If I were Skype, I'd be getting on the ball. Want your service used on one of the most popular and wildly growing platforms in the world? Start making worthwhile. With 4.0, both phone and OS, Skype has the opportunity to dominate mobile video chat, as they currently dominate desktop video chat. If I were Skype watching that keynote, I would have fallen out of my seat with excitement.
If Skype were at all smart, in the future they could integrate completely with the iPhone, making only a single data plan necessary.
Gee. A competitor with a different format doesn't want to just up and switch because Apple says so? Say it ain't so!!
Wait, you mean the iPhone 4 doesn't support WebM yet?! I mean, Google announced it like one month ago! Get on the ball, Apple. What's wrong with you?!!
In all seriousness, I think FaceTime has a pretty good shot at being an open standard and many services will consider it. It probably won't make enough sense until its running on next-gen networks like LTE. Until then, while Skype says they have no plans to integrate FaceTime, they undoubtedly plan on adding their Skype video protocol to the iPhone asap. It would be *amazing* to have Skype-to-Skype video calls with nothing more than my phone.
EDIT: Just so we're clear, we're talking about the "FaceTime" protocol, not the action of video calls itself. Skype will definitely implement it soon.
Did Steve really give a big speech about how he dreamed of doing video calls since he watched Star Trek and the Jetsons back in the day, then showed emotional ads of deaf people signing each other? Didn't he already achieve those dreams with iChat?
As long as FaceTime is limited to iPhone4 to iPhone4 calling whilst both parties are using WiFi I really cannot see this taking off in a big way.
Skype has a huge number of users making video calls every day. According to a Skype.com blog post, "about 34% of Skype calls are now video calls, and this rises to around 50% at peak times." All they need to do is add video calling to their iPhone app. I'm just not certain how FaceTime hopes to compete.
As long as FaceTime is limited to iPhone4 to iPhone4 calling whilst both parties are using WiFi I really cannot see this taking off in a big way.
Skype has a huge number of users making video calls every day. According to a Skype.com blog post, "about 34% of Skype calls are now video calls, and this rises to around 50% at peak times." All they need to do is add video calling to their iPhone app. I'm just not certain how FaceTime hopes to compete.
I suspect the true target is social networking sites. Though not a great fan myself, most FB users I know use it's text chat over anything else. If Facebook incorporate this into their iApp & site, Skype just became a rather proprietary #2. Of course if Google play the game with Android Skype's over.
I suspect the true target is social networking sites. Though not a great fan myself, most FB users I know use it's text chat over anything else. If Facebook incorporate this into their iApp & site, Skype just became a rather proprietary #2. Of course if Google play the game with Android Skype's over.
McD
But would Facebook select FaceTime for video chat or go with something else? They have over 400 million active users. With that many users they don't need to go with open standards, although it would be good if they did.
The thing holding down video chat is the lack of compatibility.
... it's got to work across all devices. Having a 'standard' video chat format will be huge. If I can have iChat open on my computer and chat with someone with an iPhone, or an Android phone, or any other video centric phone, then it makes sense. Not everyone will have the iPhone. To hit critical mass, it has to be everywhere!
The more I think about what Apple is proposing the more enthused I am - but I have to remind myself I'm ignoring the video part.
There are 2 approaches Apple could have taken
1) compatibility with as many other video chat clients as possible, and as much licensing as possible
2) make it an evolution of phones
You're right that one problem with video calls is that it's not everywhere. There was some limited ISDN video conferencing, Skype is on your computer and works pretty well. iChat is also on the computer but not related to Skype (or MSN etc!). 3G phones could video chat to other 3G phones on the same network. Make them all work together and life becomes a lot easier - but STILL a much smaller audience than simply dialing a phone number. And if you're not always at the same computer then you have to remember to login, get a common login with your flatmates or family etc.
But if it's a function of the phone itself, things get MUCH simpler. You ring a number exactly like now - and it seems to try to make a FaceTime connection directly if it can. Otherwise it gets through exactly like it does now using the phone network. Either way, there's no thinking about anything because it's such a well known model (and can still include VoIP & SkypeIn calls etc.). And once connected if both devices have FaceTime (whether they're mobiles, landlines, computers or whatever) they can negotiate a direct connection and switch to that.
