[Matt OS X]

Since there is not enough information about facetime after WWDC keynote. Does it requires to make a 'phone call' first before doing the facetime? Or is it possible to do 'facetime' directly 'without' making a phone call first?

for instance: Tap on your "contacts" app (Not the phone app), tap a contact person and the next page shows contact person's info then you can tap a 'facetime' button ??



Apple website said:

One-tap simple.
FaceTime works right out of the box — no need to set up a special account or screen name. And using FaceTime is as easy as it gets. Let’s say you want to start a video call with your best friend. Just find her entry in your Contacts and tap the FaceTime button. Or maybe you’re already on a voice call with her and you want to switch to video. Just tap the FaceTime button on the Phone screen. Either way, an invitation pops up on her iPhone 4 screen asking if she wants to join you.

Source: Apple - iPhone 4 - One-tap video calling with FaceTime on iPhone 4

[macaddict0001]

It looks like you don't have to call someone first.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, no question about it based on that description - it can be requested through the Contacts card without calling first.

[Phileas]

How can there be any ambiguity? You don't need to make a phone call to make a video call.

[Big Mac]

Seems like a reading comprehension error. No biggie.

[Atheist]

It does make you wonder though how it's working..... who is brokering the call? Does it require me to be connected and "online" like an Instant Messenger? How do they know I'm available to receive a video call?

[Andy8]

Well this only works if the person your calling happens to be on wifi.

I hope its only limited to the states, as we have had 3G video calling here for years.

[voodoo]

I don't get it. There's something missing in the description on how people find each other and how the system knows they have an iPhone 4.

Privacy: can this thing be turned on/off?

Eh I'm sure this works ok, but I feel that this isn't explained very well. We'll see soon enough!

[ort888]

Is it true that as of right now there is no way to use "facetime" to chat with someone on a computer with AIM or Skype or whatever? Because that's kind of lame. It should at least work seamlessly with iChat.

[AKcrab]

At this point, that is true ort888.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Is it true that as of right now there is no way to use "facetime" to chat with someone on a computer with AIM or Skype or whatever? Because that's kind of lame. It should at least work seamlessly with iChat.

I agree, missing iChat integration is retarded.

-t

[AKcrab]

AppleInsider has a nice article about FaceTime and video chat in general.

I always wondered why video chat didn't "just work".

[Phileas]

Really good article.

As far as the 'retarded' and 'lame' comments go, welcome to the real world where we launch products and then optimize as we go along.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Is it true that as of right now there is no way to use "facetime" to chat with someone on a computer with AIM or Skype or whatever? Because that's kind of lame. It should at least work seamlessly with iChat.

I guess the larger question is if Apple will allow 3rd party to access the APIs - that way Facetime could be completely ignored and instead Skype (and others) could be used for video call/chat integration. iChat integration (and access to the APIs) should be a no brainer, but this is our beloved Apple we're talking about here.

[Phileas]

What would be the benefit of ignoring Facetime and replacing it with a more complex solution?

What Apple has done here is, once again, the removal of visible technology and as a result, barriers. In order to use Skype you need a Skype account. You need to download and install Skype and you need to understand how Skype works. For my mom, that's way too complex.

Facetime is a one button solution, a solution my mom would understand. That's where Apple excels.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Is it true that as of right now there is no way to use "facetime" to chat with someone on a computer with AIM or Skype or whatever? Because that's kind of lame. It should at least work seamlessly with iChat.

I assume that integration with every other chat/VoIP network on the planet is *kind of* the point of publishing FaceTime as a fully open standard.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

What would be the benefit of ignoring Facetime and replacing it with a more complex solution?

What Apple has done here is, once again, the removal of visible technology and as a result, barriers. In order to use Skype you need a Skype account. You need to download and install Skype and you need to understand how Skype works. For my mom, that's way too complex.

Facetime is a one button solution, a solution my mom would understand. That's where Apple excels.

I'm not suggesting that Apple complicate the issue, just allow other existing programs use the built in feature sets. Your Mom can keep Facetime! But give me Skype for calls overseas that I can see.

