FaceTime Audio Coming to Macs With Next OS X Update

[Owensmouth]

I really want to know why we cannot block someone who is calling with a blocked or unknown number? It really defeats the purpose of call blocking if they can still get through to you if they block their number. I know that Android has this feature, and I want it on my iPhone.!!

 

[Gudi]

Well, it is free. No secret charge. There's a paid version as well, and that's how they make revenue. And they want to expand quickly with free stuff so they can get their monopoly working in the future. I'm not going to buy it because I don't even know what benefit it provides, nor do I care since it sucks anyway.

There is no such thing as a monopoly of free stuff. Skype is one of many VoIP providers, it can't be a monopoly. And if it would be a monopoly, it wouldn't be free anymore.

Facebook, by the way, gets nothing from me except another user. AdBlock

Facebook makes $1.8 billion advertising revenue per quarter, half of that on mobile. And if you think, you can avoid the ads, think again:

Google Has Started Removing Ad Blockers from the Play Store

All the data you write into Facebook, belongs to Facebook. And they can sell it to whom ever they want. Same with Twitter, Google+ and every other free internet service you can think of. Only in the world of Apple: hardware, software and services work together to improve the user experience. And software and services can be truly free with no strings attached, because hardware pays the bill.

There will never be ads between your iMessages. You don't need a program to filter them out. They just don't exist in the Apple business model. That is the difference to Gmail or YouTube. And not being able to FaceTime with non-iDevices is a bless. You don't wanna talk to the dark side. If the only downside to FaceTime Audio is that it does not work with Android. Fine, I can life with that.

 

[9000]

There is no such thing as a monopoly of free stuff. Skype is one of many VoIP providers, it can't be a monopoly. And if it would be a monopoly, it wouldn't be free anymore.
Facebook makes $1.8 billion advertising revenue per quarter, half of that on mobile. And if you think, you can avoid the ads, think again:

Google Has Started Removing Ad Blockers from the Play Store

You misunderstand. First of all, yes, there can be a monopoly on a "free" service. Microsoft's goal is to spread Skype everywhere and get so many people to use it that they'll control almost all of the VoIP services. Then it's up to them how they make money off of that. Either paid subscriptions or some advantage Windows has when using Skype. Nobody would want to switch because they'd have to get all of their friends to switch for that to work. It's like how Facebook is now. Like you said, neither of them is really free for everybody.

I don't care if Google removes ad blockers from their Play Store. I don't use Android, nor do I ever access Facebook on a smartphone. AdBlock for Safari still works fine. I can avoid ads easily.

----------

I really want to know why we cannot block someone who is calling with a blocked or unknown number? It really defeats the purpose of call blocking if they can still get through to you if they block their number. I know that Android has this feature, and I want it on my iPhone.!!

You can block numbers. A "blocked number" that you see when somebody calls is when that person has blocked his caller ID. But I want to have those automatically blocked too.

 

[Gudi]

There can be a monopoly on a "free" service. Microsoft's goal is to spread Skype everywhere and get so many people to use it that they'll control almost all of the VoIP services.

And how so? FaceTime is free, Google Hangouts is free, Skype is free. Why should so many people choose Skype over alternatives? Microsoft already tried to achieve a monopoly on browsers and failed. Free and integrated with Windows was not enough to constitute a monopoly. Internet Explorer even was the default browser on OSX at some point. And a good browser is hard to make, only a few companies can compete.

But every software or service that is useful to almost everybody will become free with each platform. As much as you need to have your own browser to be a credible desktop-OS, you need to have your own maps app to be a credible mobile-OS. Like Google Maps also Microsoft Skype will not remain alone. Android and iOS will continue to compete until the threat of a monopoly owned by a competitor is over. They can't let that happen.

Then it's up to them how they make money off of that. Either paid subscriptions or some advantage Windows has when using Skype.

So either not free (anymore) or not (fully) cross-platform. What was the advantage over FaceTime again? There is always a third possibility: An otherwise successful free service without a working business model can always disappear. Thats what happened to Google Reader, the only Google service with registration I actually used. Yes they could have asked for money or inserted ads into my RSS stream, but they decided to give it up.

