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.
Facetime is not an open standard.
XMPP/jabber is, but even google whose Talk was originally based on Jabber, is moving away from it with Hangouts.
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)
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.
WhatsApp is owned and operated by Facebook. No thank you.
I hate fat people.
I do not want any Apple software on any of my devices.
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
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....
VirnetX is the US intelligence communityâ(TM)s patent troll. The CIA/NSA sued Apple to keep them from offering encrypted, direct-to-client video chat between multiple people (the old iChat, far superior to FaceTime, let multiple people video chat on one call without routing through intermediate servers). Likewise Skype once used a decentralized network for routing calls, without any known hubs through which calls would be destined to pass, before Microsoft bought them. IChat was neutered into FaceTime and Skype was neutered by Microsoft in the same way and for the same reason: both started requiring calls to be routed through centralized hubs so the Feds could collect them easier for eavesdropping. Thatâ(TM)s why VirnetX sued Apple.
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
If businesses considered WhatsApp, there is a whole bunch of offerings from major brands that they can and currently do use. The nice thing about FaceTime is that it is dead simple and yet very very good video wise. Even Google with their massive infrastructure couldn't get the quality to the level the Apple did.
Agreed. Facetime as it currently stands, is of little use non-Apple users as there are plenty of similar alternatives. The original Facetime which does not require a centralized server however would be quite nice for many reasons (including making it harder for governments/corporations to snoop). VirnetX probably has less than 10 years left on their patent anyway, but if Apple teamed up with Google and Microsoft (VirnetX has also sued Skype and Cisco by the way), perhaps they could get this bogus patent invalidated.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
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?
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.
Skype is owned and operated by Microsoft. No thank you.
#DeleteFacebook
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.
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.
Like so many dipshits on Slashdot, you have completely missed the point. It would have become open were it not for douchebag patent trolls.
This. This is THE reason. Yet TFS uses inflammatory language like "broken promises" to up the Click-Count, and yet calls "Virnext" the neutral-sounding term "Company", when they DESERVE the epithet "Patent Troll".
But that doesn't up the Click-Count now, does it?
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.
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
There IS an open standard and it is used by both Android and Windows Mobile. LTE has video calling as part of the spec (ViLTE). Apple decided to not play ball and not allow video calling to anything that isn't an Apple product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_over_LTE
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'
Only Apple has these problems, and with them it's insurmountable, even though so many other companies can do it today? Right.
Depends on whether you want a "pretty much always works" experience, or a "I GUESS it's ok" experience.
Guess which one Apple supplies, and which one EVERYONE else supplies?
No worries, WhatsApp has got you covered: everything Facetime plus group chat, on iOS, Android, and more.
iOS 12 will introduce Group FaceTime with up to 32 participants.
And it won't be hosted by Facesuck.
Its amazing what apple can do with others stolen tech.
What tech did they steal?
They changed their entire protocol and added infrastructure to avoid stealing tech.
Hate much?
Direct connections are hard to tap, even to see who is talking to who. Having relay servers, now that is useful to many entities.
Not when its end-to-end encrypted.
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.
And it will let you talk to an entire 43% of the people you want to invite into the chat. Yay!
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
Hmmm. Maybe, just maybe, that is one of the reasons that Apple's Videoconferencing system JUST WORKS, when no one else's does, to a lesser or greater extent.
And yes, at work I have had the misfortune to have to use several of the non-Apple videoconferencing systems. All suck when compared with FaceTime.
It is of little use to most Apple users, too, because it requires both parties to have an iPhone. Statistically, only a little less than half of an iOS user's calls can use Facetime, and on average, less than one fifth of all possible calls have that option (43% * 43%). By contrast, everybody can download Facebook, sign up for a free account, so 100% of all possible calls have that option (ignoring government blocking or whatever).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
Probably the same reason why some of the 3rd party video conferencing apps also do not employ a standard and operate among each other.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
And it will let you talk to an entire 43% of the people you want to invite into the chat. Yay!
That's THEIR problem.
Well let's start with the first thing in that originally FaceTime was wifi only. It added LTE later depending on which carrier allowed it. Second, my understanding that viLTE was hardly used because the carriers refuse to allow phones to interoperate. So even if Apple adopted it, two people couldn't use if were on different carriers regardless if they had the same iPhone or Android or Windows phone. The only way to get around it was to use 3rd party apps which enforce their own segregation as they may not interoperate between apps. For example Skype works with other Skype devices but not WebEx
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Facetime is based on open standards:
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Duo pretty much always works for me. The best part is that I, with my Android phone, can video chat with my family who pretty much all have iPhones. The experience was simple enough that I was able to walk my 94 year old grandmother through using it. The most difficult part for her was installing the app.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
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
I am UC. Watch out for phimosis.
Now yer drooling, culty creep.
Do you have any specific evidence that "VirnetX" has ties to the US intelligence community, or is this just speculation out of your ass?
Duo pretty much always works for me. The best part is that I, with my Android phone, can video chat with my family who pretty much all have iPhones. The experience was simple enough that I was able to walk my 94 year old grandmother through using it. The most difficult part for her was installing the app.
If true, That sounds pretty sweet, honestly!