relation between QuickTime (very "Apple-sounding") and FaceTime? That was my first association upon hearing that name.
Apple similarly pushed Internet email on the iPhone in preference to SMS and MMS mobile standards, which continue to charge archaic per message fees wildly out of proportion to the actual amount of data they deliver.
No they do not.
To get E-Mail to replace SMS/MMS you need to get your E-Mail rigth away.
They have suport for MS Exchange. but most mail servers do not support that (Not an Open Standart)
So they need to support IDLE-IMAP/PUSH-IMAP
And they need to do it on sub folders as well.
(There MS Exchange has the same problem)
If you run mail filters on your mail server, you wont get notic real time, if the mail go to a sub folder.
YOU NEED TO GET REAL TIME NOTICH when you get a E-Mail if it wants to replace SMS/MMS
And then you can customize the sound you when you get a SMS/MMS and you can see it on you lock screen.
The sound for E-Mail, if low, and short, and easy so over hear. And you do not get any info on you lock screen.
So if they want E-Mail to replace SMS/MMS. Then they have to do some work, so it can compeat with it.
Personly I can't see how it can replace SMS. But MMS, would be easy to replase
I guess they can use HSPA for vcalling, and not CS?! That's IP afterall, gives a good enough uplink bandwidth for a video session, so it shall work... I guess.
HSPA (specifically the HSUPA element of it) will help. But, roll out of HSUPA is still patchy, and you still get severe latency issues (compared to WiFi) that cause delay.
It would be interesting to see if someone can get FaceTime to work over and HSPA network, and compare the quality to a 11n WiFi connected call (disclaimer: I've not seen FaceTime in action).
I don't know about you,
- but no OS up-date information at a developers conference?
This could easily to retitled the WIPC (World iPhone Conference)
Ok, so how long before Apple splits the company into 2 or 3 parts.
1) Computer (or maybe they just close this part down)
2) idivision
3) Software and other parts
Get ready for the all new iApple company
Skip
Also, I know it's off topic but what happened to iLife 10 and iWork 10? Is Apple going to keep it's annual updates or do we have to wait until 2011 instead?
I'm expecting an update which makes use of some of the snow leopard goodies (OpenCL, GCD). I don't know if they are still written in Carbon or if they are cocoa. In any case I think they do some major work on them, and it takes time. iWork X and iLife X should be out this year, and IMO they will rock!
P.S. I don't know how they will handle compatibility with Leopard (my guess is PPC and Tiger support will be dropped).
All it does it help save AT&T/Apple from embarrassment. This is just like imposing a trade block or a tariff barrier to prevent local industry from being the best it can be.
The best thing Apple could do it make it 3G and create maximum pressure to get that network right.
I'm expecting an update which makes use of some of the snow leopard goodies (OpenCL, GCD). I don't know if they are still written in Carbon or if they are cocoa. In any case I think they do some major work on them, and it takes time. iWork X and iLife X should be out this year, and IMO they will rock!
P.S. I don't know how they will handle compatibility with Leopard (my guess is PPC and Tiger support will be dropped).
It's OT, but what type of specific new functionality is likely to be part of the new iLife?
If others have more up to date information on VC on mobile, I'm happy to be corrected. But, before people have a go at Apple, or claim they've had VC on their {insert name of crappy Nokia handset here} for years, please try and understand the issues...
You didn't really cover any issues with video calls on current phones, you just talked about your experiences around the time it originally started, we are currently six years past that, how relevant is what you said to today?
Also, why single out Nokia, just about all UTMS phones have video call functionality, the iPhone was just about the only one excluding this feature.
You didn't really cover any issues with video calls on current phones, you just talked about your experiences around the time it originally started, we are currently six years past that, how relevant is what you said to today?
Pretty relevant, I think.
Let's face it, VC hasn't taken off. At all. So, can any operator build a business case around radically improving the service? I doubt it. Aside from a small bump in bandwidth (from 64kbps synchronous to 150kps synch) that someone stated above, UMTS video calling is still basically the same.
It's OT, but what type of specific new functionality is likely to be part of the new iLife?
Not expecting any features in particular, but as shown in other major overhauls (like snow leopard, safari and iTunes) the overall performance can increase in important ways. So I'm expecting some under the hood improvements in these applications as well. Currently the whole iLife, iWork suites are rather sluggish on my early 2008 mid-range Macbook.
Pretty relevant, I think.
Let's face it, VC hasn't taken off. At all. So, can any operator build a business case around radically improving the service? I doubt it. Aside from a small bump in bandwidth (from 64kbps synchronous to 150kps synch) that someone stated above, UMTS video calling is still basically the same.
Well in saying that, I am at a loss to think why Apple can change this, the user experience will be exactly the same, so if people aren't doing it now, why will they do it when it is limited to one device?
I see no reason the iPhone 3GS should not also have Facetime support, even though it has just one camera...
