Slashdot Mirror
Should Apple Let Competitors Use FaceTime? (cnet.com)
In 2010, Steve Jobs first introduced FaceTime and promised it would become an open industry standard that could be used by Apple's competitors -- not just Apple. Well, eight years later and that still hasn't happened. CNET's Sean Hollister provides a theory as to why that is: There's also an ongoing lawsuit to consider -- as Ars Technica documented in 2013, Apple was forced to majorly change how FaceTime works to avoid infringing on the patents of a company called VirnetX. Instead of letting phones communicate directly with each other, Apple added "relay servers" to help the phones connect. Presumably, someone would have to pay for those servers, and/or figure out a way for them to talk to Google or Microsoft or other third-party servers if FaceTime were going to be truly open. But that doesn't make a broken promise less frustrating. Particularly now that Apple could potentially fix annoying business video calls as well. A Skype-killing video chat service that worked on Mac, iOS *and* Windows, Android and the open web? That's something I bet companies would be happy to pay for, too.
And they need to keep their promises.
Patent trolls harm open standards and competition.
Usually when a slashdot story ends in a question it's an easy "No". But this time it's different. The answer is YES (and I'm a video conferencing engineer)
Only Apple has these problems, and with them it's insurmountable, even though so many other companies can do it today? Right.
His theory seems to be:
1) It is expensive to run the servers needed to work around a patent, currently under dispute and may be invalid, so adding devices requires someone paying for the servers. So once the patents are ruled invalid the barrier to Apple making FaceTime available to other devices goes away?
2) They like lock in. I bet #2 wins.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Use secure, free, open-source solutions where your data and calls are not being collected, and you are not being profiled.
If you think content from your FaceCalls is not stored, you are only kidding yourself.
No worries, WhatsApp has got you covered: everything Facetime plus group chat, on iOS, Android, and more.
Direct connections are hard to tap, even to see who is talking to who. Having relay servers, now that is useful to many entities.
I do not want any Apple software on any of my devices.
but be a slow news decade.
They just need to keep siloing themselves off from the rest of computing world. Look how well that worked for RIM.
Port iMessage over to android already. The best part is messages don't even need cell access as they can be sent over wifi. Then make Windows builds for the desktop too.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Not sure if anything is better - probably not but we need a replacement. This shit aint good. So if Apple is going to do that I do not care. Make it happen. Skype has to go.
Don't get me wrong, video is great, but I'm still waiting for a system that does voice really well and can call out to "real" phone numbers. Skype can do it. Google does it for free. Why not FaceTime?
For that matter, if both ends are on iPhones, and we're both on Wifi, why can't it route my phone call over FT back end invisibly, just like it does in Messages now?
Facetime and iMessage are the only two features keeping me on the apple ecosystem.
Mom and Dad can easily call their kids and with the touch of a button switch to facetime and see the grandkids.
With android, I'm not sure if you're supposed to send messages with Messages, Allo, Hangouts....
Every business outside the US I've dealt with is already using Skype. It works.
I agree. I'm not sure why the submission assumed a Skype-killing app is all that necessary, since Skype already works on all the devices mentioned. And it isn't even like Skype is the only option, as WhatsApp would also cover this use case.
A more apt question is why anyone uses Facetime when it is stuck within the Apple ecosystem. My wife's immediate family all use Apple devices and have mostly been weened off of Facetime, but in this case it was because my wife and I had the first set of grand kids and they couldn't video chat over our Android phones with Facetime.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Skype will connect with people that aren't in the current Apple ecosystem. I'm hardly an ardent supporter of our overlords (Microsoft) but their (*) system even works over 4G across multiple platforms.
* And by their I mean the thing that they bought, this was an acquisition.
I admit being able to dynamically switch from call to video call is cool (FaceTime) but what else does it do that you can't get on something that works for everyone?
It does work, but it isn't an open standard. Same problem with Facetime, or WebEx.
At my work, we have fancy Cisco teleconference systems. Which only work for WebEx. The vendor may be using Skype, so it will not work, an exec may call in on their iPhone (and doesn't have the WebEx or Skype app installed).
Businesses who are strict on security are not so keen on having apps install that use the camera.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"A Skype-killing video chat service that worked on Mac, iOS *and* Windows, Android and the open web? That's something I bet companies would be happy to pay for, too."
Why would anyone think that facetime would kill the market leader if they ever stepped it up and delivered almost what compteitors were already delivering. Skype already works on Windows, UWP, macOS, Linux, Android, iOS, WatchOS, Windows Phone, HoloLens, Xbox One... It does hd video, hd group video, audio, messaging... I mean I understand the need for competition but we've already got that in spades. Does Facetime actually bring anything useful to the table? I was under the impression that it was just a "me too" videoconference app that is limited to apple only so that Apple could continue to have their walled garden. Does it actually have some valuable and unique feature that I should be coveting?
They died off before due to proprietary approach and putting handcuffs on their users, it will happen again if they don't start pursuing standards with other manufacturers. They will keep losing market share and eventually the Apple Handcuffs will not be worth the convenience when you're in the minority.
Open up facetime, put a back button like Android has, add memory card slot and headphone jack and preserve your place in the future... or die.
I'm not sure why the submission assumed a Skype-killing app is all that necessary
Right, let's not be too hasty, and think that a problem even exists. Replace one walled-garden ecosystem with another walled garden ecosystem? Thanks for playing, but no.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
The story fails to mention that Steve Jobs' announcement was also the first time any of the programming team at Apple had heard it.
