1. Check out our app, Forums for Android! Download and leave feedback here!

FACETIME ON EVO 4g Show support!!

Discussion in 'Android Devices' started by Whatnissan, Jun 7, 2010.

  1. Whatnissan

    Whatnissan Member
    Thread Starter
    16

    Jun 5, 2010
    22
    3
    16
    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
     

    Advertisement

  2. iboombastic

    iboombastic Well-Known Member
    36

    May 24, 2009
    105
    4
    36
    that would be cool. since qik sucks
     
  3. Incredible_Senor

    Incredible_Senor Active Member
    16

    Apr 30, 2010
    39
    1
    16
    Hm... I don't know too much about this, but was Facetime created by a third party? If not, how could Apple let it ever be on another device?
     
  4. Whatnissan

    Whatnissan Member
    Thread Starter
    16

    Jun 5, 2010
    22
    3
    16
    No facetime is a new open industry standerd announced today that the iPhone 4 is using for its video calls. It works its nice Its open.
     
  5. Vincent Law

    Vincent Law Well-Known Member
    53

    Jun 4, 2010
    396
    64
    53
    It uses open technology, but it itself is not open. Facetime currently only works iPhone4 to iPhone4, and nothing else. Period.
     
  6. ashykat

    ashykat Well-Known Member
    163

    Apr 27, 2009
    1,076
    127
    163
    Irvine, CA
    If it's an open standard then I'm sure work will start soon on it. We probably don't even need a thread about it, lol.
     
  7. Whatnissan

    Whatnissan Member
    Thread Starter
    16

    Jun 5, 2010
    22
    3
    16
  8. Whatnissan

    Whatnissan Member
    Thread Starter
    16

    Jun 5, 2010
    22
    3
    16
    Im just trying to get some buzz created about it. No i believe the whole standard is considered open meaning other device manufactures can use the technology
     
    jameshayes12000 likes this.
  9. Whatnissan

    Whatnissan Member
    Thread Starter
    16

    Jun 5, 2010
    22
    3
    16
    It only works only on the iphone because it just got announced today. It is open meaning other device manufactures can take advantage of it if they wish
     
  10. RiverOfIce

    313

    Mar 30, 2010
    1,715
    1,254
    313
    In exile
    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?
     
  11. colnago

    colnago Well-Known Member
    243

    Nov 17, 2009
    3,091
    218
    243
    Are you not able to make video calls via Google Talk? If the app does not support it, at least via a web session? FWIW, my non-Google phone supports GTalk video calls.
     
  12. Rob_A

    Rob_A Well-Known Member
    113

    May 28, 2010
    831
    216
    113
    New York
    How is it an Industry "standard" if it was just announced today?
     
  13. Whatnissan

    Whatnissan Member
    Thread Starter
    16

    Jun 5, 2010
    22
    3
    16
  14. raqball

    raqball Well-Known Member
    93

    Jun 2, 2010
    523
    155
    93
    Facetime is a joke.... iPhone to iPhone ONLY and both have to be on wifi.... NO THANKS...
     
  15. Whatnissan

    Whatnissan Member
    Thread Starter
    16

    Jun 5, 2010
    22
    3
    16
    ...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!
     
  16. Whatnissan

    Whatnissan Member
    Thread Starter
    16

    Jun 5, 2010
    22
    3
    16
    THe wifi is only cause of ATT Sprint doesnt have restrictions like that for us wimax users
     
  17. Vincent Law

    Vincent Law Well-Known Member
    53

    Jun 4, 2010
    396
    64
    53
    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?
     
    RiverOfIce and raqball like this.
  18. raqball

    raqball Well-Known Member
    93

    Jun 2, 2010
    523
    155
    93
    HTML 5 is a good example of the above statement...
     
  19. Whatnissan

    Whatnissan Member
    Thread Starter
    16

    Jun 5, 2010
    22
    3
    16
    html5 is open just people arnt using it yet mostly because it doesnt support things like drm
     
  20. IPvFletch

    IPvFletch Well-Known Member
    43

    Jun 6, 2010
    441
    28
    43
    Austin, TX
    +1 although I agree if Google made this, it would be even better!
     
  21. Vincent Law

    Vincent Law Well-Known Member
    53

    Jun 4, 2010
    396
    64
    53
    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.
     
    raqball likes this.
  22. RiverOfIce

    313

    Mar 30, 2010
    1,715
    1,254
    313
    In exile
    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.
     
  23. RiverOfIce

    313

    Mar 30, 2010
    1,715
    1,254
    313
    In exile
    I am sorry they already have. They said there would be a max capped at 10% fee increase per year. From 2009 to 2010, the fee increase was 20%
     
  24. Whatnissan

    Whatnissan Member
    Thread Starter
    16

    Jun 5, 2010
    22
    3
    16
    but see currently it is free. There isnt anyother options out there right now. People like Hulu and wont use HTMl5 because of the content and the providors wont let it happen. Thats hollywood
     
  25. RiverOfIce

    313

    Mar 30, 2010
    1,715
    1,254
    313
    In exile

    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?
     
Tags:

Share This Page

Loading...