Nobody would want to switch because they'd have to get all of their friends to switch for that to work. It's like how Facebook is now. Like you said, neither of them is really free for everybody.

No I said, no one except Apple is really free. FaceTime is limited to iOS, but otherwise free with no strings attached. Facebook is independent from Google (and Microsoft), so even after you have seen all the ads on Android (or Windows), you still need to see more, so that Facebook as a company can make money and survive. Apple as an integrated hardware, software and services company needs to be paid only once. This is way better for the consumer as if hardware, software and services are individual companies, who each need to be its own profit center.

I don't care if Google removes ad blockers from their Play Store. I don't use Android, nor do I ever access Facebook on a smartphone. AdBlock for Safari still works fine. I can avoid ads easily.

For now. There are websites that detect adblockers and demand you to turn them off or else they just don't work. When Facebook becomes this unavoidable monopoly and advertisement becomes their main source of income, this is exactly what will happen. And you still loose ownership of your personal informations.

 

[Renzatic]

Microsoft already tried to achieve a monopoly on browsers and failed.

No, for a good while there they succeeded at creating a browser monopoly. From '95 up til around 2005 or so, 99% of the world used Internet Explorer. Just ask any web developers about the bad 'ole days of IE6, and how MS held progress back on that web technologies for years because of their flat out refusal to update to anything more modern.

 

[Gudi]

No, for a good while there they succeeded at creating a browser monopoly. From '95 up til around 2005 or so, 99% of the world used Internet Explorer.

Doesn't matter. A monopoly is not when everyone chooses the same thing, but when everyone has to choose the same thing, because there is no (and can't be any) alternative. If you have a big share of the market, you just have a big market share. That's not the same as having a monopoly.

Facebook is a monopoly in that, you need your friends to be on the same social network for it to be useful and you can't make hundreds of millions of people switch networks simultaneously and re-enter all their data. Even if the other system is better, it can't compete because of network effects.

Just ask any web developers about the bad 'ole days of IE6, and how MS held progress back on that web technologies for years because of their flat out refusal to update to anything more modern.

It is not Microsofts (or anyone's) obligation to make web developers happy. Giving everyone a free browser was more than enough to please users and let PC sales explode in the days of Multimedia 1995. The official Firefox 1.0 start was promoted on December 15th, 2004 in the NYTimes. And in 2005 the monopoly just fell apart? No, there was nothing actually forcing people to use Internet Explorer. It just was convenient.

And the EU commission even attacked this little bit of convenience with which Microsoft tried to broaden it's OS monopoly on browsers. Every OS ships with its own browser preinstalled, only the company that was found guilty to have used anti-competitive practices was sentenced to offer alternative browsers.

 

[Renzatic]

Doesn't matter. A monopoly is not when everyone chooses the same thing, but when everyone has to choose the same thing, because there is no (and can't be any) alternative. If you have a big share of the market, you just have a big market share. That's not the same as having a monopoly.

Monopoly in this instance would be a shorthand word for a similar situation. Yeah, there were alternative browsers you could choose from, but IE had such overwhelming control, they didn't really matter. It came packaged standard with Windows, and the vast majority of people used it rather than tracking down an alternative. For all intents and purposes, it was the only real player in the game for a good long while.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing when taken in isolation. Being the most popular or the default option isn't illegal, nor is it always harmful to the marketplace. The problem was that IE6 flat out blew when compared to the competition, and was barely updated in the nearly 10 years it reigned supreme. It was an insecure, barely functional mess that hung around far longer than it should've. And since it came standard with Windows, nothing else had a real chance to grow in its place. Not until, like you said, Firefox started taking off and spreading by word of mouth. And it took nearly 4 years of steady updates before it even made a 10% dent in IE's userbase.

It is not Microsofts (or anyone's) obligation to make web developers happy.

You're right, it's not their obligation, but it certainly helps if you want to keep people using your platform. The problem with IE6 is that MS didn't have to even consider it, and they literally held back an entire tech sector for nearly a decade. It'd be like all of stuck using Windows 95 despite computer hardware coming along in leaps and bounds since it's release, because MS had such a stranglehold on the market they didn't have to worry about updating. There'd be so much more people could do with their computers, but...well...everyone's still using Windows 95, so they can't.

