
FaceTime and the iPod Touch - mattyb
http://daringfireball.net/2010/06/facetime_ipod_touch
======
risotto
Why is every DF post ending up here on HN? For comments perhaps?

Google / Google Voice / Gizmo5 or any SIP provider offers data calls. I've
been messing around with this on my iPad and it's very close to being viable.
There's no question it is on Android.

I hope Apple keeps moving in this direction but I doubt they'll be the first
to route around the carriers. Right now all signs point to Apple being happily
engaged to AT&T.

~~~
portman
Furthermore, couldn't you replace "FaceTime" with "Skype" and the article
would still make sense?

 _"[Skype], I think, is a first step in the direction of a mobile “phone” with
no mobile carrier. If and when [Skype] is supported over 3G in addition to Wi-
Fi, it’ll be data, not voice — megabytes, not minutes."_

Skype already has a device that works on 3G:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Skypephone_Series>

And today, Skype has 529 million accounts, whereas FaceTime has 600,000 (the
number of pre-ordered iPhone 4s).

It's not at all clear to me how Apple expects FaceTime to encroach on Skype's
market share.

~~~
WiseWeasel
How many people own said Skype 3G device? How many people own cell phones? The
point is, if you want to be making calls over the wireless network when you're
out and about, chances are you won't be using a device capable of making
unmetered Skype calls over 3G (at least not for very long, or with much
success). You'll be using the carrier's sanctioned and costly services. You
can make calls over 3G today with Skype on the iPhone, and it's free for now,
but they say it'll only be free until the end of this year, and then they'll
be charging for it.

[http://blogs.skype.com/en/2010/05/iphone_calling_over_3g.htm...](http://blogs.skype.com/en/2010/05/iphone_calling_over_3g.html)

The carriers are flexing their leverage over Apple/FaceTime and Skype to fight
any free VoIP services on their networks. Look for a paid FaceTime-over-cell-
data-network plan to emerge in short order, with revenues going straight to
the carrier, along with Skype's.

------
portman
My little brother did not have a cellphone for most of his just-completed
Freshman year of college.

He had an iPod Touch with Skype and omnipresent WiFi. He called me (on my
cellphone no-less!) while walking to class.

The iPod Touch already _does_ this, even without FaceTime.

------
warwick
If this prediction holds, Apple could add an awful lot of value to MobileMe by
providing a sort of answering machine service to subscribers.

I'm close to wireless for most of the day, but when I'm not it would be nice
to have FaceTime callers that couldn't reach me leave a video message that got
delivered via email.

~~~
WiseWeasel
Not that it's a bad idea, it's not, but if you're doing it by email anyway,
then you can just hang up, fire up the camera app, record your 'message', and
email/MMS it to the recipient. In fact, you can do that today, without iOS 4,
or even an iPhone 4 (with some dexterity).

~~~
awad
That's a lot more work, though, than simply leaving a message.

~~~
nooneelse
An "Email this person a video message" button on the call screen doesn't seem
too tough though.

------
rewind
There's a potential downside to this for Apple though: if they start allowing
users to bypass carrier services, then the monthly cost of the service will
start to go down as users use fewer features, but that also means Apple will
get less of a subsidy from the carriers. Most people don't want to spend $700
on a mobile phone, so I'm sure they're not going to go out of their way to
decrease carrier significance to any large extent.

~~~
drewcrawford
> Most people don't want to spend $700 on a mobile phone

Until quite recently, Apple hasn't been in the "most people want" business.
Their marketshare has been going up, but I'm not convinced that they've
totally changed direction from high-end.

The carrier locking has always struck me as a bit of a detour. If you look at
Jobs statements circa the original iPhone he's clearly aiming at crushing the
subsidized market. They've experienced a setback since then, but I don't think
they're defeated.

The real story here is that all this time, we thought the renegotiations
surrounding VOIP were about getting Skype et al in the app store. In reality,
they probably really slipped terms in to allow Apple to do VOIP calling (even
if it's only over WiFi, I doubt they were allowed to under the old noncompete
clause...)

Suddenly, AT&T's rapid reversal on iPad pricing makes sense. AT&T must have
gotten wind of FaceTime.

------
pwim
_But surely, someday, there will be a non-phone-carrier wireless networking
technology with far greater range than Wi-Fi._

This technology already exists. Here in Japan, emobile sells a "pocket wifi
router" that has a 3G data connection built in. They advertise it in
conjunction with an iPod touch.

WiMAX is another such technology.

------
yungchin
I don't see why Apple are making the effort. It looks like they won't be
making any money from FaceTime directly, so then it's just a nice feature to
help sell more Apple kit. Why not save a lot of development and infrastructure
cost by pre-installing a (custom) Skype?

(I realise that that doesn't make it exclusive to Apple, but I don't see Apple
beating the network effects that Skype has working for them, either)

~~~
jbrennan
My guess is they're not including Skype for many of the same reasons they
don't include Flash. They don't want to be in a position where they are
depending on one single company to fix things so they can release new
products.

~~~
nooneelse
That sounds about right... but doesn't that scare away lots of good ideas?
Don't develop an idea that would be a great selling point for the iPhone,
cause Apple will see that as a possible future dependency, stall your app from
getting in the store and do it themselves in the next update. If Layar really
gets moving, how long till Apple "does AR right" and then kicks them off for
"duplicating built-in features"?

------
Perceval
To make the end-run complete, Apple would have to convince carriers to treat
text messages (IMs basically) as data instead of SMS.

~~~
steadicat
Why? The equivalent of FaceTime for text messages exists today, and it's any
IM app with push notifications. Meebo and Whatsapp come to mind.

~~~
glhaynes
IM requires separate logins to be exchanged, they exist on partitioned
networks, etc. IM's handy and has its place, but it's not going to replace
SMS.

~~~
snagage
You should try Whatsup. Based on contact list phone numbers - no login
exchange required. Very SMS like in nature. The gf and I use it as a SMS
replacement and it works well.

~~~
ojilles
Same here. However, there's way more lag in these apps (both msgs arriving
when not in the app as well as actually just starting the app) than the built
in SMS app from Apple.

------
mikecane
This answers my question, Why doesn't Apple or Google just buy a carrier?
Because they intend to put them out of business.

~~~
steadicat
How can they get rid of carriers altogether? They are still the only way to
get widespread wireless data service. And as long as that doesn't change,
they're gonna do all they can to cling to the old model.

~~~
mikecane
How did Alexander Graham Bell wind up getting rid of the entrenched Western
Union in his day? Things change all the time.

------
Kilimanjaro
A perfect phone for home. We already ditched landlines. Mobile carriers are
sucking our blood while their service keeps sucking.

I, for one, applaud apple's effort to bring video call to the masses.

I hope a future Apple TV display can do video calls too. Genius!

