How Does FaceTime Work?(matduggan.com)
matduggan.com
How Does FaceTime Work?
https://matduggan.com/how-does-facetime-work/
168 comments
I remember back in the day when FaceTime was announced Apple made a big deal about it using standard protocols throughout the stack ( SIP and maybe WebRTC?) and dangled the hope that there could be 3rd party apps that connected with FaceTime.
We were so young and naive then.
We were so young and naive then.
The presentation said something like they planned for it to be "open" or something. I believe that was the first the dev team had heard of it.
People have guess that patents prevented it from actually being an open standard. Coincidentally, some of those patents expired in the last year or two and the last should expire this year. But I kind of guess the window has passed for it becoming open.
People have guess that patents prevented it from actually being an open standard. Coincidentally, some of those patents expired in the last year or two and the last should expire this year. But I kind of guess the window has passed for it becoming open.
> But I kind of guess the window has passed for it becoming open.
It’s moving there. They’re adding a web interface this year.
It’s moving there. They’re adding a web interface this year.
I found the clip from the 2010 keynote [1]. Steve Jobs said, "We’re going to take it all the way. We’re going to the standards bodies tomorrow and we’re going to make FaceTime an open industry standard." I didn't watch the whole video, so I might have missed some context, but this lines up with my memory.
I don't see a web client being a move in that direction.
[1] https://youtu.be/eujypqKT8o0?t=5809
I don't see a web client being a move in that direction.
[1] https://youtu.be/eujypqKT8o0?t=5809
IIRC, when Jobs said that sentence, it was the first time the team was told of any plan to make it a standard. There hadn't been any legal or technical review that it would be possible. (Not in 11 years now they couldn't have made it happen if they wanted to.)
That web interface is a customer acquisition and retention play.
It enables FaceTime users to stay in the ecosystem when their friends don't use the platform they do (vs going to Zoom, which is available for everyone). And it enables non-users to get a taste of FaceTime without before they buy an iPhone.
It's a brilliant move, but I wouldn't call it open. Maybe "open enough" :D
It enables FaceTime users to stay in the ecosystem when their friends don't use the platform they do (vs going to Zoom, which is available for everyone). And it enables non-users to get a taste of FaceTime without before they buy an iPhone.
It's a brilliant move, but I wouldn't call it open. Maybe "open enough" :D
They have a lot of work to do if that is the case. The beta experience at present is downright poor, particularly on the non-Apple end of things.
>People have guess that patents prevented it from actually being an open standard.
Not guessed. Apple was actually sued and had to change how FaceTime works.
Not guessed. Apple was actually sued and had to change how FaceTime works.
Facebook and Google also did that with XMPP.
There were some (lost?) patent disputes afterwards which could have an impact on openess.
> For those of you old enough to remember landlines, it reminds me of those [...] When we all switched to cell service audio quality took a huge hit
As a blind person with a lot of friends in different corners of the world, audio quality is very important to me. Surprisingly enough, I've seen side projects that took a weekend to develop that had much better quality than what mainstream services offer. Part of it is probably because of bandwidth costs, but I guess effects (like cancelling echos from participants who use speakers instead of headphones, or reducing noise from crappy mics) also play a role.
Facetime's quality is good, but nowhere near what your devices are actually capable of. The only mainstream solution that is actually good is Zoom, when you enable original sound, stereo audio, high fidelity mode and disable a few annoying filters. To do this, the app needs much more fine-grained control of your microphone than you can get from a web browser, so the native client is essential.
Discord with Nitro is pretty decent too, but really niche, obscure, non-mainstream solutions work best. TeamTalk[1] is one great example.
[1] https://bearware.dk/?page_id=327
As a blind person with a lot of friends in different corners of the world, audio quality is very important to me. Surprisingly enough, I've seen side projects that took a weekend to develop that had much better quality than what mainstream services offer. Part of it is probably because of bandwidth costs, but I guess effects (like cancelling echos from participants who use speakers instead of headphones, or reducing noise from crappy mics) also play a role.
Facetime's quality is good, but nowhere near what your devices are actually capable of. The only mainstream solution that is actually good is Zoom, when you enable original sound, stereo audio, high fidelity mode and disable a few annoying filters. To do this, the app needs much more fine-grained control of your microphone than you can get from a web browser, so the native client is essential.
Discord with Nitro is pretty decent too, but really niche, obscure, non-mainstream solutions work best. TeamTalk[1] is one great example.
[1] https://bearware.dk/?page_id=327
I'm actually also very sensitive to audio quality.
