Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

brainchild2b · Mar 25, 2003, 02:10 PM

On December 5th, LoopRumors reported that iChat 2.0 was slated for release in early 2003. The timing was slightly off, as we will see a first peek of iChat 2.0 at the WWDC, when Apple introduces its latest operating system upgrade, Panther. We have received new information regarding some important details in iChat 2.0. First, and most important, we learned that it will be Apple's answer to NetMeeting. It will have full videoconferencing capabilities and be H.323 compliant. Video capabilities will work over the internet and Rendezvous. Frame rates will be fastest over 802.11g, but will work with older 802.11b AirPort base stations. We learned the reason for the later release is that Apple is working on a new compression technology and wants to wait until it can achieve a full 30fps (frames per second), the equivalent of broadcast television. For anyone who has used current video options, this is definitely worth the wait.

pat++ · Mar 25, 2003, 02:17 PM

They'd better support SIP (IETF standard) in addition to H.323. MSN Messenger on Windows has been supporting SIP video for months.

OwlBoy · Mar 25, 2003, 02:17 PM

wow, I wish they would not wait till there is a big system update to update ichat all the time though.

-Owl

gorickey · Mar 25, 2003, 02:21 PM

Videoconferencing? Bah.

Gimme a damn log/archival viewer under-system that is searchable. Learn from Adium.

OptimusG4 · Mar 25, 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by OwlBoy:
wow, I wish they would not wait till there is a big system update to update ichat all the time though.

-Owl

Or any app for that matter.

Yoda's Erotic Piggyback · Mar 25, 2003, 02:41 PM

Hasn't loop Rumors been WRONG on everything they ever spewed out since they launched?

voodoo · Mar 25, 2003, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Yoda's Erotic Piggyback:
Hasn't loop Rumors been WRONG on everything they ever spewed out since they launched?

No, amazingly they have been fairly accurate. They are a level above MOSR, and even nicer than Thinksecret.

brainchild2b · Mar 25, 2003, 02:51 PM

i'm sure they are on the money, ichat after all has video conferencing icons built into it. apple has always prided itself in coming out with "magic" video codecs that do all kinds of fun stuff.

It makes complete sense.

mitchell_pgh · Mar 25, 2003, 03:22 PM

I think it will be cool to live chat with friends, but why would Apple come out with a proprietary codec for iChat? I totally understand H.323 and SIP, but anything "OS X ONLY" isn't going to go over all that well.

I say add H.323 and SIP and a Apple video cam (small and inexpensive [think $20]) and be done with iChat. Don't forget to add a library like with iPhoto and iTunes for friends work etc!!!

dfiler · Mar 25, 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by brainchild2b:
Frame rates will be fastest over 802.11g, but will work with older 802.11b AirPort base stations.

Hmmm. Without this assertion, the rumor would be more convincing. Is this sentence from the original story? Its wrong in so many ways...

Almost nobody has a WAN connection even as fast as 802.11b let alone g. Why would 802.11g be fastest? 802.11g is not the fastest network port on any Mac ever made. Its always slower than the terrestial based 10/100/1000 ethernet jack.

Even if it was the fastest, most people are behind a modem, router, or some form of shared WAN connection. This WAN conection is almost always the bottle neck. It probably won't matter how you're connected to your LAN since WAN connections are much slower.

'but will work with older ... base stations'? Well of course! Its IP based right? Network hardware is transparent except for speed and portmapping issues behind routers and switches.

Ok... I'm done tearing this rumor apart now.

Instead, I'l eagerly await iChat 2.0.

I've heard rumors of Apple branded video conferencing for a few years now. A few years ago, when Apple came to Carnegie Mellon, the presenters dropped a few hints about upcoming video conferencing products. This was done by saying, when asked, that we would be preasantly surprised *wink* *grin* *wink*. One such hint turned out to be the free developer tools.

mrmister · Mar 25, 2003, 03:32 PM

I just want iChat to stop crashing and acting buggy. Could I get a 1.5 release that does that, and ditches all the videoconferencing?

shawn_hsiao · Mar 25, 2003, 03:41 PM

While waiting for iChat, why not use ohphoneX (http://versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/18544) for now?

It is a H.323 compliant video conferencing client, and it is free.

CatOne · Mar 25, 2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by dfiler:
Hmmm. Without this assertion, the rumor would be more convincing. Is this sentence from the original story? Its wrong in so many ways...

Almost nobody has a WAN connection even as fast as 802.11b let alone g. Why would 802.11g be fastest? 802.11g is not the fastest network port on any Mac ever made. Its always slower than the terrestial based 10/100/1000 ethernet jack.

