Because Facetime uses data and not everyone has unlimited dataplans. Here in New Zealand we've got data capped with stupid pricing structures so making a video call over WiFi will chew rapidly into our data plan let alone the even more pathetic data plans on our cellphones.
Voice takes considerably less data than video.
Actually it doesn't use any data at all.
I don't know why so many people are taking me to task over my comments anyway. I don't think people are reading very closely or comprehending what's being said.
A) I am not saying, (and never have said) that there aren't going to be instances where one doesn't want the video to be on.
I am saying there doesn't need to be, nor should there be a second, separate audio-only protocol/service in addition to Facetime.
A and B are totally different things, that people are taking as the same thing.
Granted, no one else is using it yet, but that doesn't mean it's not open.
It is not a matter of saying it, but rather showing it. If you can show me a depository with the specification of FaceTime, or suggest a way to implement FaceTime in third party software, then I will believe it is open.
"We are going to the standards' bodies, starting tomorrow..." were the exact words of Steve Jobs on June 7, 2010 at the WWDC 2010. Understandably, the standardization process will take time, so I am prepared to wait. But, before this process has completed, FaceTime is still closed, despite what anyone may be saying.
I don't know why so many people are taking me to task over my comments anyway. I don't think people are reading very closely or comprehending what's being said.
A) I am not saying, (and never have said) that there aren't going to be instances where one doesn't want the video to be on.
I am saying there doesn't need to be, nor should there be a second, separate audio-only protocol/service in addition to Facetime.
A and B are totally different things, that people are taking as the same thing.
Well that is the beauty of Skype, that it includes video, audio, text, email, VOIP, telephone numbers and sharing of files, as well as showing if your contacts are available. Since Apple named their application FaceTime it is pretty clear what the intended use was going to be. If they intended it to be a multi-use peer to peer application they would have named it something else. Maybe it will eventually become like the misnamed iTunes that encompasses many features. Once it does become a standard though it will be called some ISO#### and other companies will call it something unique to their implementation as well. It is all about marketing though. It should have just been iChat AV for iOS.
I don't know why so many people are taking me to task over my comments anyway. I don't think people are reading very closely or comprehending what's being said.
I think it may be because you misread NassarAE's comment.
Quote:
How long before Apple release VOIP service (FaceTime without video)?
I'm pretty sure he's asking for VoIP calling without first initiating it as a video call, not for new protocols to do the exactly the same thing FaceTime's audio already does.
Regardless, I think we're all on the same page now.
It is not a matter of saying it, but rather showing it. If you can show me a depository with the specification of FaceTime, or suggest a way to implement FaceTime in third party software, then I will believe it is open.
"We are going to the standards' bodies, starting tomorrow..." were the exact words of Steve Jobs on June 7, 2010 at the WWDC 2010. Understandably, the standardization process will take time, so I am prepared to wait. But, before this process has completed, FaceTime is still closed, despite what anyone may be saying.
Do you like ice cream, jragosta? OK, good. Now, close your eyes and try to imagine that I have promised to treat you to an ice cream. It is very tasty, I have had it myself, and now you will get it for free from me!
Excited? Are you with me? Good!
OK, now here comes the catch. I have all the delicious ice cream at my place. So you have to come over to have some.
No, I will not tell you where I live. And I have a doorman who won't let you in.
As quickly as the changes to FaceTime are appearing it looks like they may have rushed it to market in the first place. Maybe to add some wow factor distraction to the iP4 launch party since they knew, even pre-launch, there were likely going to be some controversial antenna issues popping up as soon as the public got their hands on the device.
I may be misunderstanding you, but are you trying to saying, doing a video, or voice call over IP doesn't use any data at all?
I think there was another misunderstanding. The guy from NZ was saying that his home wifi connection to the internet was also capped. So I'm guessing that Prof.P misunderstood thinking he was referring to 3G data and since FT only uses wifi no 3G data is used.
Do you like ice cream, jragosta? OK, good. Now, close your eyes and try to imagine that I have promised to treat you to an ice cream. It is very tasty, I have had it myself, and now you will get it for free from me!
Excited? Are you with me? Good!
OK, now here comes the catch. I have all the delicious ice cream at my place. So you have to come over to have some.