[Phileas]

From what I've read, Facetime is built on open standards, so we might well see that. And I agree, for people like us, that would be extremely cool.

[osiris]

This is cool stuff, no doubt!

[GENERAL_SMILEY]

Skype are already looking at integrating with FaceTime apparently.

But I think most interestingly, doesn't this mean that FaceTime will become the way people talk when they're the office, or at home, or in their hotel. It completely avoids your network provider, and therefore your minutes/data. (This is true right?)

I think AT&T are missing a trick here (I presume they objected to letting FaceTime run on 3G), they are about to lose personal daytime calls. I don't know how it works for most people, but for me I probably make 90% of my personal calls to the same five people, all of them have iPhones, all of us live and work in a bubble of ubiquitous WiFi. I mean sure some calls will be made from the street, but do you really want video calling while you stroll into a lamp post anyway.

This is going to be huge ad-hoc wifi based IP phone system - obviously Skype has been there for years, but so many people never use it, or think it will be too complicated (despite it actually being brilliantly simple) - this Apple system is going to come pre-installed, it's going to work even for your techno-phobic parents and siblings without any setup, and presumably will be as easy to use as dialling a phone number.

[Spheric Harlot]

Your article was obsoleted yesterday, I'm afraid.

Skype won't use FaceTime, still hints at iPhone 4 video chat | Electronista

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

How can there be any ambiguity? You don't need to make a phone call to make a video call.

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I don't get it. There's something missing in the description on how people find each other and how the system knows they have an iPhone 4.

Privacy: can this thing be turned on/off?

Eh I'm sure this works ok, but I feel that this isn't explained very well. We'll see soon enough!

I'm still unsure how it all really works. I watched the keynote last night and when Jobs was explaining how simple it was to use he said "All you need to do is make a phone call". So it seems to me that it's somehow dependent upon an initial phone call to broker the video call. So what happens if I've got WiFi but I'm not in range of a cell tower? No video call?

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So what happens if I've got WiFi but I'm not in range of a cell tower? No video call?

That is a good question.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So what happens if I've got WiFi but I'm not in range of a cell tower? No video call?

Facetime is iChat rebadged. Meaning, for as long as you've got wifi, you've got Facetime.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Facetime is iChat rebadged. Meaning, for as long as you've got wifi, you've got Facetime.

That implies I would be logged in to a server of some sort. I'm just wishing Apple would explain it a little better.

[ort888]

Well, I suppose "facetime" is the name for a straight up video call on a phone network.

I guess what I really want to know is if there will be apps that use the forward facing camera. I'm sure there will be. I guess it's a stupid question.

Apple should have launched with an iChat iOS app that does work with AIM, Messenger, etc... just like it does from your Mac.

Facetime would be the super simple phone to phone deal and iChat would be a traditional video chat done through your phone.

[::maroma::]

I'm quite surprised as well that Apple didn't implement iPhone-to-computer iChat video conferencing. My limited knowledge of implementing such things suggests that it would be a relatively simple thing to do. Wifi only of course. Odd.

But with most things Apple introduces for the first time, I'm willing to give it some time in the wild to mature and hope that they add that feature soon. Or someone else comes out with a way to do it via a 3rd party app.

[amazing]

What bothers me most, is that Apple didn't put a forward facing cam in the iPad. Imagine all the Facetime conversations that could've immediately contributed to the popularity of the whole concept...

And, natch, they will put one in the 2nd gen iPad, but since one iPad is selling every 3 seconds, Apple is sure missing out on the opportunity to dominate in the video calling sphere.

[Phileas]

It will happen. The gen one iPad was rushed to market, to kill off competition from the Kindle and various Android devices.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I'm quite surprised as well that Apple didn't implement iPhone-to-computer iChat video conferencing. My limited knowledge of implementing such things suggests that it would be a relatively simple thing to do. Wifi only of course. Odd.

But with most things Apple introduces for the first time, I'm willing to give it some time in the wild to mature and hope that they add that feature soon. Or someone else comes out with a way to do it via a 3rd party app.

I understand that Apple has, like, one guy working on iChat.