Even if it was the fastest, most people are behind a modem, router, or some form of shared WAN connection. This WAN conection is almost always the bottle neck. It probably won't matter how you're connected to your LAN since WAN connections are much slower.

'but will work with older ... base stations'? Well of course! Its IP based right? Network hardware is transparent except for speed and portmapping issues behind routers and switches.

EXACTLY. 802.11b is about 10 MB/sec, and a T1 is about 1.5 MB/sec. So the Airport speed doesn't matter one iona, unless you're talking about a dedicated T3 pipe directly between the two (which is, we're talking, BIG $$$).

I almost NEVER need anythign faster than standard 10 MB/sec ethernet, unless I'm copying gigs from one machine to another. In that case I usually just use a firewire HD, it's easier :-D

Yoda's Erotic Piggyback · Mar 25, 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:
No, amazingly they have been fairly accurate. They are a level above MOSR, and even nicer than Thinksecret.

Come again, a look in the archive promises new iPods a month ago FOR SURE and before that it was iPods with Firewire 800 and video. Besides that just about everything else is also wrong.

funkboy · Mar 25, 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by CatOne:
EXACTLY. 802.11b is about 10 MB/sec,

Actually, to be totally accurate, it's 10 Megabits per second, around 1.2MegaBytes (MB).

Just a note.

Also, how will Apple support webcams then? A new video input API? Or does quickTime handle all that?

And will we see an Apple webcam come from this then? Maybe webcams built into iMac screens, or the base, or in iBooks and Powerbooks, or...?

OwlBoy · Mar 25, 2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Yoda's Erotic Piggyback:
Hasn't loop Rumors been WRONG on everything they ever spewed out since they launched?

They called the 12 inch PB when no one belived them.

-Owl

gorickey · Mar 25, 2003, 06:48 PM

I've never even heard of the site before...probably a good reason for that.

Oneota · Mar 25, 2003, 07:41 PM

What I hate about videoconferencing is how the camera is never where the person wants to look. You want to look at the person you're talking to, but then to them it looks like you're looking off into space.

Make a webcam with the camera hidden behind an LCD (that somehow allows the camera to see past it) so that I can put the incoming video on top of the camera, and you'll have me sold.

joe_kr · Mar 25, 2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by OwlBoy:
They called the 12 inch PB when no one belived them.

-Owl

no... they didn't

The 12" and 17" PowerBooks were only mentioned the night before by MacRumors.

Read the archive

joe_kr · Mar 25, 2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:
No, amazingly they have been fairly accurate..

they have not been very accurate about anything.

brainchild2b · Mar 25, 2003, 08:39 PM

two things. Apple is going to toute wireless video conferencing, that's why it was mentioned in the article. It will support all the standards, but for people on macs you will be able to use a better video conferencing standard, consider it a huge bonus.

As far as a person whining about people never have the video camera looking at them, who's fault is that? The stupid idiots who don't setup their camera right. I have my camera positioned just fine for video conferencing and it looks directly into my eyes. It's just stupid users who don't think abou this when the conference. Word to the wise, tell them they are a idiot and get them to do it right. Stupidity will always be around. People used to not know how to hold phones either when they were first invented and used. Everything with time.

Oneota · Mar 25, 2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by brainchild2b:

As far as a person whining about people never have the video camera looking at them, who's fault is that? The stupid idiots who don't setup their camera right. I have my camera positioned just fine for video conferencing and it looks directly into my eyes. It's just stupid users who don't think abou this when the conference. Word to the wise, tell them they are a idiot and get them to do it right. Stupidity will always be around. People used to not know how to hold phones either when they were first invented and used. Everything with time.

Whoa, there! Calm the hell down! I wasn't whining (at least, that wasn't my intention). I was just sayin' it'd be nice to be able to really look someone in the eyes, instead of having to fake it. Sure, you can position the camera differently, but still, it's easy to tell that the person on the other end isn't really looking where 'you' are (and vice-versa).

And don't be so quick to call someone's wistful ideas whining. It was just a thought.

LightWaver-67 · Mar 25, 2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by pat++:
They'd better support SIP (IETF standard) in addition to H.323. MSN Messenger on Windows has been supporting SIP video for months.

Heh...

Video...?

How about jumping BACK a few technologies there Apple...? How about TELEPHONY features...!

Sure... Chat is great... and video conferencing is a big plus... but I'm still waiting on a way to use my OSX Mac to organize and control my telephony needs; Fax, Voicemail, hands-free headset, caller ID, integration with AddressBook, etc...

