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.
WhatsApp is owned and operated by Facebook. No thank you.
I hate fat people.
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.
Came here to say the same thing.
In general, all the video chat apps (Skype, WebEx, Hangouts) are crap once you get beyond 1-to-1. Half the meetings I've ever been to that involve video chat started at ten past the scheduled start because of connectivity issues. And the root cause is often some obscure setting someone flipped to get someone else's video chat product to work at the last meeting. (And no, "let's just use one company standard" never works because of vendors, partners, etc.)
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.
Exactly. If you have friends who are not using a Mac, iPad or iPhone, are they really your friends? /sarcasm
#DeleteFacebook
And I do not want any Facebook or Microsoft software on any of my devices.
#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.
Why in the world would Apple want to give people on other devices one less reason to switch to their own devices?
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.
Most people that use apple products - I'm not one of them - love it for many reasons. I seriously doubt people would leave the Apple world simply because there was an android facetime app.
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.
And you would benefit from getting the joke...
Me and everybody else it would seem. If that was funny it would have been modded +5 funny by now.
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?
Apple is the largest contributor to Clang,LLVM, and Webkit. Chances are you've got at least one app that exists because of those tools
And don't forget CUPS; which Apple OWNS outright...
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.
Do you have any specific evidence that "VirnetX" has ties to the US intelligence community, or is this just speculation out of your ass?