Since then, maybe they could have engineered a new solution that could be open, but Jobs basically made that point up on the spot and following through on that at the time really wasn't feasible. After the initial announcement window had passed, it'd be hard to believe that it would be worth their time.
Works and works. It hasn't worked ok on android since MS took over. I don't understand why there's been a 100 updates, but it still is not functioning as it was. Ok, i haven't tried it for a year now, but i doubt it makes a difference.
Because their software is the best.
I would drop the iPhone in a heartbeat if Facetime and iMessage were available elsewhere.
christ there's a zillion ways to video chat with high fidelity, low latency, and low bandwidth now. No one should care. This bus came and went. Why beat on apple over something utterly moot.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Since the original statement was made, I believe Apple was sued over use of one of the technologies FaceTime utilizes. I'm not sure opening it up is an option, due to its use of other technologies not necessarily owned by Apple.
It was agreed competitors are allowed to use Facetime. What happens when people are good about Facetime. It is relied upon. Retricting use would be bad.
Presumably, someone would have to pay for those servers, and/or figure out a way for them to talk to Google or Microsoft or other third-party servers if FaceTime were going to be truly open
If only there was a standard cross (X) Messaging Platform Protocol which messaging servers could use to talk to each other.
Um, maybe even just a few words saying WTF Facetime is? I had to go look it up.
Facetime is Apple's proprietary VoIP protocol and application. And the reason you've never heard of it is because .. well, ok, that's what the article is about: since it's proprietary, nobody is allowed to use it, so it's another technological dead end, killed (or at least in suspended animation) for 20 years.
Why Apple had to invent their own thing instead of just picking some standard, nobody says. But it's not too hard to guess the usual reasons for this kind of crap.
The advantage of Facetime is that you can only communicate with smart people. Let's keep it that way. If you're too stupid to figure out why you need an Apple product, then feel free to use WhatsApp, or Skype, like all the other idiots.
I propose "PaymentBased InterOperability". For a small fee, paid by either the user, or the competing service, they would be given an API key to use the servers.
Servers cost money to run, someone has to pay. For a small fee, Google could be licensed with an API key specific to a user. Each time a call is made, Apple is paid a small fee, say 0.01/min or something along those lines.
Conversely, if an Apple User calls a google user, the google user could pay a small fee, say 0.01 to Apple to receive the call.
Quality software costs money, plain and simple.
it works, but it will never be near as useful as FaceTime was.
It was incredibly easy to use, didn't really need to make an account and finding people is just a matter of having their phone number to use. The popularity was sky rocketing.
Then Steve Jobs died and everything at Apple started becoming less compatible with everything. The fact that transferring photos or files from iPhone or IPad to PC is getting more and more annoying.
Apple needs to keep that shit to themselves and make sure that there is zero integration with other parties.
For some reason, MS has removed the ability to add a phone number to an existing contact in Skype. If you want to make a call you have to enter the number again and again. If there was an alternative I would use it.
Too? Hooray for you to!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
What about Signal?
I've only used it for text messages, but supposedly it works for voice and video as well.
So yes, letting everyone use FaceTime would bring a quick end to Skype. The exclusivity FaceTime has right now is why despite its simplicity, nobody uses it.
By restricting it to the Apple ecosystem, it has so far remained pretty clear that it is an Apple-only thing.
If they open it up, however, I expect there's going to be lots of confusion about who really controls the technology because of the popularity of Facebook.
Conceptually, yes, I think that it's a good thing. But given the potential for trademark dilution, I don't think it's in Apple's or Facebook's best interest to do this. I think that Apple should consider renaming it before opening it, or not open it at all.
Of course, if one enjoys watching things burn in the aftermath of some chaos, one might think that any difficulties that either encounter as a result of such a move are actually just a bonus.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I have a "theory" as to why that is, too: IT'S FUCKING APPLE. THEY DO VENDOR LOCK-IN.
Not that hard to figure out.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
What do you mean access to the userbase. Surely you don't me cold calling people with spam facetime. I think (hope) you simply mean no need to install any software. And well that'a the whole point of webRTC. try it sometime.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
As a user, Appeâ(TM)s software only needs to work on my hardware of choice. I donâ(TM)t give a fuck if it works on YOUR hardware of choice.
Of course. Apple should, Microsoft should, Google should, everybody should.
This Sean Hollister dude has invented a scenario that hasn't happened, isn't likely to happen, and reeks of wishful thinking. Kill Skype? Why is that the goal? Promote Facetime? What are the merits there?
Apple isn't an Open Source company and they are famously both a walled garden and a closed shop. Apple only cares about Apple, I can't see how Sean Hollister could possibly have missed that. Except for wishful thinking.
This is a lousy, absurd analysis. Maybe Sean Hollister should consider another line of work, like maybe a barista or something. IT Industry analysis doesn't seem to be his strong suit.
Apple has obviously wanted to keep its gold mine in tact. By having a rather strict closed ecosystem its able to sell its hardware and other products at a decent profit. But like Microsoft has realized, the competition is spreading out to other platforms and so it must follow suit. If Apple doesn't start moving towards a more open prospect that users may want a Facetime, or iMessage on other non Apple devices. It may limit itself into a niche of a company. Selling a rather inclusive product line with only a devoted following.
majorly change, bigly. you have no idea.
works with skype now, just have to have the mediation services. if you use spark it pretty much works with skype.
eventually sip dialing for all SHOULD happen but then how are "they" going to make money
Yay! Why even ask?! Closed gardens and monoploies are great
LOL Must be quite a blind apple worshipper. Your rebuttal to a statement of fact is to point out a spelling error.