I hope iChat continues to get better... but gimme some ol' fashioned control over my land-line.... eh?

moss514 · Mar 25, 2003, 11:26 PM

What I am waiting for is the option to change profiles. I'm tired of hearing my wife bitch about iChat and how she wants to use it too. We use the same OS X account as there is no reason to use two in our case. But it only makes sense to have the option to use other profiles in a chat app. IE; AIM and ICQ

gorickey · Mar 26, 2003, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by moss514:
What I am waiting for is the option to change profiles. I'm tired of hearing my wife bitch about iChat and how she wants to use it too. We use the same OS X account as there is no reason to use two in our case. But it only makes sense to have the option to use other profiles in a chat app. IE; AIM and ICQ

Have you made separate accounts for each other via the iChat preference "Accounts" pane? I go between different AIM names quite frequently with a click of a button. Maybe I mis-understood your problem?

goose · Mar 26, 2003, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by OwlBoy:
wow, I wish they would not wait till there is a big system update to update ichat all the time though.

-Owl

My thoughts exactly. Been waiting for buddy groups support before I start using iChat.....

Group51 · 08:51 AM

If its netmeeting compatible, then that's great. I don't have any friends who use AIM, everyone I know is either MSN, ICQ or Yahoo. This neccesitates something like Fire or Proteus. But for those few occasions when I need to netmeeting someone, yeah, this sounds great.

And cripes I hope Apple doesn't put web cams in their macs which focuses on the eyes - its not always the eyes you want to look at, and you don't always want to be seen in VC. In fact, some angles and vistas can only be achieved by mounting the cam well away from the Mac. Any web cam needs to be external and on a lead.

moss514 · Mar 26, 2003, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by gorickey:
Have you made separate accounts for each other via the iChat preference "Accounts" pane? I go between different AIM names quite frequently with a click of a button. Maybe I mis-understood your problem?

I think I tried that. But if I remember correctly, Everything is still under the Mac OS X user account (my name) and the buddy list does not change. I am not at my Mac so I can't check.

dfiler · Mar 26, 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by moss514:
I think I tried that. But if I remember correctly, Everything is still under the Mac OS X user account (my name) and the buddy list does not change. I am not at my Mac so I can't check.

AIM buddy lists are stored on the server. Your life just got simpler aye?

jtc · Mar 26, 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by funkboy:
Actually, to be totally accurate, it's 10 Megabits per second, around 1.2MegaBytes (MB).

Actually, to be totally accurate, it's 11 Megabits per second.

willed · Mar 26, 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Heh...

Video...?

How about jumping BACK a few technologies there Apple...? How about TELEPHONY features...!
Sure... Chat is great... and video conferencing is a big plus... but I'm still waiting on a way to use my OSX Mac to organize and control my telephony needs; Fax, Voicemail, hands-free headset, caller ID, integration with AddressBook, etc...
I hope iChat continues to get better... but gimme some ol' fashioned control over my land-line.... eh?

Good point well made! I remember with my 1996 Performa 5400/180 ApplePhone software was included. Where is that sort of functionality now?

LightWaver-67 · Mar 26, 2003, 05:42 PM

Irrelevant question of the day:

Okay... if Apple DOES open-up the scope of iChat to encompass other clients such as MSN or ICQ... do they then remove the reference in the iChat icon of the "AOL-Running-Man"...?

I mean... I would 'think' that AOL let them use it because of whatever agreement that was struck for exclusivity... but if OTHER networks allow access into their systems... I think that AOL & Apple BOTH would want the AOL reference removed from the iChat icon.

- yes... the topic is barely relevant, but I'm just curious.

gorickey · Mar 26, 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Irrelevant question of the day:

Okay... if Apple DOES open-up the scope of iChat to encompass other clients such as MSN or ICQ... do they then remove the reference in the iChat icon of the "AOL-Running-Man"...?

I mean... I would 'think' that AOL let them use it because of whatever agreement that was struck for exclusivity... but if OTHER networks allow access into their systems... I think that AOL & Apple BOTH would want the AOL reference removed from the iChat icon.

- yes... the topic is barely relevant, but I'm just curious.

I think it will change into a quacking duck/bird of some sort...oh wait...

Evan DiBiase · Mar 26, 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by CatOne:
EXACTLY. 802.11b is about 10 MB/sec, and a T1 is about 1.5 MB/sec. So the Airport speed doesn't matter one iona, unless you're talking about a dedicated T3 pipe directly between the two (which is, we're talking, BIG $$$).

Or, perhaps, the person you're conferencing with is on your local network, which would certainly make the speed of that local network relevant.

benb · Mar 27, 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Evan DiBiase:
Or, perhaps, the person you're conferencing with is on your local network, which would certainly make the speed of that local network relevant.

In which case you get your lazy butt out of your chair and walk down the hall to talk to them.

LightWaver-67 · Mar 27, 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by benb:
In which case you get your lazy butt out of your chair and walk down the hall to talk to them.