This will do far more to make video available to everyone than just interoperability between current video chat systems - but combining both would be brilliant.
BTW It wouldn't have to be video - I can imagine having my voice only, but having an open data connection to share files, photos, maybe share my screen with someone else or print directly to their printer (if they authorise it).
The thing holding down video chat is the lack of compatibility.
Imagine how well email would be taken if you could only send messages to someone that had the same model computer that you had. Kind of like how iChat is great, but it ONLY works with AIM accounts. Not everyone has an AIM account, so the usability of iChat is limited. There are other apps that seamlessly connect to many services, which is a start, but still requires you to have multiple accounts set up. Not the most intelligent solution.
No, it's got to work across all devices. Having a 'standard' video chat format will be huge. If I can have iChat open on my computer and chat with someone with an iPhone, or an Android phone, or any other video centric phone, then it makes sense. Not everyone will have the iPhone. To hit critical mass, it has to be everywhere!
Critical mass does not require it being "everywhere". Skype is a closed standard and it is more widely deployed for chat services than iChat - yet it can be argued that it has "critical mass" for number of users. YOU may want it to work across all devices - but it is not in Google's best interest to do that, nor Microsoft, nor AOL - or anyone else. The point was made earlier and is by far the most important element - all companies want to distinguish their product from others, and will work to do so.
All that is necessary for FaceTime to be successful is if ENOUGH iPhone users use it. That drives additional ownership interest, builds additional marketshare and so on. You are approaching your argument from a technology perspective but arguing marketshare like that is simply misguided and prone to being way out in left field.
All that is necessary for FaceTime to be successful is if ENOUGH iPhone users use it. That drives additional ownership interest, builds additional marketshare and so on. You are approaching your argument from a technology perspective but arguing marketshare like that is simply misguided and prone to being way out in left field.
Unfortunately I am not convinced "enough" people will use FaceTime. It is iPhone4 only which limits it use and then it is further limited by being WiFi only. Some people will use it, however, I don't think enough will. Therefore we won't see additional ownership interest, building additional marketshare and so on.
And if Apple approves other video chat apps for the iPhone (such as Skype, MSN, etc) which already have very large numbers of existing users then I think it is game over for FaceTime.
Critical mass does not require it being "everywhere".
I can just imagine it - "well, it's everywhere, literally everywhere, can't go anywhere without seeing it"
"yes, but do we have critical mass!?".
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav
YOU may want it to work across all devices - but it is not in Google's best interest to do that, nor Microsoft, nor AOL - or anyone else.
There are 2 models for success though. The regular phone (& cell phone) system has worked very profitably for many years. Sprint, AT&T, etc etc want it to work across all devices. It is in Panasonic's interest for their phone to support the standard phone technologies. Both Panasonic & AT&T make money. And if Panasonic phones could only call other panasonic phones, that'd be a real problem
Likewise fax machines would never have taken off if they couldn't communicate between different brands.
Of course this is different for several reasons - but there is a LOT of value in making something work across all devices.
Apple had better get it integrated into iChat if they want credibility.
LOL
When Steve said it was an open cross-platform framework, he only meant for other companies to spend money working on it. He didn't mean cross-platform to Mac OS.
Obviously it will become part of iPhone Skype at some point, and that's good news.
The bigger story for me is the blocking of video chat over 3G. I can't imagine there are network capacity issues in Japan or South Korea (to name two obvious examples). Is the whole world being punished just to stop AT&T looking bad?
The bigger story for me is the blocking of video chat over 3G. I can't imagine there are network capacity issues in Japan or South Korea (to name two obvious examples). Is the whole world being punished just to stop AT&T looking bad?
I don't think it is just a question of network capacity. Many phone companies around the world already offer 3G video chat for which they often charge a premium. FaceTime competes against this.
We could easily see a future where we just need a data plan. No voice minutes. No txt messages. No videochat minutes. Instead we use Apps such as a Skype or Google Voice to provide these services. Of course phone companies don't like this future as they get less money. Allowing FaceTime over 3G would be another step towards this future.