Hell, it created a mess so big, it even took MS years to get out from under it completely.

So did MS succeed in creating a browser monopoly? Not if you go by the bare definition thereof, no. But they did create a situation fairly similar to.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Monopoly in this instance would be a shorthand word for a similar situation. Yeah, there were alternative browsers you could choose from, but IE had such overwhelming control, they didn't really matter.
It came packaged standard with Windows, and the vast majority of people used it rather than tracking down an alternative. For all intents and purposes, it was the only real player in the game for a good long while.

But that's NOT the definition of a MONOpoly. Mono implies ONE. If there are 5 browsers out there including Internet Explorer that is not monopolar. It's multi-polar. The fact that "most" people (even 99.9%) CHOOSE to use Internet Explorer or worse yet are TOO DARN LAZY to BOTHER to even LOOK INTO another browser is NOT Microsoft's fault. I never used Internet Explorer when I first got a Windows based PC 14 years ago. It's AWFUL. I used Netscape then Mozilla and then Firefox and I started with a MODEM. If I could download Netscape, so could most people. The whole case was legal BS and I believe it was largely overturned in the US. Only Europe and their socialistic/communistic anti-competitive ways decided they need to coddle lesser companies and ignorant people with that goofy install browser thing.

Keep in mind it is NOT illegal to have a monopoly (or close to it) if people CHOOSE to use a product over another one because it's so much better/cheaper/whatever. You can't force people to buy crap (but in Microsoft's case, they apparently were good at enticing you to buy it. I still BOGGLE that ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would willingly choose MS-Dos based PCs in the late 1980s when the Commodore Amiga, Apple Macintosh and even the Atari ST were alternatives, all of which blew MS-Dos based GARBAGE out of the water. It is only through sheer business marketing propaganda and some might say genius (Bill Gates' only genius, IMO) and the power of IBM in the days of "Computers are SCARY" could such a scheme succeed because it sure as hell wasn't the computer operating system technology that got Microsoft where it was.

In any case, Internet Explorer was tied to the OS itself by that point and I'm sure it was no small amount of work to untie enough of it (or at least appear that way on the surface) to get Europe off their backs. The FACT that Apple has TIED Safari to OSX in the same manner doesn't mean squat to these judges. What? OSX doesn't have the market penetration of Windows? 8% doesn't count? Throw in Linux and 91% <> 100%. Throw out business PCs and Windows has more like an 84% share. Now throw in iOS and Android products and suddenly Windows is losing massive computing shares by the day.

Some of Microsoft's OTHER business practices (like leveraging the PRICE of MS-Dos and later Windows against computer dealerships who weren't exclusively selling Windows only machines) was VERY shady and given their market share it was definitely an anti-competitive practice. Who is going to pay full price for Windows as part of their PC when the computer store next door is a couple hundred or more less for the exact same machine? This certainly kept Linux from being pre-installed on PCs for a long time. How many places sold Atari STs or Amigas AND PCs? I think the local Amiga dealer sold ONE PC and that was Commodore's own model introduced to make them appear more business friendly (to mention the Amiga's "Bridgeboards" that gave them a switch-over PC capability. It is businesses that wouldn't take arguably BETTER computers seriously. Convincing them of something like that had to be akin to sheer sorcery (yes MS-Dos was THAT GOD-AWFUL).

 

[KALLT]

But that's NOT the definition of a MONOpoly. Mono implies ONE. If there are 5 browsers out there including Internet Explorer that is not monopolar. It's multi-polar. The fact that "most" people (even 99.9%) CHOOSE to use Internet Explorer or worse yet are TOO DARN LAZY to BOTHER to even LOOK INTO another browser is NOT Microsoft's fault. I never used Internet Explorer when I first got a Windows based PC 14 years ago. It's AWFUL. I used Netscape then Mozilla and then Firefox and I started with a MODEM. If I could download Netscape, so could most people. The whole case was legal BS and I believe it was largely overturned in the US. Only Europe and their socialistic/communistic anti-competitive ways decided they need to coddle lesser companies and ignorant people with that goofy install browser thing.

I think the more appropriate term in this context is market dominance rather than monopoly. The distinction between both is much less important for the law as dominant undertakings raise similar if not the same concerns for competition.

