Apple Planning Video-Call iPhone

An anonymous reader writes "The recently awarded iPhone patent contains hidden claims which indicate Apple is planning to bring video calling and recording features to the iPhone, according to InfoWeek blogger Alex Wolfe. Buried within the 'embodiments' section of patent number 7,479,949 is this: 'In some embodiments, the functions may include telephoning, video conferencing, e-mailing, instant messaging, blogging, digital photographing, digital videoing, web browsing, digital music playing, and/or digital video playing.' Wolfe also cites language indicating Apple is aware that having a rear-facing camera is an impediment towards video calls (and also taking pictures of yourself.): 'In some embodiments, an optical sensor is located on the front of the device so that the user's image may be obtained for videoconferencing while the user views the other video conference participants on the touch screen display.' Screen caps of the patent drawing are also available."

Comments

Why not sooner?

[A. B3ttik]

Someone should write a video-sharing app for the current iPhone and also sell an iPhone Periscope attachment that lets the current camera look at the user.

After all, this really is one of those times where the iPhone devs must be hitting their heads and saying "Why didn't we think of that sooner?" It seems so obvious in retrospect. Other than the forward-facing camera, there is _nothing_ keeping the current generation of iPhones from having this capability. They've got the power, the robustness, the hardware, and the infrastructure.

Did the devs just have a brainfart when designing the iPhone or was it their intention all along to release such a great new feature that you couldn't upgrade to without upgrading the whole phone, thereby having to buy a new one?

Re:Why not sooner?

[vitaflo]

"But in Apples case? iChat, iTunes, iPhoto, Pages, Mail, all good starts but then what? Neither is the application to rule them all."

This is a bad thing? We talk so much about apps that have tons of bloat in them and how bad it is. Many companies add features to apps just to add features, not because it makes them any better. Many of Apple's apps simply do their job, why do they need to do everything under the sun?

Re:Why not sooner?

[DurendalMac]

iChat don't do MSN. Webcam don't work with ICQ or something such, file transfer may not be supported over Jabber, multiple contact lists for each protocol is retarded

iChat works with AIM, which is fine. I doubt Apple was in a hurry to hop on Microsoft's network, Yahoo video chat sucks greasy dick, and who the hell even uses ICQ anymore? If the webcam doesn't work with ICQ, then blame ICQ for not supporting it. Apple doesn't write their software. I've seen third party apps that have no problem accessing iSights, so quit complaining. Jabber support seems kind of tacked on in iChat. I think Apple knew that grandma wasn't ever going to touch it, so they didn't pretty it up much.

iTunes have very limited format support and as far as I know you can't let it synchronize the content of a directory without letting it manage a complete library.

iTunes will rip your CDs, buy songs from their online store, and plays MP3s just fine. WMAs can be set to be converted. As far as music goes, their format support is dandy. Videos are a different matter, but I believe you can put any format supported by Quicktime in it. Get Perian and away you go. Putting them on iPods is another ball of wax.

iPhoto don't do adjustments as good as aperture or lightroom and they don't work good with each other / list the adjusted photos of the later ones in iPhoto. It's good enough for browsing saved photos but that's about it.

No shit, Sherlock! Since when was iPhoto supposed to be a full-blown photo editor? Why don't you just bitch that you can't do fine audio editing in iTunes? iPhoto is like iTunes for pictures. Organize, print, and some light retouching. That satisfies most people. If you want to do high-quality adjustments, then use Lightroom or Aperture. iPhoto doesn't really talk to them because it's not supposed to. Aperture isn't meant for retouching your 3MP jpegs and Lightroom would need to read the iPhoto library, something I don't think Adobe gives a damn about.

iLife and iWork would probably do better with a manual.

Did you even LOOK for a manual? Ever heard of that help menu, online content, and PDFs?

Mail don't want to check mails for spam before I open the mails (over IMAP) which is kinda useless because if I have opened the mail then I'll already know if it's spam or not .. Also it's not very good at figuring out what is spam or not.

Maybe that's because IMAP stores your email server-side instead of downloading them to your computer like POP3 does. You have to teach the spam filter. It's not perfect, but it gets better over time.

Seriously, this is a lot of baseless bitching. Apple isn't going to do exactly what YOU want them to do with the software. They're going to try and satisfy as many people as they can, and that means appealing to the home market.

Sounds like any 3G phone?

[aliquis]

Why is this news?