Other services will jump on the FaceTime bandwagon when they see usage from iPhone4 users.
And that gets me speculating about its uses. Many people focus on the face to face video call aspect. But I think its the show-others-what-you-see aspect that will be bigger. Imagine you go to the store and you are not sure what someone really wanted you to get. With FaceTime, you could call up the person and show them the different choices you see. It doesn't matter if it was a grocery store, department store, car dealership or whatever. If you could show someone what you see, it could eliminate a lot of frustration.
But if the place doesn't have wi-fi, you can't use it. So you may ask them if they have free wi-fi. If they say no, you may go to some other place that has similar products with wi-fi. And if a store gets enough requests for free wi-fi, they may consider this a business plus to add free wi-fi to attract more customers. How would you feel if a Mall advertised they offered free wi-fi inside the mall for all stores? You may go there just to share with someone else what you can buy.
My point is FaceTime can be very big but not in the way most people think. It could help spread free wi-fi. This will increase more usage of FaceTime. Apple will sell more iPhone4 devices. Other companies (HTC EVO 4G?) will see this and decide to adapt FaceTime for their products to help sell more of their phones and eliminate Apple's advantage in this area.
I just see a great future for FaceTime. As I stated, wi-fi wont be a hindrance. It may turn out to be a blessing.
Given that we are 180 miles apart until August, that's not exactly feasible. Plus, when we are in the same approximate location, we're both busy people. We don't have time to see each other every day, but we usually have time to chat for a half hour or so.
Based on his comment and his posting history, I'm sure his comment was meant to be taken lightly.
But 180 miles, hmm... If you each drove 90miles (or split the difference based on road speeds and traffic patterns to meet halfway (time-wise), where would that put you two? In another city, town, highway rest area? For a little over an hour of driving that could be a very hot meet up. I'm just sayin.'
Based on his comment and his posting history, I'm sure his comment was meant to be taken lightly.
My apologies then. It's a bit of a sore subject for me.
Quote:
But 180 miles, hmm... If you each drove 90miles (or split the difference based on road speeds and traffic patterns to meet halfway (time-wise), where would that put you two? In another city, town, highway rest area? For a little over an hour of driving that could be a very hot meet up. I'm just sayin.'
Indeed it could be
But all her time is currently committed to studying for the bar. I'll get to see her on the 4th of July, and that's likely it until August.
Comments
If Skype were at all smart, in the future they could integrate completely with the iPhone, making only a single data plan necessary.
Gee. A competitor with a different format doesn't want to just up and switch because Apple says so? Say it ain't so!!
Wait, you mean the iPhone 4 doesn't support WebM yet?! I mean, Google announced it like one month ago! Get on the ball, Apple. What's wrong with you?!!
In all seriousness, I think FaceTime has a pretty good shot at being an open standard and many services will consider it. It probably won't make enough sense until its running on next-gen networks like LTE. Until then, while Skype says they have no plans to integrate FaceTime, they undoubtedly plan on adding their Skype video protocol to the iPhone asap. It would be *amazing* to have Skype-to-Skype video calls with nothing more than my phone.
EDIT: Just so we're clear, we're talking about the "FaceTime" protocol, not the action of video calls itself. Skype will definitely implement it soon.
Those that hesitate to adapt shall be lost.
Skype has a huge number of users making video calls every day. According to a Skype.com blog post, "about 34% of Skype calls are now video calls, and this rises to around 50% at peak times." All they need to do is add video calling to their iPhone app. I'm just not certain how FaceTime hopes to compete.
As long as FaceTime is limited to iPhone4 to iPhone4 calling whilst both parties are using WiFi I really cannot see this taking off in a big way.
Skype has a huge number of users making video calls every day. According to a Skype.com blog post, "about 34% of Skype calls are now video calls, and this rises to around 50% at peak times." All they need to do is add video calling to their iPhone app. I'm just not certain how FaceTime hopes to compete.
I suspect the true target is social networking sites. Though not a great fan myself, most FB users I know use it's text chat over anything else. If Facebook incorporate this into their iApp & site, Skype just became a rather proprietary #2. Of course if Google play the game with Android Skype's over.
