4 ms·

>then go on to claim "nobody is going to use video calling" as a fact. It was obviously a personal opinion. See, I'm not making a grand blog entry waxing poeti

by ergo98 16y ago

>then go on to claim "nobody is going to use video calling" as a fact. It was obviously a personal opinion. See, I'm not making a grand blog entry waxing poetically on why no one will ever make video calls, carefully creating a curated (word of the month) list of support blog and tweet entries to bolster my supposition. I offered zero supports to my opinionn. I think you're missing a big difference there. I don't pretend that I have supports for personal opinion. >So let's compare- Apple is big and successful (biggest tech company...yet people still pretend that they're counter-culture supporting them. Funny, that). Therefore their "we're big and successful" gives them leave to build things only for their, to use the trite descriptive, walled garden? "You can made all the video calls you want...as long as anyone you want to call has an iPhone 4 and is currently on wifi...and so are you. Easie-peasie!" Seriously, this pushes to the point of being comical. >And only the truly antiApple could suggest that people are calling Apple's take "done" in any final sense as if nobody believes it will ever change ever. Obviously it will change. Gruber considers it "done right". I think it is done absolutely horrifically, and it is done in a way that is exactly the problem many people have had with Apple's actions.

cwilson 16y ago
Hmm, from the hours of 9am until about 6pm I can list off about 2 dozen people who I might actually call (girlfriend, dad, best friend, etc) who I know will be on a wifi network and are planning on buying iPhone 4's. You know why? Because between those hours they are at work. Guess what? I can also bet that around 8pm until midnight I can also call them, because they are at home, where they have wifi networks. And guess what? The other times, when they are on the go (walking around out in the world, or driving) are times I wouldn't want to video call anyway. People video calling in public is going to be the new nextel walkie-talkie feature; fucking annoying. Driving while video calling, well, hopefully I don't have to comment on that one. This is NOT a perfect solution. Of course being able to do it over 3G or 4G would be awesome. As Steve Jobs said.. that will come. They are working with the carriers to make it happen. Why does the solution have to be perfect day one? Baby steps my friend. Do you not think Steve Jobs wants it to work this way as well? You saying it's done absolutely horrifically is comical, not the other way around. To you, what makes it horrific, is the fact that it only works sometimes, not 24/7. That's pretty ridiculous. Also, I must point out that when Apple releases something it usually IS done right. It usually is very, very close to finished. Apple polishes before they release, it's in their DNA. Steve Jobs is insane about sweating the details.
- ergo98 16y ago
  Two dozen, eh? >This is NOT a perfect solution. Indeed. It's not done right. Which is pretty much the point. Here's a exercise: Imagine that the Droid XIX came with video conferencing that was super easy -- a single button -- but it only worked on WiFi and it only worked between Droid XIX devices. How do you think Gruber would respond to that? Do you think he would say "Yeah. That's video conferencing done right"
  - cwilson 16y ago
    Yes, two dozen. At least a dozen friends, girlfriend, parents, co-workers, etc. It adds up fast. It's done right from an experience perspective, which is the point Gruber was trying to make. Using the feature is dead easy, meaning it's done right. The example of the other phone he gave was not dead easy to use, it took the user hours to figure it out and when he did the experience was still awful. If the feature worked over Wifi AND 3G/4G it would be EXACTLY THE SAME. No different. It's the feature itself we're talking about here, not when and where you can use it. If you want to blame someone for the feature being held back point your fingers at AT&T. Or at least blame Apple for taking so damn long to jump ship and offer it to more carriers, but not for shipping a broken solution, as their solution is what looks to be pretty flawless. Your exercise: I don't know what Gruber would say, but I can take a stab at it. I'd bet it would be along the lines of, "Good to see another feature in Android giving the iPhone a run for its money, competition is good." or "It's great Android can make video calls but it would have been better if they adopted the FaceTime standard so they could call iPhones as well".
    - ergo98 16y ago
