Yes. My in-laws only call people on their cell phones that have Verizon so the call is "free". Same difference...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FaceTime Audio Coming to Macs With Next OS X Update
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes. My in-laws only call people on their cell phones that have Verizon so the call is "free". Same difference...
I still find it strange you have to pay to receive SMS or calls.
Some of the cheaper plans in the UK, if you receive an SMS you get one more added to your contract to send, the same for minutes with each minute someone calls you, you get one extra minute to call out.
SMS and calls on higher contracts are unlimited on most networks in the UK now anyway.
I only pay £12/month and get unlimited SMS, unlimited no caps Internet and 250 mins of calls.
----------
As for FaceTime. Most of the time it takes several attempts to make a video call, usual culprit is it takes 10-20 seconds for FaceTime app to load on a Mac. Audio I have never found to be stable, calls cut out after a minute or so.
In all honesty, there are a lot of people (like myself) who have immediate family and friends who overwhelmingly use iOS devices. Whilst this is most certainly not the majority of people it can be useful for those who are in this situation.
In any event, it is a nice little feature that can't have been too difficult for Apple to implement.
Apple makes software to help Apple customers.
Apple software made to help Apple customers doesn't help Android customers.
Amazing.
Majority of my friends and family use iPhones. Only a few use Androids and other phones. I'd say around 80% are iPhones. That makes these integrating features like iMessage and FaceTime even more useful for me.
The Issue for me..
I have a problem with the fact that, as FaceTime and Messages have grown up and gotten more integrated into both iOS and OS X Apple seems to have failed to keep one of my most coveted features from iChat easily integrated: The ability to remote control someone else's computer.
One of the big selling points for iChat for me was that, as people I knew and support (family, friends, etc.) needed new computers I could have them get Macs instead of new PCs, and I would be able to very easily remote into their computers for free anytime they needed help. As Messages and FaceTime have progressed this very important feature has been left behind, apparently to die on the vine. While it can still be done, it's fairly kludgy compared to using the other features that were migrated over to FT and Messages. I fear that Apple may remove that ability altogether as time goes on.
I have purchased Apple Remote Desktop, but it is more suited to enterprise situations, and doesn't lend itself easily for use on the fly with home users, since very few of them have static IP addresses. And even those who do would require setup that includes port forwarding on their routers, which is not easy for laypeople to set up.
I have a problem with the fact that, as FaceTime and Messages have grown up and gotten more integrated into both iOS and OS X Apple seems to have failed to keep one of my most coveted features from iChat easily integrated: The ability to remote control someone else's computer.
One of the big selling points for iChat for me was that, as people I knew and support (family, friends, etc.) needed new computers I could have them get Macs instead of new PCs, and I would be able to very easily remote into their computers for free anytime they needed help. As Messages and FaceTime have progressed this very important feature has been left behind, apparently to die on the vine. While it can still be done, it's fairly kludgy compared to using the other features that were migrated over to FT and Messages. I fear that Apple may remove that ability altogether as time goes on.
I have purchased Apple Remote Desktop, but it is more suited to enterprise situations, and doesn't lend itself easily for use on the fly with home users, since very few of them have static IP addresses. And even those who do would require setup that includes port forwarding on their routers, which is not easy for laypeople to set up.
same problem for carriers
<disclaimer> I work for a carrier.
I wish people would have this same common sense attitude when ranting against carriers. The wireless networks are INCREDIBLY expensive and even SMS costs money (no, it's not "free" for us).
Yes, we make lots of money in profit, but we also plow BILLIONS into improving the network. It's not good business to let things just coast... and we don't.
There. I feel better. 🙂
<disclaimer> I work for a carrier.
I wish people would have this same common sense attitude when ranting against carriers. The wireless networks are INCREDIBLY expensive and even SMS costs money (no, it's not "free" for us).
Yes, we make lots of money in profit, but we also plow BILLIONS into improving the network. It's not good business to let things just coast... and we don't.
There. I feel better. 🙂
Apple makes software to sell Apple products. 😀 Apple making this cross-platform would benefit Apple. As others have said, it would give people an opportunity to experience Apple. Think about iTunes. I don't think it would be as ubiquitous as it is without it's availability on Windows.
FT Audio "helps" no one btw. It's a convenience.
I'm pretty sure you already realize that "Apple customer" and "Android customer" aren't mutually exclusive terms. They can be, and often are, the exact same person. They're only enemies in the "vs world" we create in forums. Apple doesn't care that I own a GS3. They do care that I own an iPad and MBA; and by care I mean they appreciate my contribution to their profits.😉
Last edited:
So this is why AT&T's new plan is unlimited talk and so is Verizon's share plan. With nearly 50% of the US carrying an iOS device or having a Mac free talk is going to be very easy.
Now why exactly did Microsoft buy Skype for billions? Have they made their money back? Because if they haven't, it seems like free voice calls is going to be very easy very soon. So Microsoft better finish the minimization process quick because the business model is probably done in two years. Tops.
