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

[ULFoaf]

Funny!

Think about how you hold this in your lap sitting in a chair...do you really think people are going to want to look up your nose while you talk to them?

You are likely right, though. Placement of the camera was probably the killer! An external camera might come later, but it would seem impractical on the iPad itself. Holding it up like a mirror with two hands sounds like it would get uncomfortable, plus trying to hold it still.

 

[Kinobi]

how is the VoIP call quality over 3G compared to WiFi?

I am using Nokia n900 with Skype built-in on Tmobile and it is great! The best part is that when someone calls you on Skype the phone ring as a normal call

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I agree. It's too big to use to seriously take any pictures with it.

The funny thing though is that I own several cameras with small LCD screens on which to preview the shot. They are so small that it is often hard to be sure that someone's eyes were open, that the smile was right, and that we got about as close as we could get to that perfect shot. A bigger screen could make it easier to be more confident that we got the shot (rather than finding out when we get back to the laptop or desktop at home).

I work with a lot of photographers in my business. They have cameras well beyond consumer gear- stuff in the $25K+ range. Those cameras also have LCD preview screens built in. but they always have them linked to a big nearby screen so that they can be sure they got THE shot too.

This iPad is supposed to a mobile device. Take it with you... maybe instead of taking the thicker, heavier laptop. Building a camera into it was both well within Apple's capabilities, and it would have increased the mobile utility of it. Now, if you think you might want to grab a photo somewhere, you MUST have a second device also with you.

Would it look normal to hold up an iPad to take a quick photo? No, we are used to micro-cameras. But it sure would have been nice to at least have the option to be able to get the photo if all you had with you is this mobile device, rather than forcing the issue of needing to carry another device along as well just in case.

If this thing does have VOIP, and it works well enough over 3G, it is an opportunity for some to just take this one device along for almost all travel-related purposes. It could be your phone, your lite use laptop, your presentation tool, your iPod, your movie viewer, your e-book reader, etc. One lite, thin device to potentially cover all of the mobile device needs for some mobile travelers. Instead, Apple leaves out such a simple thing that really matters to many mobile users. Too bad. Maybe version 2 in another 6+ months will fill the holes?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I disagree.

Whether folks like it or not, Apple is here to make money. They already have access to "ALL" the input they need...they just need to read these blogs to get a sense of what folks really want in the device.

They are well aware that they could sell *more*, with the inclusion of select features. Do you think nobody at Apple said "should we put a camera (web) in this?". "Should we allow flash?" etc etc...Of course they did. Steve Jobs probably said..."That will come in Version x"

Why delay these features?

If it did everything on day one, then what would you include in subsequent releases? Apple don't just want revenues today, they want a steady stream over time (shareholders like this).

Another reason is supply/demand. If it did "everything", there is no way they could keep up from a production perspective. They want to balance this, again over time. Apple is in this for the long haul...not just a killer revenue quarter (which they could not fulfill).

To innovate consistently and regularly is incredibly hard to do...even for Apple. Sometimes, you need to hold back.

This is Product Management 101.

Of course, I am still disappointed it has no web cam!! That would have made me buy it. Now, I am in the bucket of folks waiting (which will ease their supply side).

Unless you are a product manager, I wouldn't be quoting product management 101. I can't believe you even posted such comments. There's always new features to add to version 2+. You don't have to hold back desirable features so that you have something to add next year. There's always new stuff to add next year. Are you believing that Apple is so limited in imagination that it needs to hold back such simple features because they might not be able to come up with a way to make it better next year+? Really?

The tech evolutionary train just keeps on running. Next year, they could roll out version 2 with CDMA and sell it to 80M Verizon subs hungry for an iPhone-like device. Next year, they could build in new software features, bigger storage, faster processors, more power storage, etc (all of which you know will come in version 2+ anyway). Holding back a camera? Holding back Flash? Because they need it to make version 2 appealing? Really?

Supply & Demand? Make it great so that demand far exceeds supply is a problem? So make it so-so so that demand is less (and thus less potential ROIs) so that they can keep up with weaker demand... to sell more over the long haul? Are you kidding? Make it as great as possible. If demand far exceeds supply, just do the best you can to fill demand until you catch up to it. A business 101 goal is to maximize ROIs. If it was such that every person on the planet would buy one in the first quarter, that's fantastic. Next quarter/year roll out the new version and many of them will upgrade... just like we do with perfectly good, still quite usable computers, iPhones, iPods, etc.