A 3G phone which can do video calls!? Omg!! ...

A phone which can use its camera for storing videos and which can play music? No shit!

I had assumed the iPhone could already do video-calls, kinda shitty the 3G one can't (if that's really so.)

Re:Sounds like any 3G phone?

[Nursie]

It's news because Apple are thinking about it.

For some reason. Like when the iPhone came out and everyone was all "ooo! a smartphone! we've never seen one before!". Now I don't know if this was due to the US market being so far behind the rest of the world or just Apple Fanboi'ism, but it was quite surprising.

Yes, Apple make great hardware designs. Yes, Apple do fantastic software interfaces. But the device capabilities have never held up to the competition.

Hell, I had a dual-cam phone a few years back that could do 3G and video calling...

Re:Sounds like any 3G phone?

[powerlord]

Now I don't know if this was due to the US market being so far behind the rest of the world ...

Stop right there, you've got it in one.

The U.S. Cell phone market is ridiculously behind most of the developed world. Part of this is due to the market being largely controlled by a string of localized, relatively unregulated, non-governmental, incumbent monopolies (Verizon) with little competition or incentive to "innovate" beyond "how do we squeeze more $$$ from our customers?", and part of it is that the U.S. is such a relatively large market (area wise) compared to Europe/Japan, that even though a large percentage of the population might be concentrated along coastal areas and some central cities, it can still take quite a bit of time to roll out a given technology to a significant percentage of a region (not population, but region). You also have multiple competing technologies existing in multiple competing networks (AT&T+T-Mobile vs. Sprint vs. Verizon vs. ???).

Those, combined with the hereditary pricing (expected subsidized phones in exchange for multi-year contract commitments, both sides of a cell-to-cell call are expected to pay, high SMS prices, high data-plan prices, Vendor phone lock-in), make for a more stagnant market that is looking for something new and interesting, while at the same time you have a large number of people that may not want change carriers (or may not be able to at the time).

Mostly due to the cost, most people in the U.S. saw SmartPhones as primarily a business only niche (or perhaps a Business/Geek niche).

The iPhone changed a lot of that mostly because it changed people perceptions of smart phones. It provided a phone that looked like it would be fun to use (as opposed to the much more utilitarian look of most of the phone till then). I'd also imagine that the lack of a Qwerty keyboard make it look much less intimidating and "business-like". The fact that so many people were used to (and liked) the iPod probably helped garner quite a bit of good-will, and the thought that you could carry "one less device" by replacing an iPod Nano/Shuffle + Cell phone with an iPhone was probably a pretty big draw for a lot of people.

The fact that the iTunes store integrates so easily with the phones (and iPod touch's), and provides a quick and easy way for users to get apps (click to buy, sync and you're done as opposed to finding the app/web-site, buying each one from a different company, downloading them individually, unpacking as needed, synching them) has done a lot to further that reputation for "ease of use" (and helps explain why the attach rate for the iPhone is ridiculously high compared to any other smart phone on the market in the states).

I expect that one of the things that has been holding some people back is the current size differential between the iPod "classic" and the iPhone/iPod Touch. Once the latter models catch up to the classic, I'd expect to see Apple discontinue the classic, and you'll probably see an even greater uptick in iPhone sales. (another thing is the lock in with AT&T which probably won't play out before the "5 year exclusive" ends ... 1 1/2 year down, 3 1/2 years to go :/ ).

Re:Sounds like any 3G phone?

[fbjon]

> Now I don't know if this was due to the US market being so far behind the rest of the world ...
Stop right there, you've got it in one.

Quite right, I thought this was ridiculous "news" at first, but here's a thought: what if the video-call iphone ends up making video calls more popular than they're now, by virtue of increasing the base of capable phones? There'd be more data over the air, meaning more demand, more competition, cheaper prices... all of which I approve of.

Safety

[sstpm]

I'm a fairly libertarian guy, but wouldn't a whole mob of new video-callers be somewhat dangerous on the road? If you thought texting while driving was bad, just imagine ubiquitous video calling. There would almost have to be legislation against video calls while driving.

Makes some sense

[AKAImBatman]

The "video phones of the future" always assumed use while one was outside of the home or at a place of business. The concept broke down when it was realized that people don't want video feeds in their homes. (The "I just got out of the shower" example is often bandied about.) With a cell phone, the concept starts to make sense again. Like with the characters in TekWar, you're usually in an acceptable location and/or state of dress to take video calls on a cell phone.