Unless your LAN spans across numerous buildings and locations... such as past companies I've worked for.

Appleman · Mar 27, 2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by benb:
In which case you get your lazy butt out of your chair and walk down the hall to talk to them.

LightWaver-67 · Mar 27, 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Unless your LAN spans across numerous buildings and locations... such as past companies I've worked for.

Oh... and before people MUCH smarter than me flame me... I used to think that was a WAN... not a LAN... but our IT department still claimed it was a LAN.

L = Local & W = Wide... right...?

Why would that NOT be a WAN...?

Sorry for going off-topic.

Superchicken · Mar 28, 2003, 03:49 AM

I thought a WAN was a wireless area network?

Anyway video confferencing would be cool... I'd also like some sorta net2phone support or something... sadly I've never met a PC user that uses that though... I dono I guess it must be a sucky program or something... I'd like to be able to make real phone calls from my Mac though... although I must wonder what the quality of the calls would be.

TC · Mar 28, 2003, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by CatOne:
So the Airport speed doesn't matter one iona

How many iotas do you get to one iona?

fireside · Mar 28, 2003, 05:38 AM

i would like to see apple actually fix bugs in iChat 1 before releasing more features

MasonMcD · Mar 28, 2003, 02:48 PM

Local doesn't necessarily mean physically local, just that it doesn't jump into the "cloud" or the internet at some point. But even then, you could have a VPN that while technically a WAN connection (you in Ohio, them in California), for all practical purposes (accessing local resources) it's a LAN connection.

dfiler · Mar 28, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by MasonMcD:
Local doesn't necessarily mean physically local, just that it doesn't jump into the "cloud" or the internet at some point. But even then, you could have a VPN that while technically a WAN connection (you in Ohio, them in California), for all practical purposes (accessing local resources) it's a LAN connection.

I agree entirely with the last two posts.

It would be nice if the current features worked before adding new broken ones to the list.

The term LAN has become a bit more ambiguous recently. Tycpically, I consider a LAN to encompass anything that is under my (organization's) control. If the computers or network hardware belong to an ISP or someone else, I consider it to be part of the WAN (wide area network).

sushiism · Mar 28, 2003, 06:54 PM

well in Alevel computing we were told if i remeber rightly:
LAN = one room or building
WAN = anything that spans more than one building/location upward
WAN certainly doesnt mean wireless though

goose · Mar 28, 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by sushiism:
well in Alevel computing we were told if i remeber rightly:
LAN = one room or building
WAN = anything that spans more than one building/location upward
WAN certainly doesnt mean wireless though

I always thought WAN was Windows Ain't Nice.

Okay okay....so that was kinda lame.

DeathMan · Mar 28, 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by sushiism:
well in Alevel computing we were told if i remeber rightly:
LAN = one room or building
WAN = anything that spans more than one building/location upward
WAN certainly doesnt mean wireless though

Thats maybe partiallyl right, but partially wrong. The VW factory in Wolfsburg is the length of the whole city, but my neighbor in the next apartment have a wireless network under the same subnet. These are both examples of where you could have a LAN. It doesn't matter what building your computers are in. If I run my ethernet cable out to my front porch, did I just make my LAN a WAN? No.

If you would have said one room or building or location, I'd say "We have a winner!"
The VPN thing would emulate a LAN, thats why its called a VIRTUAL private network. Its still a WAN, but its emulating a LAN.

ambush · Mar 29, 2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by voodoo:
No, amazingly they have been fairly accurate. They are a level above MOSR, and even nicer than Thinksecret.

Well not really.

ThinkSecret is the most accurate out there, I'm pretty sure they have a big source INSIDE apple. Remember when they predicted .mac and no one would believe it? I do.

LoopRumours is accurate, yes, but it's a newcomer.

proxyma · Apr 1, 2003, 10:37 PM

Hi,

I personaly don't like videochat for personal use.
I know very few pple using videochat (i have abt 300 buddies)
BTW, i was wondering, abt 10 buttons (editable) making sounds to participants, just like the smileys.
That would be cool & fun, don't you think ?

PS : http://ichatmasters.free.fr

Vanquish · Apr 2, 2003, 07:18 AM

Well, support for other types of chat would be cool. Until then I'll stay with Proteus.

and about WAN/LAN: I think it's a WAN when it includes a connection via the Internet. It's a LAN when connected without the internet (be it through wireless or cable).

ShotgunEd · Apr 2, 2003, 07:29 AM

Heres what my Comp Sci Degree tells me

A LAN is a number of machines connected together forming a network for the sharing of data and resources.

A WAN is basically several LANs in different locations that are connected somehow.

A WLAN is a wireless network.