McD
I suspect the true target is social networking sites. Though not a great fan myself, most FB users I know use it's text chat over anything else. If Facebook incorporate this into their iApp & site, Skype just became a rather proprietary #2. Of course if Google play the game with Android Skype's over.
McD
But would Facebook select FaceTime for video chat or go with something else? They have over 400 million active users. With that many users they don't need to go with open standards, although it would be good if they did.
Skype could be releasing a Android app with video this year: http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/28/s...arket-later-t/
The thing holding down video chat is the lack of compatibility.
... it's got to work across all devices. Having a 'standard' video chat format will be huge. If I can have iChat open on my computer and chat with someone with an iPhone, or an Android phone, or any other video centric phone, then it makes sense. Not everyone will have the iPhone. To hit critical mass, it has to be everywhere!
The more I think about what Apple is proposing the more enthused I am - but I have to remind myself I'm ignoring the video part.
There are 2 approaches Apple could have taken
1) compatibility with as many other video chat clients as possible, and as much licensing as possible
2) make it an evolution of phones
You're right that one problem with video calls is that it's not everywhere. There was some limited ISDN video conferencing, Skype is on your computer and works pretty well. iChat is also on the computer but not related to Skype (or MSN etc!). 3G phones could video chat to other 3G phones on the same network. Make them all work together and life becomes a lot easier - but STILL a much smaller audience than simply dialing a phone number. And if you're not always at the same computer then you have to remember to login, get a common login with your flatmates or family etc.
But if it's a function of the phone itself, things get MUCH simpler. You ring a number exactly like now - and it seems to try to make a FaceTime connection directly if it can. Otherwise it gets through exactly like it does now using the phone network. Either way, there's no thinking about anything because it's such a well known model (and can still include VoIP & SkypeIn calls etc.). And once connected if both devices have FaceTime (whether they're mobiles, landlines, computers or whatever) they can negotiate a direct connection and switch to that.
This will do far more to make video available to everyone than just interoperability between current video chat systems - but combining both would be brilliant.
BTW It wouldn't have to be video - I can imagine having my voice only, but having an open data connection to share files, photos, maybe share my screen with someone else or print directly to their printer (if they authorise it).
The thing holding down video chat is the lack of compatibility.
Imagine how well email would be taken if you could only send messages to someone that had the same model computer that you had. Kind of like how iChat is great, but it ONLY works with AIM accounts. Not everyone has an AIM account, so the usability of iChat is limited. There are other apps that seamlessly connect to many services, which is a start, but still requires you to have multiple accounts set up. Not the most intelligent solution.
No, it's got to work across all devices. Having a 'standard' video chat format will be huge. If I can have iChat open on my computer and chat with someone with an iPhone, or an Android phone, or any other video centric phone, then it makes sense. Not everyone will have the iPhone. To hit critical mass, it has to be everywhere!
Critical mass does not require it being "everywhere". Skype is a closed standard and it is more widely deployed for chat services than iChat - yet it can be argued that it has "critical mass" for number of users. YOU may want it to work across all devices - but it is not in Google's best interest to do that, nor Microsoft, nor AOL - or anyone else. The point was made earlier and is by far the most important element - all companies want to distinguish their product from others, and will work to do so.
All that is necessary for FaceTime to be successful is if ENOUGH iPhone users use it. That drives additional ownership interest, builds additional marketshare and so on. You are approaching your argument from a technology perspective but arguing marketshare like that is simply misguided and prone to being way out in left field.
All that is necessary for FaceTime to be successful is if ENOUGH iPhone users use it. That drives additional ownership interest, builds additional marketshare and so on. You are approaching your argument from a technology perspective but arguing marketshare like that is simply misguided and prone to being way out in left field.
Unfortunately I am not convinced "enough" people will use FaceTime. It is iPhone4 only which limits it use and then it is further limited by being WiFi only. Some people will use it, however, I don't think enough will. Therefore we won't see additional ownership interest, building additional marketshare and so on.
And if Apple approves other video chat apps for the iPhone (such as Skype, MSN, etc) which already have very large numbers of existing users then I think it is game over for FaceTime.
Critical mass does not require it being "everywhere".
