Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FaceTime and the iPod Touch

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: FaceTime and the iPod Touch

#11

Post by jbrennan »

yungchin wrote: post #9

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)

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.

Re: FaceTime and the iPod Touch

#12

Post by steadicat »

Perceval wrote: post #7

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

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.

Re: FaceTime and the iPod Touch

#13

Post by steadicat »

mikecane wrote: post #10

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

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.

Re: FaceTime and the iPod Touch

#14

Post by mikecane »

steadicat wrote: post #13
mikecane wrote: post #10

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

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.

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

Re: FaceTime and the iPod Touch

#15

Post by panacea »

risotto wrote: post #8
irons wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internationally Apple works with dozens of carriers, frequently more than one in a territory. This is still the company whose CEO referred to carriers as "orifices" not so long ago. They're going to keep putting a brave face on the AT&T relationship right up until the morning when they announce an alternative.

Yeah I bet you're right. We all just have to suck it up now with AT&T but nobody is happy with the status quo.

I think reliable blanket wireless coverage (which is what the cell phone providers are supposedly offering) is harder to realize than people think.

What are the overheads for yourself to provide a quality wi-fi enabled home. Your workplace, likewise, expends the effort to be a device hub. On-the-go data everywhere? It's likely more difficult than you think.

The cell-tower network was funded by everyone owning a mobile phone to exchange calls... data hungry devices are still in the minority. Apple could have rolled their own "A4" 3G network if feasible. It's in their DNA to control all the pipes. The fact that they haven't tells me that the pipes are prohibitively expensive.

Re: FaceTime and the iPod Touch

#16

Post by 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.

Re: FaceTime and the iPod Touch

#17

Post by portman »

risotto wrote: post #3

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…

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.

Re: FaceTime and the iPod Touch

#18

Post by 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.

Re: FaceTime and the iPod Touch

#19

Post by glhaynes »

steadicat wrote: post #12
Perceval wrote: post #7

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

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.

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.

Re: FaceTime and the iPod Touch

#20

Post by joe_the_user »

portman wrote: post #17
risotto wrote: post #3

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…

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…

Stand-alone wifi phones have existed for a while too.

It's just the cellular networks are much better and don't have to fear wifi replacing them.

Post reply on HN