      >If the feature worked over Wifi AND 3G/4G it would be EXACTLY THE SAME No it wouldn't. Having a protocol work over wifi is remarkably easier than having it work over 3G. The latter introduces clustering and latencies that you just don't have on any normal wifi. It's just as easy to assume that it is a bandwidth pig and is heavily susceptible to latency issues, which is why it is thus far limited to wifi. Of course everyone else immediately started by making a solution work on 3G (and even edge), with wifi being a "nice to have extras" platform. >I don't know what Gruber would say, but I can take a stab at it. I'd bet it would be along the lines of When has Gruber ever said that? When the Android phones had dramatically better resolutions than the now almost intolerable iPhone 3GS and before, did Gruber ever commend that? In fact I believe the only time it even started to come up was when the iPhone 4 was an open secret and he knew it offered the new benchmark resolution, so suddenly competitive resolutions became a conversation point, but only from a "they're behind what is coming" angle. How about Android notifications -- Gruber has defensively pushed back against the reality that Android has a dramatically better notification system. Yet, good for a laugh, he recently gushed that a notification expert from Palm (he was doing the "See Android was just a copy cat anyways" thing) was moving to Apple, clearly implying "So soon it'll get a better notification system than the notification system that was a non-issue just yesterday". Gruber, to me, is like Republican talking heads of the worst kind. He filters information to see the world exactly the way he wants to see it to serve his agenda, which is to pimp Apple.
jodrellblank 16y ago
"You can made all the video calls you want...as long as anyone you want to call has an iPhone 4 and is currently on wifi...and so are you. Easie-peasie!" Yes. Seriously, this pushes to the point of being comical. No. This pushes to the point of being useful. It's not like WiFi is something you only have access to on Thursdays and in big cities, or that they think WiFi-only is what they want because that's best. WiFi only is a compromise. For now you can have iPhone4 to iPhone4 via wifi, in future it will also be for 3/4G cellular, and for anyone else who implements their standards when that's available. Which I'm very interested to see what they've done about firewalls and NAT and central servers.
- statictype 16y ago
  > in future it will also be for 3/4G cellular, and for anyone else who implements their standards when that's available Did Apple say at anytime that it will be available over 3G or that the standard will be open?
  - masklinn 16y ago
    > Did Apple say at anytime that it will be available over 3G Strongly hinted at it during the keynote. If you're a jailbreaker, 3G Unrestrictor might also work already (though not recommended on AT&T) > or that the standard will be open? Clearly said it during the keynote, and then proceeded to list all the existing open standards it's built on.
  - masklinn 16y ago
    To complete my other answer, as to the first part, I just checked on the keynote video (~1:33:30 on the official stream), I'll quote: slide appears with "Wi-Fi only in 2010" > FaceTime is going to be WiFi only in 2010, we need to work a little bit with the... cellular providers, get ready for the future [...]
loewenskind 16y ago
>(biggest tech company.. Good grief. I assume you must be talking about Market Cap and that just happened. If you look at how much money they make they are still dwarfed by MS and probably IBM, etc. as well. You were complaining about spin?
- ergo98 16y ago
  >I assume you must be talking about Market Cap and that just happened Indeed. Market cap is what gives companies weight to throw around. Apple is in a position where they can acquire a large portion of the industry, and where their actions cause tremors of fear. That's the impact of market cap.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    Again with the spin. Apple didn't get where they are by throwing their weight around, causing "tremors of fear". They got there by out-doing everyone else 3 or 4 times in a row now. Where do you come up with this stuff? You think Apple was "throwing their weight around" with the iPod? Before they released it, I think most people didn't even realize Apple was still around. With the iPhone? The smart phone market was barely worth paying attention to before they reinvented it. Talk about "reality distortion field".
    - ergo98 16y ago
      EDIT: I took the troll's bait and got caught arguing with someone apparently arguing in the mirror, so apologies for adding to the noise. loewenskind has a long history on here for attacking strawmen instead of actual positions, polarizing their position (everyone not pro-Apple is a part of the anti-Apple hoardes, in loewenskind's opinion), and just generally acting as hero for the defenseless Apple. I didn't know that before being trolled. >Again with the spin. What spin? Are you for real? I said that Apple is the largest tech company. Yes, the normal measure is market capitalization. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=apple+largest+technology+company http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=apple+... You then go off about how that just happened (so? Are we supposed to be talking about the past), but how it doesn't matter anyways. To which I mentioned that being so large allows them to throw their weight around. See the panic when there were worries that Apple would consume ARM. Your whole argument is against nothing I've actually said, and you seem to be arguing for Apple of 2003. Well guess what, loewenskind, it's 2010. I'm here with reality, you're not. And quit calling everything "spin" after you've thoroughly misrepresented the point.