No, I will not tell you where I live. And I have a doorman who won't let you in.
Capisce?
Now you're just acting like a dick, yet you are still incorrect. If a Basin Robbins in Boise, Idaho is giving away ice cream as a promotion does it mean the ice cream isn't free or just not free to me as it would cost me a very expensive plane ticket to get there? In other words, your inability to perceive FaceTime's internal workings does not mean it's not it's open, it only means it's not available to you.
Now you're just acting like a dick, yet you are still incorrect. If a Basin Robbins in Boise, Idaho is giving away ice cream as a promotion does it mean the ice cream isn't free or just not free to me as it would cost me a very expensive plane ticket to get there? In other words, your inability to perceive FaceTime's internal workings does not mean it's not it's open, it only means it's not available to you.
I agree with your observation, I was acting like a dick. My apologies to other forum members (jragosta was asking for it).
I would not argue that I am able to understand how FaceTime works. All I argue is that nobody but Apple understands that. Do you?
Now, until everyone can see the specifications of the protocol, it is closed.
Today, August 8 2010, FaceTime is a closed proprietary protocol by Apple based on assorted standards and (hopefully) undergoing a process of opening and standardization.
I agree with your observation, I was acting like a dick. My apologies to other forum members (jragosta was asking for it).
By pointing out how stupid your comments were. Funny how you think it's OK to attack other people - simply because you can't come up with a rational argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
I would not argue that I am able to understand how FaceTime works. All I argue is that nobody but Apple understands that. Do you?
Now, until everyone can see the specifications of the protocol, it is closed.
Today, August 7 2010, FaceTime is a closed proprietary protocol by Apple based on assorted standards and (hopefully) undergoing a process of opening and standardization.
Once again, you're imagining that and pretending that it's closed simply because YOU don't have access to it. To use your inane example, you're living in New York and claiming that Baskin Robins isn't giving away free ice cream in Boise because you can't have any.
How do you know that people inside other companies have not received the details of FaceTime? How do you know that the appropriate standards body has not received it?
I guess in your bizarre logic, the fact that you didn't get a personal phone call from Jobs and Apple didn't hand deliver all the FaceTime specs TO YOU means that they were lying about turning it over to a standards body. It's really sad how lame the Apple bashers have gotten these days.
By pointing out how stupid your comments were. Funny how you think it's OK to attack other people - simply because you can't come up with a rational argument.
Once again, you're imagining that and pretending that it's closed simply because YOU don't have access to it. To use your inane example, you're living in New York and claiming that Baskin Robins isn't giving away free ice cream in Boise because you can't have any.
How do you know that people inside other companies have not received the details of FaceTime? How do you know that the appropriate standards body has not received it?
There is only one way to prove that anyone but Apple has the FaceTime specification: give me an example.
"We are going to the standards' bodies, starting tomorrow..." were the exact words of Steve Jobs on June 7, 2010 at the WWDC 2010. Understandably, the standardization process will take time, so I am prepared to wait. But, before this process has completed, FaceTime is still closed, despite what anyone may be saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
...
I guess in your bizarre logic, the fact that you didn't get a personal phone call from Jobs and Apple didn't hand deliver all the FaceTime specs TO YOU means that they were lying about turning it over to a standards body. It's really sad how lame the Apple bashers have gotten these days.
jragosta, I have quoted my post that you must have missed, where I clearly say that standardization may take time and I am prepared to wait until FaceTime is released as an open standard. I did not bash Apple and I did not accuse anyone of lying.
I don't know why so many people are taking me to task over my comments anyway. I don't think people are reading very closely or comprehending what's being said.
A) I am not saying, (and never have said) that there aren't going to be instances where one doesn't want the video to be on.
I am saying there doesn't need to be, nor should there be a second, separate audio-only protocol/service in addition to Facetime.
A and B are totally different things, that people are taking as the same thing.
Totally agree with B too. There's already too many competing protocols in IM land and there's no need for separate voice protocols. As others have mentioned if Skype can handle people's different preferences Apple certainly can.
Uhm....Verizon comes into play how exactly?? Unless you're using a MiFi which IMHO is just plain stupid when you have AT&T's network....MiFi broadband plans with Verizon are a total ripoff..
