4 ms·

This article is silly: they answer their own question at the end but pretend like this is still some big mystery or Apple never actually intended to nor wants t

This article is silly: they answer their own question at the end but pretend like this is still some big mystery or Apple never actually intended to nor wants to open source FaceTime. But without the VirnetX patents and the peer-to-peer architecture, this service requires significantly greater backend resources. I’m not sure how Apple could feasibly open this standard to third party clients now.

raldi 8y ago
> they answer their own question at the end They do? Where?
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  > 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.
  - raldi 8y ago
    I don't see why the patents made an open standard impossible, or even relatively difficult.
    - duskwuff 8y ago
      The patents covered parts of the technology which Apple planned to make an open standard. This would have left the standard patent-encumbered, making it hazardous to implement.
  - dingaling 8y ago
    VirnetX is a listed company. Apple could simply buy them out from under the Board's feet and throw them in the dumpster and not even notice the cost.
    - raldi 8y ago
      Market cap: 202M
      - cpmouter 8y ago
        Apple makes that in what? Ten minutes? ;-)
        glenra 8y ago
        > Apple makes that in what? Ten minutes? ;-) About a day and a half. (that's based on 2017's $48 billion net income) So Apple almost certainly could afford to buy the company, but they'd need a business case for doing so, weighing that option against all the OTHER nice things they might want to spend $200 million on.
        code_duck 8y ago
        Apple also has something like 250 billion in liquid assets.

raldi 8y ago

> they answer their own question at the end They do? Where?

JustSomeNobody 8y ago
> 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.
- raldi 8y ago
  I don't see why the patents made an open standard impossible, or even relatively difficult.
  - duskwuff 8y ago
    The patents covered parts of the technology which Apple planned to make an open standard. This would have left the standard patent-encumbered, making it hazardous to implement.
- dingaling 8y ago
  VirnetX is a listed company. Apple could simply buy them out from under the Board's feet and throw them in the dumpster and not even notice the cost.
  - raldi 8y ago
    Market cap: 202M
    - cpmouter 8y ago
      Apple makes that in what? Ten minutes? ;-)
      - glenra 8y ago
        > Apple makes that in what? Ten minutes? ;-) About a day and a half. (that's based on 2017's $48 billion net income) So Apple almost certainly could afford to buy the company, but they'd need a business case for doing so, weighing that option against all the OTHER nice things they might want to spend $200 million on.
        code_duck 8y ago
        Apple also has something like 250 billion in liquid assets.