Hold back? Yikes. I would not want you to be in charge of new product development at my company. I'm pretty confident that Apple could hold nothing back in a new product, and then listen to a happy "but I wish it also had" community of buyers (while enjoying the cash those buyers paid for it), plus keep up with the steadily turning wheels of tech evolution in general, and still have plenty to build into a wow version 2+ in the next few years.

 

[sishaw]

No, that would be a terrible marketing ploy. I think this is a classic mistake in how Apple develops products. By choosing maximum secrecy so that they can "wow" prospective buyers, they cut those same prospects out of the product development process.

Steve Jobs follows the Henry Ford dictum: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." The trouble is, as you say, following that philosophy to the extreme cuts out the consumer. By now, Apple's customers are knowledgeable enough that they could have had some input, at least on obvious things like multitasking, an open development environment, and a camera for Skype (& similar). Just as what Ford said about cars is no longer true because people have experience with cars.

Recall that the whole justification for the "walled garden" approach for the iPhone was to keep the device usable AS A PHONE at all times and not risk crashing it (this is what Jobs said, not me)--clearly, this is important in the case of a phone. Lives could depend on it; business certainly does. For a tablet computer, though? No, we should be able to put any software we want. It should simply have Mac OS X APIs, and any developer should be allowed without going through the App Store.

I hope the next step isn't to take the Macbook and iMac out of the open environment and put them behind a walled environment as well--that would be a return to the bad old days when Apple limited its own customer base by being incompatible with the world.

Windows 7 is a much better operating system (more OS X-like!) than any prior Windows. Apple can't afford to go backwards.

 

[fleggy]

A webcam would be really nice. I do not think a fully integrated webcam would work well from a usability/positioning standpoint, however. I would not be surprised is looking at introducing a nicely designed, external accessory; couple with software enhancements to provide a seamless experience.

I actually think it would work, and quite well. If this device is so hard/heavy to hold for a 10 minute web cam chat, how would I read lengthy books on it?

I understand the camera would need to be positioned correctly (to capture my face), but if it is aligned with the best viewing angle, I think the problem is solved. Perhaps it is one or two degrees off perpendicular?

 

[satcomer]

VOIP applications blocked?! You better tell Vonage, Skype as well as others.

Plus if this new SDK gets going I hope Apple will allow Google Voice on at least the iPad.

 

[MatLu]

VOIP applications blocked?! You better tell Vonage, Skype as well as others.

Plus if this new SDK gets going I hope Apple will allow Google Voice on at least the iPad.

VOIP over 3G. Those Skype and Vonage apps are currently limited to WiFi-only. (Which I imagine will change very soon now, once they release updates for their respective apps.)

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Steve Jobs follows the Henry Ford dictum: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." The trouble is, as you say, following that philosophy to the extreme cuts out the consumer. By now, Apple's customers are knowledgeable enough that they could have had some input, at least on obvious things like multitasking, an open development environment, and a camera for Skype (& similar). Just as what Ford said about cars is no longer true because people have experience with cars.

I appreciate the Ford analogy. But I'll offer 2 points to it:

• Ford was still addressing the need that "less-imaginative" base of buyers were saying they wanted with his car- a means of transportation faster than fast horses. So, if Apple chose to involve "less-imaginative" buyers in their product development process, sure they might get some "faster horse" feedback, but then they could be sure that what they are building would cover the need for speed (or a camera, or multitasking, or Flash as in this case). Had Ford rolled out cars that couldn't go faster than horses...
• Ford is also famously quoted for saying "People can have any color of car they want... as long as it is black". This is the same "WE know what they want" mentality. As a result, car BUYERS decided to buy cars in many colors from competitors until Ford finally came around. He could have gotten some of that money if he wasn't so close-minded about listening to collective buyer wants, but buyers took their dollars elsewhere (or loyal Ford fanbois sat on their dollars waiting for version 2+).

Looking through this and many other threads- just among the Apple fanatics on this site- I see a fairly abundant amount of comments from likely buyers saying they will wait for version 2+. That's money that was ready to flow to Apple (I'm in this camp myself). It's because Apple made product development decisions like Ford that now Apple will miss- or perhaps delay- easy revenues they would have otherwise gotten from the segment that finds this product not desirable enough for their money (now).

