• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

FACETIME ON EVO 4g Show support!!

Whatnissan

Newbie
Jun 5, 2010
22
3
I went ahead and started a new thread because mine got way off topic then the moderators changed it to iphone vs evo thread which it defanatly wasnt. Please keep this on topic.

Im trying to gain developer support to get facetime which is an open industry standard now thanks to apple. Working on android. If you have seen the demos its much better than the qik crap and works alot nicer. Those of us with evo 4g's we might be able to use it over wimax too. I know people might hate apple but here is the thing about this. Apple is going to be the one that is going to make video calling take off face it. no pun intended. So since there video calling framework is opensource I think we should make it work on android. I don't know if there are any developers here but We should make it happen
\
Please Keep this on topic
 
Im trying to gain developer support to get facetime which is an open industry standard now thanks to apple.

That sentence right there is an oxymoron.

http://eugeneklee.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/537860694_481872048d.jpg


There is not a single thing about facetime that is open. It is for just a limited property holders, so no industry. And it is apple, so it can not be called a standard.

In order to legally develop this app, you would have to jump through soo many licensing hoops, it would hurt.

the primary video codec is h.264. Which will require a multi million dollar fees to the mpeg to develop.


Why would a developer here want all that hassle?
 
Upvote 0
...It's an open standard...
Meaning that other manufacturers could tap into the protocol if they want to. It's kind of like a standalone network, in a way; like a Skype, or an iChat. (Presumably, iChat is too loaded of a name for a industry wide standard, so they went with something brand-neutral, like FaceTime.) Says MacRumors:

[FaceTime is] Based on many open standards, h.264, AAC, SIP, STUN, TURN, ICE, RTP, SRTP, Apple going to standards body tomorrow to make FaceTime an open industry standard.
SIP? I guess Apple just build their own little VoIP network, sort of!
 
Upvote 0
...It's an open standard...
Meaning that other manufacturers could tap into the protocol if they want to. It's kind of like a standalone network, in a way; like a Skype, or an iChat. (Presumably, iChat is too loaded of a name for a industry wide standard, so they went with something brand-neutral, like FaceTime.) Says MacRumors:

[FaceTime is] Based on many open standards, h.264, AAC, SIP, STUN, TURN, ICE, RTP, SRTP, Apple going to standards body tomorrow to make FaceTime an open industry standard.
SIP? I guess Apple just build their own little VoIP network, sort of!

You do realize that just because Apple says they want it to be an open standard doesn't mean it'll be one, nor that anyone will want to or even be able to use it, right?
 
Upvote 0
html5 is open just people arnt using it yet mostly because it doesnt support things like drm

That's because DRM is wholly opposing to the idea of open in the first place.

Besides, the usage of h264 really IS a major problem. Decoders and small time encoders are free currently, but realize that this is only because the MPEG group that owns the h264 license says it is. They can change their mind at any time. This is why Firefox explicitly does not support h264 HTML5 video. Also, for a large scale (see also: bluray), the licensing costs are astronomical. Millions of dollars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raqball
Upvote 0
[FaceTime is] Based on many open standards, h.264

H.264 is the video standard.

Let me try to explain this to you.

H.264 does not charge the user fees to use the protocal. It charges the developer that makes the program, licensing fees.

These fees are really extreme.

Back to Basics: H.264 Licensing Terms - StreamingMedia.com'

Every time it is encoded, decoded, and streamed, there is a fee.

The developer of this product would be responsable for the fees.

In this case, they would have to pay per steam. Which could end up costing them 5 million dollars a year.
 
Upvote 0
but see currently it is free.


It is free to the user, not the developer. It is not free to create an app like you want them to do. It is not free.

First there is a 5k dollar per encoder fee. Then there is a encoding fee, a decoding fee, then there a subscriber fee, then a streaming fee.

Let us look at the process. I create a program that does this.

1.) 5k per encoder, I need 50 encoders for my company, that is 250,000 dollars I need just to start the project.
2.) I then sell 1,000,000 that is 100,000 dollars per year. !0 cents a subscriber.
3.) Now I need to let the user, use the program, which means? Yep. More fees. 100,000 dollars more, or another 10 cents a user.

Which mean about 450,000 dollars in fees per year, with the cap of 5 million per year.

Can very one really afford this?
 
Upvote 0

BEST TECH IN 2023

We've been tracking upcoming products and ranking the best tech since 2007. Thanks for trusting our opinion: we get rewarded through affiliate links that earn us a commission and we invite you to learn more about us.

Smartphones