FaceTime will be successful because you don't need an account | Hacker News Reader

FaceTime will be successful because you don't need an account

sachin.posterous.com

21 pointsa4agarwal32 comments

This is interesting because it shows how far behind the US is in the telecoms space.

In Europe this has been a basic feature of all 3G phones for around five years. If you want to videochat you just press the button and call somebody up using their normal phonenumber.

It was pretty hyped up, but it never really caught on because there simply aren't that many usecases where you want to videochat with people on the go. Especially as you have to hold out your phone in fromt of you in a somewhat awkward way. Now it's just old and tired.

Same in Asia.

Over WiFi instead of 3G is somewhat of a novelty though, but still, the problem with video conversations isn't technical, it's that most people do not want to do them.

I remember six years ago when 3 launched over here and tried to convince everyone and their mother that video calls were the future. I had some colleagues who got their phones, and I saw them use the video call once, maybe twice, only for testing. I also remember seeing some people do video calls on the subway.

It all quickly stopped though as soon as people realized the drawbacks of video calls for everyday conversations and now you never see it, even though all phones have the capability.

Over WiFi is a novelty - but it's also a hack to get around the fact that the US carriers are way behind Europe and Asia.

Oh, I just assumed the US went through the same cycle of consumer disinterest as the rest of us.

My arms got tired just watching all the people in the Apple video holding their phones for video calls.

Of course, it's not like you need to hold your phone for audio calls. You just put it next to your ear and it hovers there unsupported.

Obviously they just need to adapt the technology so the phone can hover in front of you without tiring your arms out.

Sarcasm aside, you're wrong. It's a completely different position to hold the phone in. It's more restful for your arm to hold the phone against your ear, than to hold it out in front of you.

There are also a lot of other considerations for making a successful video call, you have to be dressed, in a decently lit space, have room in front of you, have silence around you, and be able to focus only on the face in the screen.

Contrast that with voice calls which I can make in the dark, while naked, on the toilet, in my car, on a crowded subway, while walking, while having sex, while lying about where I am, in my bed, without makeup, and so on.

Video calls are awkward, and they don't bring enough value to the conversation to make up for the inconvenience of making one.

They have their places, video conference calls are great. Having small children and calling your grandparents is great. Being deaf and calling someone to sign with them is great. Other than that it's just not worth it.

(1) Let's hypothesize a contest like those old 'hands on a hardbody' endurance competitions to win a car. You hold an iPhone at a distance and angle which frames your face, and I hold an iPhone physically propped against my ear. Who'll lose positioning first?

(2) I often use a headset or bluetooth speaker phone so I'm not holding my phone at all for audio calls -- just as good as the 'hover' your posit! I can't wait to see the rigid hat accessory that props my iPhone in front of my face at optimal FaceTime distance!

No doubt video calls are great for some, short situations -- but holding the iPhone in front of you as pictured in Apple's ads will quickly tire most people far faster than an audio call.

I completely agree.

Whenever I'm in a position to video chat, I'll be sitting somewhere, in private, with time on my hands. That means I'll probably have Skype handy.

I've had video calling on my phone since forever, but I've never been inclined to use it – because I tend to call people when I'm on the go, and who the hell would want to watch my dull commute?

Whoever outsources designs to China for an iPhone 4 FaceTime head harness wins.

At least some of the problem is that at least here, cost is prohibitive. It's ridiculously expensive per minute compared to normal calls. I don't know if FaceTime is going to be a hit or not, but I definitely see myself using it more often than the built-in 3G video phone call capabilities I used to have.

"iPhones then create a direct peer to peer connection over the internet. The iPhones deal with all IP addresses, firewalls, NAT issues automatically."

Isn't that impossible without an intermediate server?

Edit: OK, thinking a bit, I never looked into the Skype trick much, but I would guess, send a request to a server (that doesn't respond). Then you have an open connection/port listening to the response from the server. If you can tell the other party about that "hole", it can send a packet across the firewall.

While for Skype that is done by a server (if necessary), the iPhone could send the information via the phone line?

As I said, no idea how the details work, just a rough idea. Or maybe they just use a server.

Intermediate servers don't require an account.

Sure - it's just that they said they will make it an open protocol. So will they provide the intermediate servers for everyone?

If there is an intermediate server involved (probably a STUN server), it just helps set up the connection. The actual UDP packets don't go through any middle man. This is how residential VoIP services have been working without requiring any firewall/router configuration by the customer. It's also the same thing when you set up an iChat or Skype video call with both parties being behind a NAT.

Yes, it uses STUN - you can see it on the keynote slides when he listed the standards used.

By the way, this article makes it sound like Posterous invented the concept of not having accounts? Even though it was obviously invented by 2channel.

You do need an account, but it's with Apple.

Right. They said they use SIP for this, which does require an account. I assume Apple/AT&T are automapping phone numbers to SIP accounts.

SIP video phones have been on the market for years already.

Can you share a link which explains the details of Apple using SIP for this?

I don't think there is one yet. Just this slide showing that they're using a bunch of VOIP protocols to implement it:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/06/apple-...

Hm, looks like the FaceTime button replaces the "Hold" button on the call screen. Is it still possible to place FaceTime-capable callers on hold?

It will be really successful when you can video chat with any device whether it's an iPhone, Mac, Windows, Android, anything. And when it works over 3G.

I agree, and it will do that eventually. They are making it an open standard so it can be integrated into other devices. And i'm confident the 3G limitation is temporary

They could of course have added support for the the existing standard that would have let them talk the the literally millions of exiting phones with this feature.

No it won't be successful this time either. The reason video calls aren't replacing voice calls has never been technical, it's always been social.

I make video calls all the time via Skype with both friends and family. The reasons I never picked up phone video calls was because 1) they rarely worked properly, 2) they required compatible handsets (see 1), 3) they were several times more expensive than normal voice calls.

This solves all 3 of these problems. Almost everyone I care to talk to (other than my parents) has an iPhone and will be getting the iPhone 4.

Video calls have their (limited) uses, but they will never be succesful, they will never overtake voice calls, and Apple has shown absolutely nothing that hasn't been available for years in Europe or Asia.

We've had 3G video calls for years. Almost all cellphones except the bottom range have it, all carriers support it, there has been massive advertising campaigns and hype about it when it was introduced, it was the whole point of switching to 3G, and yet it's a massive flop.

I'm sure you and your friends will be very happy getting it, there are always exceptions, but video calls will never surpass voice calls in mass-market popularity, they won't even come close.

Did anyone claim video calls would surpass voice calls? I don't think even Apple made such a claim.

I have a sneaky suspicion they might be pinging some switchboard with self-reported telephone numbers... and thus there could be some privacy blowback (mapping phone numbers to mobile IPs) or potential for phone-number impersonation (at least until you show your face) in FaceTime.

I don't see why you would suspect such a thing. All iphones already have a unique identifier, and the device is associated with your itunes account. So, Apple has all the information they need to authenticate you.

I can see no evidence in the facts that they are following the model that you stated.

A 'sneaky suspicion' means it's derived from my slightly-paranoid intuition, not extant facts. We'll see!

(Maybe Gizmodo will get some jailbreak pro to make one of their phones selfidentify as Jonny Ive's, then crank-FaceTime Steve Jobs. Or maybe not.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com