Of course, it will be interesting to see how many calls are answered in privacy mode. Will people even trust such a feature?

Re:Code already in OS X?

[p0tat03]

"Good enough" is not really in Apple's vocabulary, though. I've seen many MP3 phones before the iPhone, and all of them were "good enough". You could drag files onto the memory cards, the music playing app would pick them up. You could play, pause, next, shuffle... all the basic features.

But I hated all of them. They were "good enough", but not "good". When I got my hands on the iPhone I felt that it was finally media integration into a phone, done right.

I don't think Apple is going to release video-calling until they have a compelling way to work around the limitations of existing implementations.

Re:Duh

[aliquis]

Kinda retarded to do a 3G phone with only one camera.

More or less the only reason to get 3G at all is to be able to do video calls. I had assumed Apple would had manage to do this right from the beginning, but I guess they would sell less phones then .. Or that it would mess up the design of the front.

Why would you want something so old?

[SuperKendall]

Now, can we please have MMS..like smartphones from 8 years ago?

Should we bring back everything popular from eight years ago? How about floppy discs?

Some things should be left in the past. Emailing pictures to people is more sensible than MMS.

Copy & paste is a different matter, but even there you are not forward thinking...

Re:Why would you want something so old?

[Dogtanian]

Copy & paste is a different matter, but even there you are not forward thinking...

What is that supposed to mean? It's a vague, nebulous criticism that seems to want to have its cake and eat it.

You seem to be attacking him for not thinking in some loose way of what *might* happen in the future and/or not coming up with some better alternative. I don't see *you* coming up with any ideas if they're so obvious!

And more importantly- we're not living in the future; we're living in the present. It's perfectly reasonable to want research into a more effective alternative to cut and paste. However, unless there's something practical ready or imminent, it's just as reasonable to criticise Apple for not including the next best thing in the meantime.

Billygoats

[itsdapead]

Or, this is just Apple's attempt at filing a patent that is as broad as possible.

...because if they don't, some joker will probably come along and patent the specific idea of using a "multi touch" interface for video conferencing, and in N years time when Apple are just about to launch the new video iPhone, up will pop the troll...

Remember, a lot of these patents are just there for mutual assured destruction - if they're ever rolled out, only the cockroaches will survive (unless some bastard has patented their genome).

Re:Duh

[Firehed]

What's the reasoning there? My calls are flaky enough voice-only, and it's not like adding video adds to the experience. 3G has a lot of benefits, but video-calls from a cell phone seems like features just for the sake of features (which, generally, is avoided by Apple).

The last thing I want is a requirement to wear pants while working in my home office, thank you very much.

Keep the camera opposite the screen

[thbb]

Back in the 90's, I did some work for the Ontario Telepresence Project. We did lots of studies on videoconferencing, shared mediaspaces...

What strikes me given the relative lack of outcome of the project, compared to the ubiquity of today's camera phones, is that the Telepresence project had it wrong when it wanted to have people *face* each other during conversations.

It turns out, this is not what we want. Staring at your interlocutor's face is not what you do in a usual conversation, it's even embarassing. You look at a shared point of interest. Turning the camera the opposite side of the screen was the way to go. First, you could use the cell phone as a camera, and second, in a phone conversation, it's much more useful to say "look at this", than to offer a nice view of you're hairy nose.

Or, to put it like St. Exupery:
Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction...

Re:Unimpressed

[Tony Hoyle]

Same way that every other 3G phone on the market does.

It's really not a lot of bandwidth, and video calling predates 3G data by some years.. I remember only 5 years ago trying to arrange data for a 3G phone and being told by the operator that they had no plans to implement it (they did so 2 years later).

Re:Transparenty iphone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just move the phone out of the way.

How about multimedia messaging?

[Nick Ives]

Have Apple invented this yet? Last I checked the iPhone 3G didn't have it which is frankly ridiculous.

At this rate the iPhone should be a pretty decent phone in about three or four revisions. As it stands it's just a very fancy PDA (killer interface, as usual for Apple) with some phone features and even its functionality as a PDA is limited by being locked into the Apple store.

OK, I didn't want to get flamed by Apple fanbois for being ignorant so I Googled for iPhone 3G MMS and got this page where some fanboi is raving about how awesome the App store is for letting people pay extra for functionality included as standard in every other phone you can buy. The iPhone is such a joke!