by ergo98 16y ago

cwilson 16y ago

Hmm, from the hours of 9am until about 6pm I can list off about 2 dozen people who I might actually call (girlfriend, dad, best friend, etc) who I know will be on a wifi network and are planning on buying iPhone 4's. You know why? Because between those hours they are at work. Guess what? I can also bet that around 8pm until midnight I can also call them, because they are at home, where they have wifi networks. And guess what? The other times, when they are on the go (walking around out in the world, or driving) are times I wouldn't want to video call anyway. People video calling in public is going to be the new nextel walkie-talkie feature; fucking annoying. Driving while video calling, well, hopefully I don't have to comment on that one. This is NOT a perfect solution. Of course being able to do it over 3G or 4G would be awesome. As Steve Jobs said.. that will come. They are working with the carriers to make it happen. Why does the solution have to be perfect day one? Baby steps my friend. Do you not think Steve Jobs wants it to work this way as well? You saying it's done absolutely horrifically is comical, not the other way around. To you, what makes it horrific, is the fact that it only works sometimes, not 24/7. That's pretty ridiculous. Also, I must point out that when Apple releases something it usually IS done right. It usually is very, very close to finished. Apple polishes before they release, it's in their DNA. Steve Jobs is insane about sweating the details.

ergo98 16y ago
Two dozen, eh? >This is NOT a perfect solution. Indeed. It's not done right. Which is pretty much the point. Here's a exercise: Imagine that the Droid XIX came with video conferencing that was super easy -- a single button -- but it only worked on WiFi and it only worked between Droid XIX devices. How do you think Gruber would respond to that? Do you think he would say "Yeah. That's video conferencing done right"
- cwilson 16y ago
  Yes, two dozen. At least a dozen friends, girlfriend, parents, co-workers, etc. It adds up fast. It's done right from an experience perspective, which is the point Gruber was trying to make. Using the feature is dead easy, meaning it's done right. The example of the other phone he gave was not dead easy to use, it took the user hours to figure it out and when he did the experience was still awful. If the feature worked over Wifi AND 3G/4G it would be EXACTLY THE SAME. No different. It's the feature itself we're talking about here, not when and where you can use it. If you want to blame someone for the feature being held back point your fingers at AT&T. Or at least blame Apple for taking so damn long to jump ship and offer it to more carriers, but not for shipping a broken solution, as their solution is what looks to be pretty flawless. Your exercise: I don't know what Gruber would say, but I can take a stab at it. I'd bet it would be along the lines of, "Good to see another feature in Android giving the iPhone a run for its money, competition is good." or "It's great Android can make video calls but it would have been better if they adopted the FaceTime standard so they could call iPhones as well".
  - ergo98 16y ago
    >If the feature worked over Wifi AND 3G/4G it would be EXACTLY THE SAME No it wouldn't. Having a protocol work over wifi is remarkably easier than having it work over 3G. The latter introduces clustering and latencies that you just don't have on any normal wifi. It's just as easy to assume that it is a bandwidth pig and is heavily susceptible to latency issues, which is why it is thus far limited to wifi. Of course everyone else immediately started by making a solution work on 3G (and even edge), with wifi being a "nice to have extras" platform. >I don't know what Gruber would say, but I can take a stab at it. I'd bet it would be along the lines of When has Gruber ever said that? When the Android phones had dramatically better resolutions than the now almost intolerable iPhone 3GS and before, did Gruber ever commend that? In fact I believe the only time it even started to come up was when the iPhone 4 was an open secret and he knew it offered the new benchmark resolution, so suddenly competitive resolutions became a conversation point, but only from a "they're behind what is coming" angle. How about Android notifications -- Gruber has defensively pushed back against the reality that Android has a dramatically better notification system. Yet, good for a laugh, he recently gushed that a notification expert from Palm (he was doing the "See Android was just a copy cat anyways" thing) was moving to Apple, clearly implying "So soon it'll get a better notification system than the notification system that was a non-issue just yesterday". Gruber, to me, is like Republican talking heads of the worst kind. He filters information to see the world exactly the way he wants to see it to serve his agenda, which is to pimp Apple.