People here are Apple fanatics. We love Apple. They could probably roll out the iTurd, and they would get a number of buyers day one, with a steady flow of comments about it being the best Turd ever, "Microsoft could never drop a Turd this good", etc. When Apple rolls out "the greatest thing I've ever done" and decent chunks of THIS crowd are saying they'll wait for version 2, I think we were given a (only) black, slow horse.

I firmly believe that Apple should move forward with the collective brilliance product development model. Then, with that added free/cheap input from the collective brainpower of their prospective buyers, they would at least have the quantitative input to have a shot at getting every new product more right on launch. It would be easy & cheap for them to do, so why not?

 

[sishaw]

I appreciate the Ford analogy. But I'll offer 2 points to it:

• Ford was still addressing the need that "less-imaginative" base of buyers were saying they wanted with his car- a means of transportation faster than fast horses. So, if Apple chose to involve "less-imaginative" buyers in their product development process, sure they might get some "faster horse" feedback, but then they could be sure that what they are building would cover the need for speed (or a camera, or multitasking, or Flash as in this case). Had Ford rolled out cars that couldn't go faster than horses...
• Ford is also famously quoted for saying "People can have any color of car they want... as long as it is black". This is the same "WE know what they want" mentality. As a result, car BUYERS decided to buy cars in many colors from competitors until Ford finally came around. He could have gotten some of that money if he wasn't so close-minded about listening to collective buyer wants, but buyers took their dollars elsewhere (or loyal Ford fanbois sat on their dollars waiting for version 2+).

I firmly believe that Apple should move forward with the collective brilliance product development model. Then, with that added free/cheap input from the collective brainpower of their prospective buyers, they would at least have the quantitative input to have a shot at getting every new product more right on launch. It would be easy & cheap for them to do, so why not?

I agree completely. The "collective brilliance" (aka "crowdsourcing") model has worked exceptionally well in the App Store (which Jobs initially resisted). Sure, the are some dogs, but a LOT of useful apps. Apple needs to listen to SOME customer input. Heck, I'd sign an NDA for a chance to give them my $ .02!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I agree completely. The "collective brilliance" (aka "crowdsourcing") model has worked exceptionally well in the App Store (which Jobs initially resisted). Sure, the are some dogs, but a LOT of useful apps. Apple needs to listen to SOME customer input. Heck, I'd sign an NDA for a chance to give them my $ .02!

I agree. I thought that they would learn that from that exact example of the power of tapping into the Apple community.

They could even manifest the collective brilliance approach as APPS. Can you imagine what an App from Apple called "We want to hear from you" would yield? Can you imagine the enthusiasm of the crowd of future buyers at feeling plugged into the new product development pipeline in some- ANY- way?

And better still, can you imagine the impact of sourcing at least this free additional channel of information in terms of what next-big-thing Apple might roll out? That's why I say this is the biggest weak link in Apple's very impressive business (a very small business approach still trying to be applied in a very big business)... an opportunity to flex their muscles in a 21st century way to make all that they do that much better. Rather than tapping into the best they can get from a tiny handful of minds involved in shaping the next big thing, they could instead seed that team with the "best of" suggestions from the masses of future buyers.

There is no lose in this for Apple. It would all be upside. They could even still have almost all of the surprise that they seem to love so dearly, that they even let it somewhat shoot their product launch success maximization in the foot, when they miss a few key features that would have won the immediate dollars of the masses.

I really wanted to buy this thing. But now that it has arrived, it's missing a few features that would have gotten my dollars. I completely believe that had they had a good product dev communication channel from prospective buyers, those few features would have made it into the final product spec. And my dollars would have been Apple's dollars yesterday. Instead they wait for version 2+.

 

[Rocketman]

Funny oversize device photos.

Calls, as I have said many moons ago, will be by VOiP, bluetooth headset, speakerphone, and I bet we see an 802.11N webcam from someone.

Who's going to be the first to release a "HandTopHotSpot-tm" application so the 3G (or dock) can be shared over 802.11 to multiple crippled devices?

Maybe via a bandwidth budgeting scheme so pretty much the only thing you, as a crippled, non-blessed node, can do is buy content and download-upload low bandwidth stuff.

Oh, and what if what you saw was a mis-direct prototype, pending release of the real thing in 2 months with a thinner frame space, front camera, whatever else. Oops, improved it!

Rocketman

 

[hitekalex]

hitekalex, I looked at what equipment you have... the iPad really offers nothing for you. You already have a 3gs iphone, and an ssd air, and you are probably locked in as well for a bit. Not sure what compelling feature would make it worthwhile for folks like you.

