Unfiltered

It’s not going out on a limb to say Apple’s iPhone changed mobile computing — and greatly affected mobile operators’ data networks. If early reviews of Apple’s FaceTime videoconferencing application hold true, mobile networks could soon be in for another wave of high bandwidth usage in the form of two-way video exchanges. It’s important to note that FaceTime — at least for now — only works over Wi-Fi networks. It will be interesting to see if it stays that way — and whether operators such as AT&T and other iPhone partners stay put or swing the door open when mobile networks move to 4G.

FaceTime is enabled by the dual cameras available on the new iPhone 4, available starting this week. Mashable, among other reviewers, said the software “finally makes video calls cool”:

While video calling is hardly new — technology and telephony companies have been trying to shove the stuff down our throats since at least the 1960s — the implementation certainly is. While it’s far too early to make any hard or fast predictions about FaceTime and video calling in general, we have to say, after spending some time with FaceTime, we’re impressed.

I had my first FaceTime call within about 15 minutes of getting home with my iPhone 4. I’ve had several subsequent chats throughout the afternoon and I have to say, each time, it seems less and less like a novelty and more and more like a really natural way to communicate.

Connected Planet’s take,
Kevin Fitchard:

GIPS predicted that the iPad would set off a new wave of videoconferencing apps, but it could be the iPad’s smaller cousin that leads a collaborative video charge. With a device featuring a front-facing camera and a lot of other video and multimedia aspects to boot, Apple is making no bones about the fact that it wants the platform to become a video communications engine. Sprint and Verizon seem to have the same idea with their latest smartphones, the EVO 4G and the Droid X, though the new Droid is sidestepping videoconferencing, as it has no front-facing lens.

AT&T introduced a version of video calling, called Video Share, several years ago, only to see it go nowhere. The service wasn’t true videoconferencing and was sold primarily as a “show me” service, allowing customers to talk over a un-synchronized video feed. The problem was AT&T couldn’t support real-time video and voice over the 3G connection, forcing it to split the audio and video feeds between the 2G voice and 3G data channels. The result was a perfectly good voice call accompanied by a choppy video stream that didn’t match up with the audio. Customers might have also been turned off by the $5-to-$10-a-month service charge, which gave them 25 and 60 minutes of Video Share respectively. It was a valiant attempt at next-generation service, but ultimately Video Share wasn’t ready for primetime and even if it was, AT&T probably priced it into insignificance.

This could be another case of Apple reviving another floundering mobile application. The idea of video calling is attractive enough. It just needs someone to implement it well, offer it cheaply and then market the hell out of it so people are aware it exists. Apple definitely has the chops to do all of those things. Probably the biggest advantage Apple has is its ability to seed the market with its videoconferencing application quickly. FaceTime currenly only works between two iPhone 4s, but like its predecessors the device will likely be in millions of hands in just a few weeks. One of the biggest hurdles for any videoconferencing app is the rarity of cases you can actually use it. If the other device doesn’t have the proper software or is on a network that won’t accept a video call, it just doesn’t work. Apple may be limiting the pool of people who can use videoconferencing, but that pool will still be a rather large one and one that will grow quickly.

The question is whether Apple will extend the service to earlier iPhone platforms or even competitive platforms. Earlier iPhones may not have front-facing cameras, but they can probably receive a one-way video feed or rely on their back cameras. If FaceTime became an app for download in the Android Market, then the potential market becomes even larger. The question is whether Apple wants to use FaceTime to sell more iPhone 4s or if it wants to use the app to show the continued utility of the Apple platform. My guess is it will be the former. If you want FaceTime, you have to get Apple’s newest phone or an upcoming release of the iPad (where the voice call would likely be translated into VoIP). Apple, after all, is a device manufacturer, not a pure developer.

The only big obstacle to FaceTime is likely the Wi-Fi restriction. Allowing video calling over the 3G network would drain a lot of capacity and lead to quality problems, BUT requiring both the caller and the recipient to be hooked into Wi-Fi simultaneously is going to lead to an awful lot of failed video calls. It’s not hard to imagine customers giving up on the service after a few failed attempts.

Ultimately that might clear the way for other video calling apps that can access the 3G network and work on a much larger variety of devices. When Sprint launched the HTC EVO 4G, it made a big deal about the front-facing camera supporting video chat capabilities, through free services such as Qik and Fring. The problem is execution. Qik’s servers were overloaded soon after the EVO launch, and while Fring is supporting limited video calling on Android and Symbian devices, using it requires several steps, from downloading the app to testing your device, registering an account and setting up a contact list. That may not be a big deal for a prosumer committed to making video calls, but the casual user would be much more likely to try the FaceTime app, which requires just a simple tap of a button to initiate, or at least try to initiate, a video call.

That’s our take on this. Let us know what you think in the comments section below:

filed under 3G/4G, Mobile Apps You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.