Because with only one camera, on the back, you can't see the screen and shoot video of yourself at the same time. I suppose someone could make an accessory that consists of a set of mirrors that clips onto your iPhone and allows you to do that, but...
Well in saying that, I am at a loss to think why Apple can change this, the user experience will be exactly the same, so if people aren't doing it now, why will they do it when it is limited to one device?
It has to be remembered that Apple do have a significant amount of power with most of the major networks right now. They all want a bit of the Apple 'magic' to rub off on them.
Firstly: I'm not sure why you think the UX will be the same. UMTS VC is rubbish. FaceTime seems to run at a far higher bandwidth (higher res, frame rate and better colour). This UX cannot be delivered using traditional VC.
Secondly: the networks have stuck with a VC solution that was designed in the late 90s because there has been no reason to change. Devices haven't offered a new way of doing VC. Customer take up has been slow. In fact, anecdotally, I'd say there are fewer handsets with front facing cameras now than there were in 2004/5. There simply hasn't been a business case for change. Where other offerings have come along (Skype, etc.), these have been seen as a threat as they use resources (bandwidth) and cannot easily be monetised above and beyond a basic data plan. For this reason, SIP and similar protocols are blocked by most networks.
Thirdly: Apple devices sell sufficiently, to customers with a sufficiently high ARPU, for it to be possible to build a business case around the proposition. This will be particularly so if the networks can charge (either in terms of bundled minutes, or 'add ons' or even per second) for it. Then it becomes a convenience thing (you're not near a WiFi hotspot) and people are willing to pay for that. That's why I bought a 3G iPad (despite not having actually used the 3G aspect yet!). I know I can jailbreak my iPhone to create a wireless Hotspot, but it's less convenient.
Now, I'm not saying any of this will happen. A lot of operators will think it not worth it (not every operator ranging the iPhone offers Visual Voicemail, for instance -- even though that's dead easy, you only need an IMAP email server and a bit of configuration of your SMSC). But Apple have a habit of making things happen with operators. Even ones as recalcitrant as AT&T!
Yes, that is also my question. If the phone call is used just to start-up the FaceTime over wifi, then this would be awesome for us consumers, since we wouldn't have to maintain expensive voice calls; awesome for Apple, because they would really get us heavy-using their new open standard; awful for the mobile network operators, because we would spend less on calls.
I also worry about that. I tried to tell from the demo - it starts as a phone call and switches to Facetime. The video was jumpy but audio was perfect so might have been using the cell network... BUT he barely spoke so not enough to tell. If the phone call was dropped it did it seamlessly, there was no evidence of it dropping. BUT, the Facetime icon was there before the call started even if it wasn't used, and the standards show support of AAC which is the audio component of the video conference.
Ok, so how long before Apple splits the company into 2 or 3 parts.
1) Computer (or maybe they just close this part down)
2) idivision
3) Software and other parts
Nah, didn't happen 10 years ago, won't happen now. Though I'd kind of like to see Apple spin off a majority-owned "Business Computing" division - MacPros, server stuff, filemaker, and a solutions consultancy. Mainly so that a separate management can focus on that kind of thing - Apple has some good products for that market but not much interest.
iWeb Pro would be very welcome... Also.. what happened to iLife 10 and iWork 10? Is Apple going to keep it's annual updates or do we have to wait until 2011 instead?
Yes I was hoping for that. Guess they know they need to add iAds into iWeb, and integrate the two iMovies
It's OT, but what type of specific new functionality is likely to be part of the new iLife?
iPhoto: remove slideshows - instead create a 'movie' in iMovie, from photos, with exactly the same easy steps (no need to separate those!). Make "Photo iBooks" as well as printable books
iMovie: slideshows (as above). Show the length of the clip visually like the iPhone version does! Same picture enhancements as iPhoto. Enhance audio quality. Automatic beat finding. Not a lot really.
... Perhaps FinalCutExpress should become a natural inbetween from Pro to iMovie? Oh, it'd be nice if they fixed HD exports to current AppleTV (I have to manually specify 720p25) but that won't rate as important.
... perhaps exporting of low quality video for off-line (on-iPad) editing, that's later mastered on the Mac?
iWeb -newer standards of course. Otherwise I think mainly an integration with the other apps. Options to show latest updates of photos (auto updates, like it does on MobileMe), lists of recently purchased music, most listened to songs?, recent movies, favourite youtube, iCal calendars etc.
iDVD.. hard to describe
1) like now, but create a HD/720p menu that can be shared onto iPads, AppleTVs etc (your own or via the web). ie: Instead of just publishing a Quicktime movie to friends, publish a whole DVD structure including the movies.
....maybe it should merge with iWeb?
2) burn HD 720p with menus onto a REGULAR DVD using h264 files (bluray compatible)
3) bluray?
That's about it.
(in iWork, pages could make ePub iBooks!)