Exactly, iPad doesn't offer me anything. And I don't think I am all that unique - most people nowadays have a smartphone and a laptop. So I don't really understand what problem the iPad is trying to solve for people like me. Jobs said famously when he was first faced with a tablet - "what is this thing good for other than browsing the web on a can". Well, this question hasn't really been answered.

The device of this footprint doesn't offer anything over something like Air, or even a Netbook. It's too big to carry in a packet or even a purse. You're not going to use it while walking or standing. You can't hold it with one hand. You can't set it down on its base while laying in bed.

I would much rather see a much smaller 6"-7" device, which could be made much lighter, portable and even pocketable. As this thing stands - it's a big slab of glass that's just going end up spending most of its time sitting idle people's coffee tables.

Call it whatever you want - I am just not as excited as you are.

The iPad does indeed offer something to the folks on Verizon and other carriers... a smart phone (without the phone part, as least for now), and at HALF the price for UNLIMITED access. I had considered adding a MiFi to my V account, and it costs a LOT more than this. For folks like me, even though it is another device, it looks like a good deal.
cheers.

I agree, the data plans they negotiated are decent, although you're limited to AT&T crap network. But this thing is not a phone, you are not going to use it as a phone, it will never be a phone. So most people still need a smartphone plan on top of this, so it goes back to just being another device and another monthly plan.

 

[Ademius]

This just seems more complicated than it has to be, seeing as I could buy an unlocked iPhone and use Skype instead of the iPad. What really comes to mind, again, is backround apps. I need to be able to run Skype/G Voice in the backround for it to be able to replace the phone function when it's used for international and/or lengthy calls.

Seeing as many carriers now appear to offer prepaid data, one could just buy a prepaid data plan with a local carrier and call internationally really cheap or for free (i.e. VOIP to VOIP). This, of course would only be useful for longer visits. Using VOIP over Wifi should suffice for shorter trips.

 

[SpinThis!]

I actually think it would work, and quite well. If this device is so hard/heavy to hold for a 10 minute web cam chat, how would I read lengthy books on it?

The difference there is when you're reading a book you can shift your self around and still read the screen, even at slight angles or whatever you feel most comfortable. If the camera is in a certain place on the iPad, you need to orient yourself or the iPad to that position... and more importantly, stay in that position. The easiest way to do that would be to prop the device up so you don't have to hold it but that really defeats the purpose imo. You know those bad youtube videos where people are handholding the camera and orienting it to their face? It's like that.

 

[fleggy]

The difference there is when you're reading a book you can shift your self around and still read the screen, even at slight angles or whatever you feel most comfortable. If the camera is in a certain place on the iPad, you need to orient yourself or the iPad to that position... and more importantly, stay in that position. The easiest way to do that would be to prop the device up so you don't have to hold it but that really defeats the purpose imo. You know those bad youtube videos where people are handholding the camera and orienting it to their face? It's like that.

Yeah - I hear you. That said, if a wider angle lens was used (I know...cost goes up), then you could get "some" flexibility. It does not need to be much! Even sitting in front of a laptop webcam is somewhat restrictive (need to keep still).

Even with restrictions, I would buy one - just for that. People have been saying...who wants one of these? I DO! I want to replace my wife's laptop (Windows), but don't want to cough up for a MB. The iPad is ideal...surfing, email etc - but lack of web cam (we live in the USA, but moved from England), is a deal breaker. If it had that...Sold.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The difference there is when you're reading a book you can shift your self around and still read the screen, even at slight angles or whatever you feel most comfortable. If the camera is in a certain place on the iPad, you need to orient yourself or the iPad to that position... and more importantly, stay in that position. The easiest way to do that would be to prop the device up so you don't have to hold it but that really defeats the purpose imo. You know those bad youtube videos where people are handholding the camera and orienting it to their face? It's like that.

Com'on you guys. There are plenty of solutions. Why can we only see this Tablet in our hands and apparently tired arms? Why can we only see it being used while we are apparently walking/bouncing around?

For an iChat, it won't be hard at all to find a stable surface on which to set the thing while you chat. Just look around your environment, imagine you have one now, imagine you get a Skype/iChat video request, where could you put it for a purely stable video chat session?

If you are walking/moving about and there is no good solution for video chat at that moment, don't take/make the video call, use audio only. Audio won't fail even if you are on a bumpy carnival ride at the time, or hanging upside down, or naked.