Already possible, once you have initiated a video call you each hit the home button. This leaves the audio and stops streaming the video - uses way less data then video and doesn't use your cell minutes.
Facetime doesn't use cell minutes...where have you been?
There is only one way to prove that anyone but Apple has the FaceTime specification: give me an example.
It is simple. One example.
Sorry, YOU are the one claiming that it is not Open Source. Prove it.
I don't know who Apple has given the specifications to, so I don't have any way to provide an example. But by the rules of logic, I don't need to. You made a claim. It's up to you to prove your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
jragosta, I have quoted my post that you must have missed, where I clearly say that standardization may take time and I am prepared to wait until FaceTime is released as an open standard. I did not bash Apple and I did not accuse anyone of lying.
Except Apple. Apple said that FaceTime would be open source beginning June 8. You said that FaceTime is NOT open source. Seems to me that you're accusing Apple of lying. Without any proof or evidence, whatsoever.
Sorry, YOU are the one claiming that it is not Open Source. Prove it.
I don't know who Apple has given the specifications to, so I don't have any way to provide an example. But by the rules of logic, I don't need to. You made a claim. It's up to you to prove your claim.
Except Apple. Apple said that FaceTime would be open source beginning June 8. You said that FaceTime is NOT open source. Seems to me that you're accusing Apple of lying. Without any proof or evidence, whatsoever.
This is turning into a theological argument. No, I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist. Enjoy your presents.
I will read your next comment after this one but will not reply even if you address me. I will understand if you share this attitude and also put me on your ignore list. We'll save everyone else here the anguish.
This is turning into a theological argument. No, I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist. Enjoy your presents.
I will read your next comment after this one but will not reply even if you address me. I will understand if you share this attitude and also put me on your ignore list. We'll save everyone else here the anguish.
Yes. that's the type of post that people make when they've lost the argument.
You claimed that Apple hasn't made FaceTime an open standard. There are two possibilities:
1. You are making it up and telling lies to try to make yourself feel important.
or
2. You have evidence to back up your position - in which case you should be able to provide that evidence.
Now, either provide the evidence or admit that you were lying all along. There's no other alternative.
Comments
Because Facetime uses data and not everyone has unlimited dataplans. Here in New Zealand we've got data capped with stupid pricing structures so making a video call over WiFi will chew rapidly into our data plan let alone the even more pathetic data plans on our cellphones.
Voice takes considerably less data than video.
Actually it doesn't use any data at all.
I don't know why so many people are taking me to task over my comments anyway. I don't think people are reading very closely or comprehending what's being said.
A) I am not saying, (and never have said) that there aren't going to be instances where one doesn't want the video to be on.
A and B are totally different things, that people are taking as the same thing.
Says who?
Granted, no one else is using it yet, but that doesn't mean it's not open.
It is not a matter of saying it, but rather showing it. If you can show me a depository with the specification of FaceTime, or suggest a way to implement FaceTime in third party software, then I will believe it is open.
"We are going to the standards' bodies, starting tomorrow..." were the exact words of Steve Jobs on June 7, 2010 at the WWDC 2010. Understandably, the standardization process will take time, so I am prepared to wait. But, before this process has completed, FaceTime is still closed, despite what anyone may be saying.
Actually it doesn't use any data at all.
I don't know why so many people are taking me to task over my comments anyway. I don't think people are reading very closely or comprehending what's being said.
A) I am not saying, (and never have said) that there aren't going to be instances where one doesn't want the video to be on.
A and B are totally different things, that people are taking as the same thing.
Well that is the beauty of Skype, that it includes video, audio, text, email, VOIP, telephone numbers and sharing of files, as well as showing if your contacts are available. Since Apple named their application FaceTime it is pretty clear what the intended use was going to be. If they intended it to be a multi-use peer to peer application they would have named it something else. Maybe it will eventually become like the misnamed iTunes that encompasses many features. Once it does become a standard though it will be called some ISO#### and other companies will call it something unique to their implementation as well. It is all about marketing though. It should have just been iChat AV for iOS.
I don't know why so many people are taking me to task over my comments anyway. I don't think people are reading very closely or comprehending what's being said.
I think it may be because you misread NassarAE's comment.
How long before Apple release VOIP service (FaceTime without video)?
