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?

[Vorpix]

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?

no apple would NEVER do something like that.. ;-)

Re:Why not sooner?

[nine-times]

It's typical Apple maner to have a good idea, implement it fast and then leave the product and not develop it further.

That doesn't seem right to me at all. In fact, it seems so wrong that I'm trying to figure out whether you're trolling, being sarcastic, or just don't know what you're talking about.

They were working on the iPhone for something like 7 years before release. It's not a hastily put-together product, and they've continued to refine it and add features ever since it was released. Are you sure that you're not just annoyed that they haven't yet chosen to implement features that you want?

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...

Great

[bugs2squash]

Someone can watch a video of my inner ear while listening to me

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.

Awesome!

[jargoone]

This is great! Now, can we please have MMS and copy/paste like smartphones from 8 years ago?

Code already in OS X?

[Ohio Calvinist]

It would seem like a majority of this work is already done as between iChat and Quicktime; most if not all of this functionality in OS X since at least 10.3 (maybe earlier). It would seem all they have to do as the poster said, would be to be able to capture the image on the front of the device or have some sort of add-on and code a front-end for the smaller screen.

I am not surprised Apple didn't release this on 1.x models under Edge and the weaker battery, but even on 3G at a low-scale, it would seem like it would be "good enough" for most applications. I wonder if their problem lies with the agreement with AT&T since they are working to prevent VoIP on the platform. It would be interesting if the carrier could detect packets on a protocol, or maintain the servers that connect the video-calls and charge wireless minutes for this kind of traffic. However, I think carriers ought to move away from the call-minutes model in favor of a flat-fee, as in most calling situations I am in (M2M or Nights/Weekends) that is effectively what they are doing. Though I am sure their two biggest cash cows are overages and SMS, which has been discussed before.

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.

Duh

[dazedNconfuzed]

The iPhone's screen points one way.
The iPhone's camera points in the opposite direction.

Kinda hard to have a video conference when you have to be on both sides of the device at once for it to work.

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.

Re:Duh

[gEvil (beta)]

That's why Apple is introducing its newest iPhone add-on, the iMirror! For the low price of only $99, you can clip this shiny (ooooh, shiny!) rectangle to your iPhone, which then, through the magic of very high frequency electromagnetic waves, WIRELESSLY transmits your image to the camera on the backside of the iPhone. Now you can see your friends and be seen AT THE SAME TIME. Hurry! Supplies are limited!

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.

Re:Duh

[Moebius Loop]

I prefer the iReflect, which uses a particle-based medium. The resulting picture is quite a bit more danceable.

Re:Duh

[gEvil (beta)]

Feel free to make and market your own third-party knock-off. But be prepared for Apple to start their smear campaign telling everyone why their wave-based version is better than your particle-based one.

Nintendo did it

[Yvan256]

See the new Nintendo DSi for a good example:
- hi-res camera in the rear for taking pictures
- low-res camera in the front for video conferencing (given the resolution of the Nintendo DSi, even a 0.3 megapixel camera is completely overkill)

Re:Nintendo did it

[master811]

In addition to nearly every other 3G phone on the market which are nearly all able to do video conferencing.

Re:Transparenty iphone?

[m.ducharme]

By the way.. is any of what has been mentioned actually innovative? It all seems terribly familiar to me...

When has that ever stopped the USPTO from handing out a patent? /sarcasm

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...

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!

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.