Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

SDK Changes Open Door to VOIP Over 3G Networks... iPad Phone Calls Possible?

No camera explaination

AT&T's network can not handle the additional traffic that video would bring.

I do not understand why Verizon did not pull out all the stops to win this business.

That is my biggest gripe about today's announcement.
 
sishaw said:
People keep talking about a camera for video calling, and not without reason, but couldn't a camera be added as a dock accessory, now that those are allowed? I agree having one onboard would be more elegant, and it may take a while for a manufacturer to make such a device, but it's possible, right?
Click to expand...

exactly.

Not only that you can build a whole cottage industry around the accessories like they have done with the touch/phone.

If i had a choice between a fixed 3.2mp camera or an external 10mp, i know what id choose.
(has it come into question with anyone that MAYBE the cases we see with the camera holes could possibly be the new 4G with a unibody case like the iPad? Same goes for the 5mp camera parts etc etc. Just because the iPad is all new and shiny doesn't mean Apple closed the R&D department)

Plus if you have a device that can change screen rotation 4 ways would you need 4 cameras built in.

Otherwise you wouldn't you have...

STD view - Head in shot
LEFT view - left ear
UPSIDE DOWN view - Someones chest
RIGHT view - right ear

THe focal points would be fixed at a particular angle. You get the idea.
 
Im still torn on the device. I don't fret about multitasking because I would surely imagine Apple will address this in a later software update (I assume they are finalizing the most efficient way to do so). The camera isn't that big of a concern, but it will definitely be a killer app in the next version of the iPad.

My beef is with the 4:3 screen, the fact that you have to pay more for the 3G model when they should have just made the 3G standard on the 16, 32, and 64 (especially since you don't have to worry with contracts), and ultimately the redundancy on owning one. I have an iPhone 3Gs, the Macbook I used during college, and the family iMac; It's difficult to see how I could fit the iPad in my everyday life.

Apple will sell millions of these devices, especially at $500, but I am just curious to see the overall quality of an iPad app.

* The iBook and MLB apps have almost sold the device to me alone.
 
jameswgarner said:
AT&T's network can not handle the additional traffic that video would bring.

I do not understand why Verizon did not pull out all the stops to win this business.

That is my biggest gripe about today's announcement.
Click to expand...

maybe because if they did a verizon iPad all we would hear would be "where is the iPhone version" and current sales would suffer.

similar argument being announcing a 3Gs on verizon today the releasing the 4G as a "world phone" in june.

there would be a LOT of angry customers and wasted money in R&D.

*note* similar argument can be used as to why the phone is 3.1.2, and the pad is 3.2. and neither have multitasking.
why not release 4.0 to both at the same time WITH multitasking and both sides are happy.
 
I can understand the despair we expect apple to create waves like they did with the iphone....the hype around it was huge....and in reality the ipad is not a major game changer....but if the kindle has a place in the market for people that have a phone and a computer which i am pretty sure everyone who has bought a kindle/nook etc. also has a phone and cpu then why not the ipad....I would contest that the ipad is a superior device to the kindle/nook etc. therefor apple wins....imho
 
Yeah, I can't quite understand all the whimpering about it lacking a camera either. AT&T + the battery limitations prevent the camera from being useful, and as we all know Apple likes to release things that work 100%, 100% of the time (or at least close to that).
 
A genuine question here. How well is/has the Kindle selling/sold? I really can't imagine a huge amount of people buying it.

You'd expect the iPad to do have at least the same amount of interest. Personally I'd buy something like it if they had manga :) (but I doubt they will in a hurry).
 
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS (JB3.1, unlocked): Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

hitekalex said:
syklee26 said:
how is the VoIP call quality over 3G compared to WiFi?
Click to expand...

It sucks. I have 3G Unrestrictor, and the quality is piss poor. The problem with 3G data is high latency (~200ms or so). It's really not a suitable medium for VoIP.
Click to expand...

That's odd. I use Skype over 3G all the time to call my friends and family back in the States and I've never had any voice quality issues. Not once.
 
robfromabove said:
Yeah, I can't quite understand all the whimpering about it lacking a camera either. AT&T + the battery limitations prevent the camera from being useful, and as we all know Apple likes to release things that work 100%, 100% of the time (or at least close to that).
Click to expand...

What's wrong with using it over WiFi?

And there is precedent: tried downloading an app over 10 MB over 3G?
 
Well, VOIP should be a great addition, and after so long a wait too. I guess that's what's gonna happen with the iPad, the camera and other features would come with the 2nd or 3rd gen product, much like copy and paste coming to the iPhone 3GS.
 
Please think before, and during posting.

SLiM620 said:
I can understand the despair we expect apple to create waves like they did with the iphone....the hype around it was huge....and in reality the ipad is not a major game changer....but if the kindle has a place in the market for people that have a phone and a computer which i am pretty sure everyone who has bought a kindle/nook etc. also has a phone and cpu then why not the ipad....I would contest that the ipad is a superior device to the kindle/nook etc. therefor apple wins....imho
Click to expand...

