Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Delays 32-Person Group FaceTime From iOS 12 Launch (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the this-is-the-new-Apple dept.

Developer Guilherme Rambo has revealed that the 32-person FaceTime group chat feature "has been removed from the initial release of iOS 12." Apple says the feature "will ship in a future software update later this fall." The Verge: Group FaceTime chats will allow 32 participants in a video call, with tiles of people's faces where you can manually select people to highlight them in the main interface. Apple's delay to group FaceTime chats comes after the company delayed its AirPlay 2 introduction in iOS.

18 comments

  1. News that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    matter?

    1. Re:News that... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "matter?"

      You got that wrong, the news is for nerds, it's the stuff that matters, not the news.

    2. Re:News that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of it is right. News, nerds, stuff, matter. It should be rumors, dorks, nothing, and vacuum.

  2. Time by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

    Apple's delay to group FaceTime chats comes after the company delayed its AirPlay 2 introduction in iOS.

    Due to the unidirectional nature of time.

  3. CUseeme did it in the 1990's by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 2

    I remember seeing CUseeme "reflectors" do this a very long time ago. Never mind that most of the clients were using parallel-port connected with Connectix Quickcams and other horrible quality cameras. What's old is new again!

  4. Lol, Jitsi did 128-person video chat, years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With full ZRTP encryption, mind you. Over XMPP and SIP.
    And provisioning support (e.g. for organizations).
    Its only problem was/is, that Java wasn't kept secure by Oracle (not their fault), and that they severely botched moving on to a better platform, by going to the most retarded of all platforms: HTML5 by the WhatTheFuckWG (definitely their fault).

  5. Not to be confused with Jitsi Meet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is not secure at all, since it tries to work ith browsers. So it has zero end-to-end encryption, and even if you host your own VideoBridge server, security is still a complete joke, compared to "Jitsi Desktop" (the only and actual Jitsi, according to the community, as opposed to Atlassian), or to Signal, or even to WhatsCrap (which uses Signal-like protocols, but still decrypts at the Facebook servers, making it pointless too).

  6. still waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember when Pope Jobs said they were going to open up FaceTime and make it cross-platform?

    1. Re:still waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jobs is dead.

    2. Re:still waiting... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      Remember when Pope Jobs said they were going to open up FaceTime and make it cross-platform?

      If you remember that, you should also remember they were sued, successfully, by the patent troll that claimed to own the protocol. Jobs spoke without consulting with anyone, and prior to the lawsuit.

      But all the Apple Hating Slashtards CONVEEENIENTLY forget THAT part...

    3. Re:still waiting... by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      ...you should also remember they were sued, successfully, by the patent troll that claimed to own the protocol...

      Which would make them not patent trolls. They defended their patents against the most well-funded legal team in existence, and showed that the protocol used their invention. They most certainly did not claim to own the protocol.

    4. Re:still waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Successfully sued because as usual apple stole someone tech. But as a STUPID ASSHOLE apple WOSHIPPING NUTSACK you are ok with apple stealing others ideas.

    5. Re: still waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how a company that could literally buy out any company they wish to, or negotiate an open source license \ switch away from the current patents hasn't.

      If i was a conspiracy nut, I'd say they intentionally told the "troll" to sue to prevent release and have them not look like the bad guys to the simple minded.

    6. Re:still waiting... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      ...you should also remember they were sued, successfully, by the patent troll that claimed to own the protocol...

      Which would make them not patent trolls. They defended their patents against the most well-funded legal team in existence, and showed that the protocol used their invention. They most certainly did not claim to own the protocol.

      They were/are Patent Trolls. First it was FaceTime, then it was iMessage. I didn't call them Patent Trolls, the entire Tech-Press did:

      https://www.theverge.com/2018/...

      https://www.engadget.com/2017/...

      https://gizmodo.com/apple-orde...

      https://techcrunch.com/2016/02...

      http://fortune.com/2016/02/03/...

      https://www.cultofmac.com/4302...

      https://www.macrumors.com/2018...

      Oh, and this Discussion Thread EXACTLY addresses the original question:

      https://www.reddit.com/r/apple...

      etc. etc...

      VirnetX patented something fairly obvious that they had no intention of ever bringing to market, which, after all, is the entire reason behind the Patent system, and simply lay-in-wait for someone with deep pockets to accidentally trip-into their patent-trap.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Significantly helped along by:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I mean, the obvious corruption got so bad that the Supremes had to put a stop to it!

      https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

      So, don't paint Apple as the bad guy here.

    7. Re:still waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG. But keep lying.

    8. Re:still waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VirnetX patented something fairly obvious that they had no intention of ever bringing to market

      Wow now that sounds like a classic apple dick move. Maybe VirnetX stole that from apple.
      Quick to the lawyermobile.

  7. Utter chaos by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

    I can't even begin to imagine this being useful. But I can imagine it producing 32 headaches.

    --
    // This is not a sig.
    1. Re:Utter chaos by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      I can't even begin to imagine this being useful.

      Keep in mind that the feature here is basically an improvement from 2 nodes to 3-32 nodes.

      I plan to use the feature frequently for my family of 4. I can even see sometimes using it while my parents are out of town and have 6 people on a single FaceTime call.

      My hope is that they're pausing this to add some conference control features, such as a "broadcast mode", like WebEx and many other things have. This will mute all attendees and allow a single speaker to talk at a time.

      If they add that, 32 is not an unrealistic number.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.