Apple Change Quietly Makes iPhone, iPad Into Web Phones | Hacker News Reader

Apple Change Quietly Makes iPhone, iPad Into Web Phones

wired.com

34 pointsFlemlord19 comments

Now iPad becomes a phone - and you don't need to have a cell phone subscription. May be what we're seeing is the future model of the telecom. Wireless carriers still make money, but its up to us whether we buy a regular phone or go with an iPad. What are your thoughts?

My thought is that I'd rather not pull my iPad out on the bus and try to answer a call. Seriously, now people are going to carry around a huge, heavy phone that only works with headphones? I don't see it.

It might work with a bluetooth headset. But Apple agrees, and sees the iPad as something in addition to your iPhone. It's not intended to replace it.

I'm tempted to try the replacement, especially if it will work with a bluetooth headset. I predict we'll see satchels and backpacks with a purpose-built port to let your corded headset out while your iPad is nestled in a custom sized pocket. There are already tons of backpacks with such a generic feature.

If Apple will tweak the notification feature so that you can let certain apps play a tone over the headset when you get a notice, then you can just pull out your iPad, see who called or IM'ed and call them the next time you have WiFi. If it's really important, just go ahead and call them back over 3G.

The iPad has a screen reader built-in, so they can pretty easily text-to-voice the caller id, and the text messages, too.

Simple: bluetooth headsets. If you think about it, the current way of using a phone -- i.e. holding up a device to your ear and keeping it there for the duration of the conversation -- is quite clumsy. Making a call on the tablet and talking through a light headset is much more elegant.

"Making a call on the tablet and talking through a light headset is much more elegant."

To place this call you're going to need a method of input that fits in your pocket, allows you to select recipients and screen incoming calls in addition to sending and receiving the audio. Essentially, a iPad lite, also known as an iPhone.

Good point, but you don't necessarily need this input device to be in your pocket, and it doesn't have to come in the form of a phone. For example, here's one solution: accept/decline calls right from your headset without taking the iPad out of the bag. Perhaps the headset will tell you the caller id when you press a certain button so you can choose whether or not to take the call. Dialing can be done through voice as well, or take out the pad and make the call using the touch screen.

Not going far enough, either of you! Why not make a Skype peripheral, but operating over Bluetooth and not USB? It wouldn't even need a fancy display. Let a headset take care of sound and the anwser button, just take care of other input/display tasks. A commodity display from an old cellphone would do the trick, and these must be dirt cheap by now. You could probably get the button count down to 6, which is what it is for the Apple Remote. The components would be dirt cheap. Margins would probably be very handsome at first. Make it the size of an old PC card. It would sell like hotcakes!

I know my phone (Motorola) is capable of voice dialing, either by number or of a speed-dial, or I can record an input. Why would I need an additional input device when most phones are capable of voice dialing?

Edit: As the iPad is based on the iPhone's OS, it is already capable of handling voice-dial inputs, you just might have to jailbreak it to access it:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/how-to/index.html#phone.voice-di...

Just out of curiosity, do you use voice commands on your device and find them effective? I find manipulating a touch screen device to be faster and more accurate than dictating by voice.

Well as using a handheld device is illegal while driving here in Ontario, and appears to be rapidly spreading through the other provinces (I know P.E.I. adopted it within the last month), it's rather a moot point for any drivers where I live.

However, personally I found voice commands easier than using the iPhone(1) for dialing while distracted. The lack of tactile response in the iPhone means I can't dial without paying complete attention to the device. I have similar problems with the gel USB keyboards and other devices you can get. I have had similar problems with regular 'key dial' cell phones when they lack proper tactile feel (slippery plastic vs rubber buttons with a clear centre mark on the 5 key).

(1) The iPhone is presently the only fully touchscreen phone that I've been interested in enough to try. The Pre had my attention . . . until I found out it was arriving on Bell (monopoly placed in the majority of Canada due to previously being national, and still price outrageously with very poor service and customer service) here in Canada.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-I_MJFlZbs

It might be a generational thing. From what I can see people under 30-ish just don't really talk on the phone that much anymore. It's mostly texting. A common usage scenario for the iPad might be using it in conjunction with a cheap flip phone for voice.

This falls into the same category as the inclusion of an iPod app. The device really doesn't excel at music playback, but it's capable, so why not?

Seriously, you'd replace your iPhone with an iPad and just carry it around in you backpack? Get over the single-device-to-rule-them-all philosophy. We're moving toward purpose built devices that do one, or a few things well. Your iPhone is most definitely the best device for telephony, text messaging and audio playback; just as the iPad is for web browsing and video playback.

I don't care at this point if it's not so great as a phone. I'd rather call people back at my leisure anyways. $15 a month for 3G web browsing everywhere sounds good to me.

I don't think a vast majority of the world is in agreement with you, and neither does AT&T; hence the paltry $15 monthly fee. People don't walk around with Bluetooth headsets attached to their heads so they can call you back at their leisure.

Is it really the "vast majority" that walks around with Bluetooth headsets stuck in their ear?

To me this isn't about making phone calls over IP. This is about video conferencing over IP. I'm guessing that Apple has toyed with forward facing cameras in their iPhones and their iPads and I'd be willing to bet they pulled them from the iPad's launch so they could have something to refresh the iPad line up 9 months or so after launch. My guess is in iPhone OS 4, the next iPads and possibly the next iPhone will contain some sort of multitasking capable option, forward facing cameras and thus video supported communications. The iPad, in particular, will finally make video conferencing comfortable. In fact, I might call live video the iPad's killer app.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com