Now why exactly did Microsoft buy Skype for billions? Have they made their money back? Because if they haven't, it seems like free voice calls is going to be very easy very soon. So Microsoft better finish the minimization process quick because the business model is probably done in two years. Tops.
I understand your point, Gnasher, but this is a communication protocol. By definition when you communicate you want to communicate with the widest group available. What if you couldn't make phone calls to someone with an Android, Windows or Blackberry phone because they all had different standards? Seems ridiculous, but if they didn't all agree to use a telephony standard it would be the case.
Companies in the business of communication, and making a profit are walking a fine line. They want to make their product as irresistible as possible, but also need to preserve their business model. In Android's case, Google doesn't care about open standards, because they don't make their money on selling the OS or the hardware. They make their money when the most people use their product, and they sell those users to advertisers. Microsoft and Cisco have similar business models in that they want to leverage their already large enterprise customer bases to make their communications products seem to make the most sense and continue to sell OS/licensing (although Cisco makes a lot of money selling hardware, also).
Apple's business model relies on you buying into an ecosystem. It's a stable, secure, reliable and easy to use ecosystem, to be sure. But it relies heavily on selling a premium hardware product, and they have no enterprise leverage to speak of as a carrot for business. As VoIP technology continues to evolve and mature, I fear that the average consumer's almost invariable tendency to go with the cheapest alternative will segregate Apple users into a small (by relative size) group who will not be able to communicate with the rest of the world, and who will eventually get frustrated by this, and end up leaving the ecosystem specifically to be able to communicate with others. This is why Apple should explore common sense ways to make their VoIP communications more open and accessible.
If you watch any of Steve Jobs' keynotes when he came back to Apple and introduced products like the iMac, it was obvious that Apple understood the power of the internet before and to a greater extent than a lot of other computer makers at the time. But Apple's drive to make "insanely great products" cannot be the dogma that marginalizes their users in the very important world of VoIP communications.
so did the now-deceased former CEO sit you down on his lap, stare deeply into your eyes, and solemnly say to you, "I *promise* you will have this free new feature from us, if it is the last thing on earth I do. This I swear unto thee." ? cuz that's how you're making it sound.
in the real world, some things don't work out for various reasons.
----------
doesn't do that here. sounds like the problem is on your end. network, connectivity, etc.
Oh, if only it were that simple. The carriers, much like the entertainment industry continue to use artificial means of constriction (i.e. subsidized phone plans with contracts, locked phone deals with manufacturers, back room OS and application deals with hardware manufacturers, lobbying, etc.) to preserve a business model that is extremely lucrative for them, and restrict the user from getting the experience they want.
If they truly wanted to compete with others, and not artificially constrict users I would have some sympathy for them. I want them to bleed. Badly. I can guarantee you that even at reduced profit the carriers wouldn't walk away from the business.
On a related note, it annoys the hell out of me when friends are too cheap or stupid not have an iphone since I can't use the free imessages with their android devices. I refuse to pay $20 a month for text messages since it costs the carrier essentially zero $.
Dude, spew your bs somewhere NOT occupied by the tech-savvy. You are simply put, a liar. I believe one photo taken on a modern smart phone camera is about 5mb in size... roughly the equivalent of 26,000 160 character text messages. Since the VAST majority of users text less than 5,000 texts per month & most of them are not 160 characters long........ you are trying to convince us that sending the data equivalent of less that one fifth of one photo per month is expensive to carriers???
Wow. Shill much?
Another poorly branded product from Apple
Sure iTunes was cute name when it was just for music, but using iTunes to buy and play movies and TV shows is poorly branded.
FaceTime was great name as a video call product, but FaceTime for voice only is again another poorly branded product.
Apple should think about the future rather then coming out with cute product names on the day they have an idea and then adding a bunch of features that do not make sense years later.
Or, at least rebrand to accommodate an expanded feature set when it makes sense to do so.
Sure iTunes was cute name when it was just for music, but using iTunes to buy and play movies and TV shows is poorly branded.
FaceTime was great name as a video call product, but FaceTime for voice only is again another poorly branded product.
Apple should think about the future rather then coming out with cute product names on the day they have an idea and then adding a bunch of features that do not make sense years later.
Or, at least rebrand to accommodate an expanded feature set when it makes sense to do so.
I have been waiting for this since it was introduced for iOS! Finally I make most calls from my Mac natively.
Overseas
This is huge for my family. My sister will be overseas for the Air Force in a month. Instead of having to pay the $0.02/min to call with Skype, we can call for free now. Her internet won't be good enough to support video, but voice should be just fine.
This is huge for my family. My sister will be overseas for the Air Force in a month. Instead of having to pay the $0.02/min to call with Skype, we can call for free now. Her internet won't be good enough to support video, but voice should be just fine.