[Big Mac]

Interesting. You'd think the second biggest company in the world by market cap would have more resources devoted to active projects than that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

It will happen. The gen one iPad was rushed to market, to kill off competition from the Kindle and various Android devices.

Yep.

It was something they figured they could omit in favor of being way ahead of the competition in market and mindshare.

An iPad sold every 3 seconds says they were right.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Interesting. You'd think the second biggest company in the world by market cap would have more resources devoted to active projects than that.

No really, all the engineers are busy answering Steve Jobs' emails

-t

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

It will happen. The gen one iPad was rushed to market, to kill off competition from the Kindle and various Android devices.

Any actual proof of this? The Kindle is no competition for the iPad, considering it only has one specific use. And I don't know of any Android devices out there that are selling other than their phones.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

It will happen. The gen one iPad was rushed to market, to kill off competition from the Kindle and various Android devices.

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Any actual proof of this? The Kindle is no competition for the iPad, considering it only has one specific use. And I don't know of any Android devices out there that are selling other than their phones.

There is no proof, because this is nothing else than a pet theory of people that complain about the lack of features.

When did Apple EVER wait with a 1st generation product to pile on more and more features, just to release a late, fully-packed version ?

I can't remember that happening. Apple always started out with products that had basic features, and did those well.
In later versions, they increased the features. It's always been like that.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Any actual proof of this? The Kindle is no competition for the iPad, considering it only has one specific use. And I don't know of any Android devices out there that are selling other than their phones.

The original iMac, OS X 10.0, the original iPod, the original iPhone, iMovie 08, Aperture 1, GarageBand 1 (not so much), iPad, and probably a lot of others, all had serious "omissions" that were loudly criticized, but which were either added later, or replaced with suitable substitutes later on, and in some cases, completely ignored until irrelevant.

Apple ALWAYS reduces feature sets to the absolute minimum they think they can get away with on a first-generation new product, and polishes those until they shine.

[Matt OS X]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Facetime is iChat rebadged. Meaning, for as long as you've got wifi, you've got Facetime.

I found this info from Engadget.com related to "Facetime".

Here's what they said after playing around with iPhone 4 at WWDC Demo booth:

"We were confused at first because we expected FaceTime to be its own app, but instead it's baked into the phone app. Here's how it works: if you place a call to someone else with an iPhone 4, it's able to autodetect that they're FaceTime-compatible and you're given the option of requesting a video call. Otherwise, you can go into the contact card and initiate a FaceTime call right from there (like sending a text message). "

Source: iPhone 4 guide: preview, pricing, availability -- Engadget

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Matt OS X 

"We were confused at first because we expected FaceTime to be its own app, but instead it's baked into the phone app. Here's how it works: if you place a call to someone else with an iPhone 4, it's able to autodetect that they're FaceTime-compatible and you're given the option of requesting a video call. Otherwise, you can go into the contact card and initiate a FaceTime call right from there (like sending a text message). "

Interesting. So what happens if I'm halfway around the world from the other person. Do I get charged for an international call for the bit that requires the initial handshake?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Interesting. So what happens if I'm halfway around the world from the other person. Do I get charged for an international call for the bit that requires the initial handshake?

I doubt it. Or you could just do it from contacts.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The original iMac, OS X 10.0, the original iPod, the original iPhone, iMovie 08, Aperture 1, GarageBand 1 (not so much), iPad, and probably a lot of others, all had serious "omissions" that were loudly criticized, but which were either added later, or replaced with suitable substitutes later on, and in some cases, completely ignored until irrelevant.

Apple ALWAYS reduces feature sets to the absolute minimum they think they can get away with on a first-generation new product, and polishes those until they shine.

Right, but how many were "rushed to market, to kill off competition", as Phileas stated? That's what I want proof of, and of course there isn't any.

Like turtle said, Apple has a history of gen 1 releases with limited features. However the "loud criticisms" have also come along with big sales numbers, so I think Apple is doing it right…

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I doubt it. Or you could just do it from contacts.

According to that description from Engadget you need to actually place a call first, though.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I doubt it. Or you could just do it from contacts.