I'm pretty sure he's asking for VoIP calling without first initiating it as a video call, not for new protocols to do the exactly the same thing FaceTime's audio already does.
Regardless, I think we're all on the same page now.
It is not a matter of saying it, but rather showing it. If you can show me a depository with the specification of FaceTime, or suggest a way to implement FaceTime in third party software, then I will believe it is open.
"We are going to the standards' bodies, starting tomorrow..." were the exact words of Steve Jobs on June 7, 2010 at the WWDC 2010. Understandably, the standardization process will take time, so I am prepared to wait. But, before this process has completed, FaceTime is still closed, despite what anyone may be saying.
So Apple said it would be open, beginning June 8.
How do you know they didn't do that?
So Apple said it would be open, beginning June 8.
How do you know they didn't do that?
I see that I have to take it slowly with you.
Do you like ice cream, jragosta? OK, good. Now, close your eyes and try to imagine that I have promised to treat you to an ice cream. It is very tasty, I have had it myself, and now you will get it for free from me!
Excited? Are you with me? Good!
OK, now here comes the catch. I have all the delicious ice cream at my place. So you have to come over to have some.
No, I will not tell you where I live. And I have a doorman who won't let you in.
Capisce?
Actually it doesn't use any data at all.
I may be misunderstanding you, but are you trying to saying, doing a video, or voice call over IP doesn't use any data at all?
I may be misunderstanding you, but are you trying to saying, doing a video, or voice call over IP doesn't use any data at all?
I think there was another misunderstanding. The guy from NZ was saying that his home wifi connection to the internet was also capped. So I'm guessing that Prof.P misunderstood thinking he was referring to 3G data and since FT only uses wifi no 3G data is used.
I see that I have to take it slowly with you.
Do you like ice cream, jragosta? OK, good. Now, close your eyes and try to imagine that I have promised to treat you to an ice cream. It is very tasty, I have had it myself, and now you will get it for free from me!
Excited? Are you with me? Good!
OK, now here comes the catch. I have all the delicious ice cream at my place. So you have to come over to have some.
No, I will not tell you where I live. And I have a doorman who won't let you in.
Capisce?
Now you're just acting like a dick, yet you are still incorrect. If a Basin Robbins in Boise, Idaho is giving away ice cream as a promotion does it mean the ice cream isn't free or just not free to me as it would cost me a very expensive plane ticket to get there? In other words, your inability to perceive FaceTime's internal workings does not mean it's not it's open, it only means it's not available to you.
Now you're just acting like a dick, yet you are still incorrect. If a Basin Robbins in Boise, Idaho is giving away ice cream as a promotion does it mean the ice cream isn't free or just not free to me as it would cost me a very expensive plane ticket to get there? In other words, your inability to perceive FaceTime's internal workings does not mean it's not it's open, it only means it's not available to you.
I agree with your observation, I was acting like a dick. My apologies to other forum members (jragosta was asking for it).
I would not argue that I am able to understand how FaceTime works. All I argue is that nobody but Apple understands that. Do you?
Now, until everyone can see the specifications of the protocol, it is closed.
Today, August 8 2010, FaceTime is a closed proprietary protocol by Apple based on assorted standards and (hopefully) undergoing a process of opening and standardization.
I agree with your observation, I was acting like a dick. My apologies to other forum members (jragosta was asking for it).
By pointing out how stupid your comments were. Funny how you think it's OK to attack other people - simply because you can't come up with a rational argument.
I would not argue that I am able to understand how FaceTime works. All I argue is that nobody but Apple understands that. Do you?
Now, until everyone can see the specifications of the protocol, it is closed.
Today, August 7 2010, FaceTime is a closed proprietary protocol by Apple based on assorted standards and (hopefully) undergoing a process of opening and standardization.
Once again, you're imagining that and pretending that it's closed simply because YOU don't have access to it. To use your inane example, you're living in New York and claiming that Baskin Robins isn't giving away free ice cream in Boise because you can't have any.
How do you know that people inside other companies have not received the details of FaceTime? How do you know that the appropriate standards body has not received it?
I guess in your bizarre logic, the fact that you didn't get a personal phone call from Jobs and Apple didn't hand deliver all the FaceTime specs TO YOU means that they were lying about turning it over to a standards body. It's really sad how lame the Apple bashers have gotten these days.