The problem with the Internet Explorer was that Microsoft could use its dominance in one market (operating systems) as leverage to distort competition in another, namely web browsers. Bundling and tying practices can potentially undermine competition and are especially delicate when the relevant undertakings are dominant. Consumer choice is but one factor to that end, others being competitive constraints upon the dominant undertaking (to prevent it from becoming lazy) and the prospect of healthy competition in the future. European competition law has a different view on market dominance and focusses much more on the protection of competition as such. The goal is to make sure that sufficient pressure is placed upon dominant undertakings so that they continue to fight for their market shares, thereby moving society as a whole forward.

The idea of the browser ballot is simply that: forcing Microsoft to make Internet Explorer the best browser, entering the battle with other browsers on merits. Microsoft can no longer bundle the Internet Explorer with Windows, the dominant operating system, and thereby allows consumers to make a choice. The problem of the ballot has much more to do with the flawed execution of that idea, as consumer choice is still not guaranteed (since you actually need a browser to read about other browsers) and that the browser war has become much more competitive anyway.

The FACT that Apple has TIED Safari to OSX in the same manner doesn't mean squat to these judges. What? OSX doesn't have the market penetration of Windows? 8% doesn't count?

It doesn't count, because that is not what competition law is about. You seem to be assuming that there is some sense of fairness underlying competition law, but that is simply not the case. Competition law is concerned with competition, a situation in which undertakings compete with each other for the top so that, ultimately, we are all better off. Not just from an economic-efficiency perspective, which is typically the American goal, but also from a socio-economic one, i.e. that the market is in flux and innovation continues. Market dominance is thus of concern when those goals are jeopardised, especially when an undertaking becomes so dominant that it slows down the development of that market and hinders the entry of competitors.

That is why Apple was not the target. It was not dominant to begin with, it didn't have the market power to rig the game. Microsoft was targeted because it was dominant and had the market power to hinder competitors. Apple would likewise have been targeted if it had been that dominant and no effective constraints would have been imposed on it.

 

[Gudi]

I think the more appropriate term in this context is market dominance rather than monopoly. The distinction between both is much less important for the law as dominant undertakings raise similar if not the same concerns for competition.

Thank you, for everything you wrote.

The problem is to decide whether a market dominance is achieved and maintained by winning on merits or through hindering competition. Who says that a good OS-integration of a browser and a price point of free isn't also a merit? It is in the case of Safari and it was in the case of Internet Explorer 1.0, when Netscape was the dominant browser.

Most if not all big name IT companies have some form of market dominance in their respective field. Yahoo is the one exception, which has no dominance in its core business search. And AOL lost its dominance and was buried in oblivion. The goal can't be to break up every dominant company, but to take measures to increase competition where it is needed.

Skype is far away from becoming dominant and FaceTime isn't even competing for communication outside of its own platform. Apple needs FaceTime if only to maintain feature parity with Microsoft and Google. And Microsoft needs Skype for the same reason. Nowadays as a mobile OS you must offer voice and video calls, maps, calendar and a browser for that matter.

There will never be one VoIP app to rule them all. Like with open web standards the solution to cross-platform communication can only be the foundation of a standardization organization similar to the W3C. No one single app will become the de facto standard because of its sheer dominance.

 

[Tinmania]

No, for a good while there they succeeded at creating a browser monopoly. From '95 up til around 2005 or so, 99% of the world used Internet Explorer. Just ask any web developers about the bad 'ole days of IE6, and how MS held progress back on that web technologies for years because of their flat out refusal to update to anything more modern.

That is exaggeration on steroids. For one thing, Internet Explorer didn't even exist till the third quarter of 1995. It was released in August 1995 as a for-purchase part of Windows 95 Plus Pack. It didn't have dominance whatsoever in 1995, let alone "99%".

In 1997, when IE 4 was released, Netscape still had a 4-to-1 advantage to IE, as far as browser usage was concerned. By 2005, the second browser war was on and Firefox had over 10% of the browser market--others were in the game too.

Finally, "the world" still doesn't have internet access at 99% penetration so stating that as of 1995, for a single browser, is downright absurd.