I can just imagine it - "well, it's everywhere, literally everywhere, can't go anywhere without seeing it"
"yes, but do we have critical mass!?".
YOU may want it to work across all devices - but it is not in Google's best interest to do that, nor Microsoft, nor AOL - or anyone else.
There are 2 models for success though. The regular phone (& cell phone) system has worked very profitably for many years. Sprint, AT&T, etc etc want it to work across all devices. It is in Panasonic's interest for their phone to support the standard phone technologies. Both Panasonic & AT&T make money. And if Panasonic phones could only call other panasonic phones, that'd be a real problem
Likewise fax machines would never have taken off if they couldn't communicate between different brands.
Of course this is different for several reasons - but there is a LOT of value in making something work across all devices.
Apple had better get it integrated into iChat if they want credibility.
LOL
When Steve said it was an open cross-platform framework, he only meant for other companies to spend money working on it. He didn't mean cross-platform to Mac OS.
The bigger story for me is the blocking of video chat over 3G. I can't imagine there are network capacity issues in Japan or South Korea (to name two obvious examples). Is the whole world being punished just to stop AT&T looking bad?
The bigger story for me is the blocking of video chat over 3G. I can't imagine there are network capacity issues in Japan or South Korea (to name two obvious examples). Is the whole world being punished just to stop AT&T looking bad?
I don't think it is just a question of network capacity. Many phone companies around the world already offer 3G video chat for which they often charge a premium. FaceTime competes against this.
We could easily see a future where we just need a data plan. No voice minutes. No txt messages. No videochat minutes. Instead we use Apps such as a Skype or Google Voice to provide these services. Of course phone companies don't like this future as they get less money. Allowing FaceTime over 3G would be another step towards this future.
And that gets me speculating about its uses. Many people focus on the face to face video call aspect. But I think its the show-others-what-you-see aspect that will be bigger. Imagine you go to the store and you are not sure what someone really wanted you to get. With FaceTime, you could call up the person and show them the different choices you see. It doesn't matter if it was a grocery store, department store, car dealership or whatever. If you could show someone what you see, it could eliminate a lot of frustration.
But if the place doesn't have wi-fi, you can't use it. So you may ask them if they have free wi-fi. If they say no, you may go to some other place that has similar products with wi-fi. And if a store gets enough requests for free wi-fi, they may consider this a business plus to add free wi-fi to attract more customers. How would you feel if a Mall advertised they offered free wi-fi inside the mall for all stores? You may go there just to share with someone else what you can buy.
My point is FaceTime can be very big but not in the way most people think. It could help spread free wi-fi. This will increase more usage of FaceTime. Apple will sell more iPhone4 devices. Other companies (HTC EVO 4G?) will see this and decide to adapt FaceTime for their products to help sell more of their phones and eliminate Apple's advantage in this area.
I just see a great future for FaceTime. As I stated, wi-fi wont be a hindrance. It may turn out to be a blessing.
Yes, it does. That's how I chat with my girlfriend.
Maybe you should just invite her over.
Maybe you should just invite her over.
Given that we are 180 miles apart until August, that's not exactly feasible. Plus, when we are in the same approximate location, we're both busy people. We don't have time to see each other every day, but we usually have time to chat for a half hour or so.
Maybe you should just be less of a jack-ass.
Maybe you should just be less of a jack-ass.
Based on his comment and his posting history, I'm sure his comment was meant to be taken lightly.
But 180 miles, hmm... If you each drove 90miles (or split the difference based on road speeds and traffic patterns to meet halfway (time-wise), where would that put you two? In another city, town, highway rest area? For a little over an hour of driving that could be a very hot meet up. I'm just sayin.'
Based on his comment and his posting history, I'm sure his comment was meant to be taken lightly.
My apologies then. It's a bit of a sore subject for me.
But 180 miles, hmm... If you each drove 90miles (or split the difference based on road speeds and traffic patterns to meet halfway (time-wise), where would that put you two? In another city, town, highway rest area? For a little over an hour of driving that could be a very hot meet up. I'm just sayin.'
Indeed it could be
But all her time is currently committed to studying for the bar. I'll get to see her on the 4th of July, and that's likely it until August.