jodrellblank 16y ago

"You can made all the video calls you want...as long as anyone you want to call has an iPhone 4 and is currently on wifi...and so are you. Easie-peasie!" Yes. Seriously, this pushes to the point of being comical. No. This pushes to the point of being useful. It's not like WiFi is something you only have access to on Thursdays and in big cities, or that they think WiFi-only is what they want because that's best. WiFi only is a compromise. For now you can have iPhone4 to iPhone4 via wifi, in future it will also be for 3/4G cellular, and for anyone else who implements their standards when that's available. Which I'm very interested to see what they've done about firewalls and NAT and central servers.

statictype 16y ago
> in future it will also be for 3/4G cellular, and for anyone else who implements their standards when that's available Did Apple say at anytime that it will be available over 3G or that the standard will be open?
- masklinn 16y ago
  > Did Apple say at anytime that it will be available over 3G Strongly hinted at it during the keynote. If you're a jailbreaker, 3G Unrestrictor might also work already (though not recommended on AT&T) > or that the standard will be open? Clearly said it during the keynote, and then proceeded to list all the existing open standards it's built on.
- masklinn 16y ago
  To complete my other answer, as to the first part, I just checked on the keynote video (~1:33:30 on the official stream), I'll quote: slide appears with "Wi-Fi only in 2010" > FaceTime is going to be WiFi only in 2010, we need to work a little bit with the... cellular providers, get ready for the future [...]

loewenskind 16y ago

>(biggest tech company.. Good grief. I assume you must be talking about Market Cap and that just happened. If you look at how much money they make they are still dwarfed by MS and probably IBM, etc. as well. You were complaining about spin?

ergo98 16y ago
>I assume you must be talking about Market Cap and that just happened Indeed. Market cap is what gives companies weight to throw around. Apple is in a position where they can acquire a large portion of the industry, and where their actions cause tremors of fear. That's the impact of market cap.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  Again with the spin. Apple didn't get where they are by throwing their weight around, causing "tremors of fear". They got there by out-doing everyone else 3 or 4 times in a row now. Where do you come up with this stuff? You think Apple was "throwing their weight around" with the iPod? Before they released it, I think most people didn't even realize Apple was still around. With the iPhone? The smart phone market was barely worth paying attention to before they reinvented it. Talk about "reality distortion field".
  - ergo98 16y ago
    EDIT: I took the troll's bait and got caught arguing with someone apparently arguing in the mirror, so apologies for adding to the noise. loewenskind has a long history on here for attacking strawmen instead of actual positions, polarizing their position (everyone not pro-Apple is a part of the anti-Apple hoardes, in loewenskind's opinion), and just generally acting as hero for the defenseless Apple. I didn't know that before being trolled. >Again with the spin. What spin? Are you for real? I said that Apple is the largest tech company. Yes, the normal measure is market capitalization. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=apple+largest+technology+company http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=apple+... You then go off about how that just happened (so? Are we supposed to be talking about the past), but how it doesn't matter anyways. To which I mentioned that being so large allows them to throw their weight around. See the panic when there were worries that Apple would consume ARM. Your whole argument is against nothing I've actually said, and you seem to be arguing for Apple of 2003. Well guess what, loewenskind, it's 2010. I'm here with reality, you're not. And quit calling everything "spin" after you've thoroughly misrepresented the point.