Michael

 

[curmudgeon32]

Its stuff like this that gives the carriers nightmares!

And for that I will forever be grateful to Jobs for giving the power back to the people!

Please.

The carriers have seen the ability to bypass SMS and cellular minutes coming long ago and have switched over to making data their big profit center.

Notice how, for instance, virtuall all of the Verizon plans available feature unlimited minutes and SMS, but expensive data.

 

[Renzatic]

That is exaggeration on steroids. For one thing, Internet Explorer didn't even exist till the third quarter of 1995. It was released in August 1995 as a for-purchase part of Windows 95 Plus Pack. It didn't have dominance whatsoever in 1995, let alone "99%".

In 1997, when IE 4 was released, Netscape still had a 4-to-1 advantage to IE, as far as browser usage was concerned. By 2005, the second browser war was on and Firefox had over 10% of the browser market--others were in the game too.

Finally, "the world" still doesn't have internet access at 99% penetration so stating that as of 1995, for a single browser, is downright absurd.

I should've said '98 on, because that's when IE started gaining dominance by being integrated with Windows, and was solidified by the time XP came out in '01.

And instead of monopoly, I should've said hegemony. That's a much better word to use here.

BUT

It's hard to deny that IEs eventual dominance, and MS' refusal to both update it, and play well with other's standards is what held back web technologies for so long. They created a rut there we've only recently pulled ourselves out of.

 

[krravi]

Please.

The carriers have seen the ability to bypass SMS and cellular minutes coming long ago and have switched over to making data their big profit center.

Notice how, for instance, virtuall all of the Verizon plans available feature unlimited minutes and SMS, but expensive data.

Please, its not the data I am talking about. Its about what you can have on your phone. In fact facetime just got the go ahead to use cellular data recently.

Carriers have stiffled innovation for so long like dictatorship. Ask all the cell phone manufacturers who had to sell their phones for dime a dozen to these carriers. Plus, these carriers actually dictated how a phone should be and what functions it can have.

Now imagine if your ISP dictated what computer you can own and what software it can run.! Thats exactly how carriers ruled the roost.

Read the book on Jobs, how AT&T dumped a huge manual on how the keyboards must be. (must be? Who in the hell made them the GODS of cell phone design? They just assumed that position!)

With the release of the iPhone, Jobs put them in their place.

 

[Tinmania]

It's hard to deny that IEs eventual dominance, and MS' refusal to both update it, and play well with other's standards is what held back web technologies for so long. They created a rut there we've only recently pulled ourselves out of.

Oh I definitely agree about that. ActiveX hell.


Michael

 

[curmudgeon32]

Please, its not the data I am talking about. Its about what you can have on your phone. In fact facetime just got the go ahead to use cellular data recently.
[...]
With the release of the iPhone, Jobs put them in their place.

Oh, agreed 100%. They've finally come around to the fact that they can make as much or more money by just letting people do whatever they want with whatever device and then raking in cash for data.

 

[krravi]

Oh, agreed 100%. They've finally come around to the fact that they can make as much or more money by just letting people do whatever they want with whatever device and then raking in cash for data.

Exactly. And Data before, was not free btw. Read my earlier post. Was paying 10 dollars a month more for GPRS/EDGE network 10 years ago.

Plus you can always opt for the 300 MB/month plan if you are not going to use data and have good access to WI-FI everywhere you go. In the end, choice on how I use and what I run on my phone is mine!

And it wasn't easy.Verizon outright rejected Apple when it was approached first. AT&T played hard ball with Jobs to the point he at one point mulled starting his own service. How I wish Apple had started one.. How I wish.....

When all was said and done.... the smart phones became the de facto standard for phones in any carrier.. the cell phone manufacturers were finally freed! You see Samsung or LG or HTC releasing a phone every other month? It would not have been possible before!

The hardware companies innovate, include new features advertise it to the customers and then the customers flock to their products. Carriers just activate the device with or without a contract and thats it. The way it should be.

The CEO of ATT mused in an interview recently and said..."I spend sleepless nights thinking if introducing the iPhone on our network was a good idea. It gives me the jitters to think if we are losing our traditional revenue channels"...

And that, should tell you all you need to know.