Apparently, for 12 year old girls and Californians ellipsis are as good as periods, commas, and semi-colons. Is it really that hard?
 
The reasons why anyone would give this thumbs down. (It wasn't me.)

Even if you sort out the network issues according to which even with a GSM codec you will have huge delays over EDGE and 3G due to high packet loss (bandwidth is fine latency isn't, maybe some providers in Europe are fine) VOIP without multitasking only gets half the job done. OK, you can make calls. But personally I also have an interest in receiving them :) And unless I can run a VOIP service in the background (multitask) I can't.

Push notification might be a way around this but I suspect it is not enough for two reasons. Push comes in to tell me I have an incoming call. I start the app, even if it starts super fast I might lose the call in the mean time. (Not to mention the VOIP app has to run a service in the background that keeps the call on, etc. This is solved for chats but I don't think it is for incoming VOIP calls.) Second is that I often miss my Push notifications. It is not like we can set them to scream at us until we acknowledge them (and even if it could I would not want this for my apps). Finally, I really want VOIP AND Google Voice work. Which means the dialer should work as well. And Apple have been a total bitch about allowing GV on the iPhone.

I am sympathetic to Apple's concerns about battery life. I share them. So lets limit background apps. For me one beyond what I am doing would be enough. But we don't even get that. At least not yet.

The bottom line is that all of these are fully integrated in Android. So this really begs the question why I am not switching to Android. I just might. (Well I have another problem there. That is that very few Android phones work on AT&T with 3G. But as soon as the first one comes out unless Apple delivers on the above I am switching.)
 
jameswgarner said:
AT&T's network can not handle the additional traffic that video would bring.

I do not understand why Verizon did not pull out all the stops to win this business.

That is my biggest gripe about today's announcement.
Click to expand...

They still could have added the video camera for use over wifi. That would have been incredibly useful for a lot of people and not affected the carrier's network at all.
 
levil said:
The bottom line is that all of these are fully integrated in Android. So this really begs the question why I am not switching to Android. I just might. (Well I have another problem there. That is that very few Android phones work on AT&T with 3G. But as soon as the first one comes out unless Apple delivers on the above I am switching.)
Click to expand...

Exactly. I am getting more and more tired of Apple's walled garden (iPhone OS), which they want to push on all of their devices. Ridiculous restrictions on apps like Google Voice.. App Store jail.. inability to Multitask.. VoIP restrictions. Enough is enough.

I am just waiting for Android 3.0 to iron out a few things, and then I will seriously look at switching.
 
tjanuranus said:
why would anyone vote negative on this news. isn't voip a good thing?
Click to expand...

I think some people have been knee jerk voting negative on every story today about the iPad and got confused. Most of them don't seem very bright, so it was probably easy for them to get tripped up.
 
where the eff is an ichat app!! this is ridiculous. if apple doesnt release it with iphone 4.0 im going to throw a fit, a bigger fit in all CAPS!
 
Nice

corywoolf said:
2282872616_7956d89378.jpg


Perfect, just in time for the new Wallstreet sequel being filmed in NYC at this moment! Another giant phone for Gordon Gecko to talk on!
Click to expand...

wow you said it perfectly!:D
 
Goolge?

Dose this mean we can finally see google voice come true on the iphone?;)
 
How would anyone really use a camera?

Front-facing cam: Don't we have enough cameras in our house already? When I want a picture, I get out the digital camera—or my iPhone. This thing is suppose to work with the iPhone—not replace it. The decision to leave the camera out is a product positioning one.

Rear-facing cam (video conference). Not practical. You would have to hold the iPad at the exact angle needed during the whole call. You wouldn't be able to type anything. Plus there would be lots of shaking.
 
Jwalker9 said:
think about it, most people pay like 20-30 bucks for a land line now as it is. if 30 dollars gave you unlimited voice and data from a mobile/home entertainment platform, that justifies paying for the 3g option.
Click to expand...
If people were smart they would just take the $20-$30/mo they spend right now on their home land line phone and use it to increase the plan on the cell phones they already have to include more minutes or nationwide long distance. Only folks with heavy overseas usage would find this doesn't cover their needs. I've been cell phone only for eight years now.

Of course this would also require people to be smarter about picking a carrier and phone that have good reception and high voice quality. Very rarely do I find it's the wireless company itself that's responsible for poor sounding voice calls. It's usually from people picking phones paying more attention to multimedia features than the quality of microphone/speaker setup, and poor reception on the network when they make those calls. Both can be remedied with a little research before buying.

Rocketman said:
Since "usage" is now defined as megabytes per month, how much bandwidth does a call take under the particular protocol this application uses? Kb/min, mb/min?
Click to expand...
You would measure it like you do any VoIP service, by kilobits per second. Vonage requires 90-128 upstream for good sound quality IIRC. Downstream would be similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back