By pointing out how stupid your comments were. Funny how you think it's OK to attack other people - simply because you can't come up with a rational argument.
Once again, you're imagining that and pretending that it's closed simply because YOU don't have access to it. To use your inane example, you're living in New York and claiming that Baskin Robins isn't giving away free ice cream in Boise because you can't have any.
How do you know that people inside other companies have not received the details of FaceTime? How do you know that the appropriate standards body has not received it?
There is only one way to prove that anyone but Apple has the FaceTime specification: give me an example.
It is simple. One example.
...
"We are going to the standards' bodies, starting tomorrow..." were the exact words of Steve Jobs on June 7, 2010 at the WWDC 2010. Understandably, the standardization process will take time, so I am prepared to wait. But, before this process has completed, FaceTime is still closed, despite what anyone may be saying.
...
I guess in your bizarre logic, the fact that you didn't get a personal phone call from Jobs and Apple didn't hand deliver all the FaceTime specs TO YOU means that they were lying about turning it over to a standards body. It's really sad how lame the Apple bashers have gotten these days.
jragosta, I have quoted my post that you must have missed, where I clearly say that standardization may take time and I am prepared to wait until FaceTime is released as an open standard. I did not bash Apple and I did not accuse anyone of lying.
Actually it doesn't use any data at all.
I don't know why so many people are taking me to task over my comments anyway. I don't think people are reading very closely or comprehending what's being said.
A) I am not saying, (and never have said) that there aren't going to be instances where one doesn't want the video to be on.
A and B are totally different things, that people are taking as the same thing.
Totally agree with B too. There's already too many competing protocols in IM land and there's no need for separate voice protocols. As others have mentioned if Skype can handle people's different preferences Apple certainly can.
Time to start shorting AT&T and Verizon.
Uhm....Verizon comes into play how exactly?? Unless you're using a MiFi which IMHO is just plain stupid when you have AT&T's network....MiFi broadband plans with Verizon are a total ripoff..
Already possible, once you have initiated a video call you each hit the home button. This leaves the audio and stops streaming the video - uses way less data then video and doesn't use your cell minutes.
Facetime doesn't use cell minutes...where have you been?
There is only one way to prove that anyone but Apple has the FaceTime specification: give me an example.
It is simple. One example.
Sorry, YOU are the one claiming that it is not Open Source. Prove it.
I don't know who Apple has given the specifications to, so I don't have any way to provide an example. But by the rules of logic, I don't need to. You made a claim. It's up to you to prove your claim.
jragosta, I have quoted my post that you must have missed, where I clearly say that standardization may take time and I am prepared to wait until FaceTime is released as an open standard. I did not bash Apple and I did not accuse anyone of lying.
Except Apple. Apple said that FaceTime would be open source beginning June 8. You said that FaceTime is NOT open source. Seems to me that you're accusing Apple of lying. Without any proof or evidence, whatsoever.
Sorry, YOU are the one claiming that it is not Open Source. Prove it.
I don't know who Apple has given the specifications to, so I don't have any way to provide an example. But by the rules of logic, I don't need to. You made a claim. It's up to you to prove your claim.
Except Apple. Apple said that FaceTime would be open source beginning June 8. You said that FaceTime is NOT open source. Seems to me that you're accusing Apple of lying. Without any proof or evidence, whatsoever.
This is turning into a theological argument. No, I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist. Enjoy your presents.
I will read your next comment after this one but will not reply even if you address me. I will understand if you share this attitude and also put me on your ignore list. We'll save everyone else here the anguish.
PS. Some links for the interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1521169
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...light=Facetime
This is turning into a theological argument. No, I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist. Enjoy your presents.
I will read your next comment after this one but will not reply even if you address me. I will understand if you share this attitude and also put me on your ignore list. We'll save everyone else here the anguish.
Yes. that's the type of post that people make when they've lost the argument.
You claimed that Apple hasn't made FaceTime an open standard. There are two possibilities:
1. You are making it up and telling lies to try to make yourself feel important.
or
2. You have evidence to back up your position - in which case you should be able to provide that evidence.
Now, either provide the evidence or admit that you were lying all along. There's no other alternative.