We're trying so hard to justify why it doesn't make sense for Apple to include an isight camera that we are very selectively imagining scenarios where it indeed would be challenging to conduct a video call. Is your butt glued to that couch? Are your arms the only possible way to support (stable) orientation of this device for a video chat?

And for every one of those scenarios, there would be dozens more where having that OPTION would be terrific. I'm in the hotel or at the office and the ONE mobile device I have with me is sitting in it's very stable dock- iChat/Skype video ready. I'm at the coffee shop or the bookstore and I want to take/make this video call: set it on the table on the dock you probably have with you, or improvise a stand by propping it against the wall, against your bag, against the table's centerpiece, etc. Is it really that hard?

But in those less frequent situations where you know you can't video chat, just take the audio call, or have yourself in "unavailable" mode, etc. Or don't answer/make the call at that time (just like you do with your isight laptop now).

I would much rather have the OPTION for when I can video Skype, then have no option because it won't work perfectly well in every scenario I can imagine. Sometimes, I'm underwater so I guess Mabooks, Desktops, iPhones and iPods are no good to own either.

 

[RogueLdr]

No, they don't build in EVERY feature: did you not see the word "collective"? They still build it however they want to build it. But by including input from future buyers, and then collectively comparing all that input, they end up with a top 3, top 5, top 10 list of features desirable to the masses...

I would not be surprised to find that the iPad DOES include the top 3/5/10 features that "the masses" want, and that Apple made a point to determine what those were during R&D.

 

[Hard-Hat-Mac]

My big question is since you're not on a contract can I turn on 3g for say one month i'll be traveling and then turn it off again etc. for one month at a time as it fits my needs?

HHM

 

[3goldens]

As we said a XXL IPHONE with no camera.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

My big question is since you're not on a contract can I turn on 3g for say one month i'll be traveling and then turn it off again etc. for one month at a time as it fits my needs?

HHM

It appears very likely... it is a prepaid 3G plan. Use it only when you need it. No forced contract fees when you are NOT going to use it. That is a definite benefit.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

It is for those of us who don't feel the need to walk and drive and live with a phone continuously glued to our ear.

If I'm doing something not conducive to making a call on it, then I'm too busy to be interrupted with a phone call. Easy as that.

How easy it is to forget that cell phones are a luxury, and not a necessity.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I would not be surprised to find that the iPad DOES include the top 3/5/10 features that "the masses" want, and that Apple made a point to determine what those were during R&D.

I'd like to believe that, but then why is it missing such seemingly obvious stuff that even the crowd of Apple fanatics here are identifying as "must have" thus, "I'm waiting for version 2".

I guess if you took it to the extreme, the top 10 features list could include items like source of power, memory, CPU, screen, etc. So yes, you could say it has the top 10 features to even exist as a working device. My point would be to gather the top list of features from prospective buyers, sort the list by popularity of features, draw the line at an appropriate place (maybe the top 16 or top 27, etc) and then build that thing. All the suggestions asked for just ONCE (I want a pink one, with green stripes and butterflies on it) obviously wouldn't make it above the line, but a few glaring omissions in this launch seem like they would have been requested by many buyers (thus all the flak from fanbois and fanatics).

I find it nearly impossible to believe that an iChat/Skype-supporting isight camera could have been on Apple's list but then was consciously left out because it wasn't desirable to the masses. Instead, I suspect the secrecy culture along with the ego-maniacal desire to completely "surprise" the world on launch day overrides the quality of R&D that being just a bit more open about new product development could get them.

Or more simply: why not take advantage of the collective brilliance product development approaches? If Apple's existing methods covered every base, then those buyer input channels could just be a layer of confirmation of THEIR internal brilliance. But if their super-brilliant minds had missed a few things in their cloak of secrecy development model, at least this would be another way to catch them before they launch, and weave in obvious missing features.

 

[castlema]

people still have home landline phones?

I still do. I like having a phone be only a few steps away that is always on and never goes dead. i have a cell phone that costs me $7/month that I hardly ever use. I have gone weeks at a time not knowing where the thing is and when I do need the battery is almost always dead. Getting a better phone while dropping the landline would cost me close to $60/month over what I am paying now when you factor in the bundling discounts I get from Qwest.

 

[hitekalex]

It appears very likely... it is a prepaid 3G plan. Use it only when you need it. No forced contract fees when you are NOT going to use it. That is a definite benefit.

They will probably still charge you $29.95 activation fee, making monthly back-n-forth switching not very cost effective...