Yes... but from a technical perspective, how would that be accomplished? Every indication from Apple is that there is not a server brokering the video call. If that's the case, how would my iPhone know how to contact another persons iPhone directly via WiFi? Seems to me the connection has to be made via the cellular network first.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Right, but how many were "rushed to market, to kill off competition", as Phileas stated? That's what I want proof of, and of course there isn't any.

Kindle, and other readers, were beginning to get serious traction in the market, so much so that electronic book purchases were taking a noticeable bite out of paper book purchases. Kindle was the market leader, and Kindle comes with DRM and a closed format.

It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that Apple did see this as a threat to their own offering. One of the iPod's most popular uses is as a reader. As far as proof is concerned, I don't know what publications you're reading, or not for that matter, but this is a theory put forward by a whole bunch of usually well informed analysts.

The Kindle isn't the only reason I believe that the iPad was indeed rushed to market, but it was without doubt a contributing factor.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

According to that description from Engadget you need to actually place a call first, though.

According to that description from Engadget, you don't need to place a call first. You can use FaceTime by placing a call and then hitting the FaceTime button, or you can bring up the person in contacts, and hit FaceTime.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Kindle, and other readers, were beginning to get serious traction in the market, so much so that electronic book purchases were taking a noticeable bite out of paper book purchases. Kindle was the market leader, and Kindle comes with DRM and a closed format.

It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that Apple did see this as a threat to their own offering. One of the iPod's most popular uses is as a reader. As far as proof is concerned, I don't know what publications you're reading, or not for that matter, but this is a theory put forward by a whole bunch of usually well informed analysts.

The Kindle isn't the only reason I believe that the iPad was indeed rushed to market, but it was without doubt a contributing factor.

One of the iPod's most popular use is as a reader? On what planet?

Also, the Kindle is not competition for the iPad. The Kindle serves a single function, and cannot compete with the iPad on any level. The opposite, however, is true - the iPad is competition for the Kindle. Since the iPad can also function has a book reader, it has the ability to displace the Kindle.

Regardless, as you stated, it's just a theory you have, and not a fact.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

According to that description from Engadget, you don't need to place a call first. You can use FaceTime by placing a call and then hitting the FaceTime button, or you can bring up the person in contacts, and hit FaceTime.

Ah, missed that last part.

[kman42]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Yes... but from a technical perspective, how would that be accomplished? Every indication from Apple is that there is not a server brokering the video call. If that's the case, how would my iPhone know how to contact another persons iPhone directly via WiFi? Seems to me the connection has to be made via the cellular network first.

1) Yeah, this is the real question. Is cell service required for some sort of initial handshake? What would it do? Send your IP and NAT routing info over the cell signal or via text message? I doubt it.

It seems much more likely to me that they are simply using some ID in the phone/SIM to log onto a central chat server. Your SIM card info is your logon/pass for the video chat server, but there is likely no cell service required. I'm guessing everything is done over wifi and it will work with the cell radio turned off.

2) I'm guessing it doesn't work with iChat yet because iChat uses different (less optimized?) compression since it runs on a full-powered mac. I bet there will be a new version of iChat very soon.

3) Also, iChat relies on a buddylist of AIM usernames. FaceTime does not; it just uses your phone as a login ID. Apple needs to find an easy way to make iChat aware of when FaceTime users are online. Perhaps just any phone number in your address book?

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

One of the iPod's most popular use is as a reader? On what planet?

Planet Earth. The kindle app has been consistently in the top five as far as downloads are concerned.

As far as theories are concerned you're correct. A theory shared with many others who have solid insights into Apple's business plans.

The problem with allowing the kindle to get too much traction is that people will get locked into one format. If I've got 50 ebooks from amazon I will be less likely to adopt Apple's format, and that reluctance will go up with every additional book I buy.

[jokell82]

Top 5? It's number 143.

The problem I have with your theory is that it assumes people will buy a Kindle instead of an iPad. That doesn't make much sense.

[::maroma::]

I believe that in an interview Steve said that Apple started work on the iPad before they started work on the iPhone. I find it hard to believe the theory that the iPad was a rushed product, being that it seems to have been in development for at least 3 years, most likely more.

I think someone should define the term "rushed" here.