Oddly, I also landed on zoom has above the rest in terms of quality. Everyone on my team uses headsets, this avoids need for echo cancellation and the weird muting effectings that generates - so I HIGHLY recommend this - two people can talk at once comfortably so you pick up the little cues of interjections etc.
Facetime audio only is good in quality in my experience, but not so great in latency (may be for reasons outside apple's control obviously).
Oddly, I also landed on zoom has above the rest in terms of quality. Everyone on my team uses headsets, this avoids need for echo cancellation and the weird muting effectings that generates - so I HIGHLY recommend this - two people can talk at once comfortably so you pick up the little cues of interjections etc.
Facetime audio only is good in quality in my experience, but not so great in latency (may be for reasons outside apple's control obviously).
> but I guess effects (like cancelling echos from participants who use speakers instead of headphones, or reducing noise from crappy mics) also play a role.
I wonder if there is a market for a meeting app that has the best quality of them all, by not trying to poorly work around bad environments, but simply booting people out of meetings until they fix their setup.
Yes, it would suck if you or someone you really need something from get booted, but after a few weeks everyone's setup would likely be fixed so this would no longer be a frequent issue, and in exchange, you wouldn't have 20+ people get driven mad by someone giving a hour-long presentation over Bluetooth audio.
I feel like shitty audio quality is responsible for at least 80% of the 'zoom brain' effect.
I wonder if there is a market for a meeting app that has the best quality of them all, by not trying to poorly work around bad environments, but simply booting people out of meetings until they fix their setup.
Yes, it would suck if you or someone you really need something from get booted, but after a few weeks everyone's setup would likely be fixed so this would no longer be a frequent issue, and in exchange, you wouldn't have 20+ people get driven mad by someone giving a hour-long presentation over Bluetooth audio.
I feel like shitty audio quality is responsible for at least 80% of the 'zoom brain' effect.
> I wonder if there is a market for a meeting app that has the best quality of them all, by not trying to poorly work around bad environments, but simply booting people out of meetings until they fix their setup.
There are so many situational things involved when making a call that I would estimate the size of this market to be approximately $0/yr.
P.S. I'm sure this comment will come back to bite me 10 years down the line just like that Dropbox comment.
There are so many situational things involved when making a call that I would estimate the size of this market to be approximately $0/yr.
P.S. I'm sure this comment will come back to bite me 10 years down the line just like that Dropbox comment.
I spend 70% of Zoom meetings with "Original Sound" enabled. I have a good microphone and I want to be as easy to hear as possible.
However, I also have an air conditioner. You can hear it. I try to keep it turned off during meetings, but sometimes it's just too hot. and so Original Sound goes off and the air conditioner goes on.
What else am I supposed to do? Leave the meeting?
However, I also have an air conditioner. You can hear it. I try to keep it turned off during meetings, but sometimes it's just too hot. and so Original Sound goes off and the air conditioner goes on.
What else am I supposed to do? Leave the meeting?
Push to talk solutions make a pretty good middle ground.
Have all the background noise you need to have, as long as I only ever have to hear it when you're actively trying to speak. If I still can't hear you over your noise, then you have a bigger problem.
If I have to listen to your noise even when someone else is speaking, then we all have a problem, which PTT nicely solves.
Anyone who spend the 90s / 00s competitive gaming likely already has their preferred PTT key, that they can push while continuing to still be productive in whatever activity they're already engaging in.
Some tweaking may be required, given the different input methods used depending on the job vs the game, but that was true of different games back then too.
Have all the background noise you need to have, as long as I only ever have to hear it when you're actively trying to speak. If I still can't hear you over your noise, then you have a bigger problem.
If I have to listen to your noise even when someone else is speaking, then we all have a problem, which PTT nicely solves.
Anyone who spend the 90s / 00s competitive gaming likely already has their preferred PTT key, that they can push while continuing to still be productive in whatever activity they're already engaging in.
Some tweaking may be required, given the different input methods used depending on the job vs the game, but that was true of different games back then too.
Try Krisp. Local ML noise reduction. Cancels out my AC, mechanical keyboard and even my dog, while people say my audio sounds amazing.
One of the advantages of remote work, is to enable people to be flexible about their working environment.
Your solution is to setup a streaming rig in everyone’s house, and force them into a home cubicle? Sounds absolutely painful to me.
Your solution is to setup a streaming rig in everyone’s house, and force them into a home cubicle? Sounds absolutely painful to me.
I wonder if a motivator would be requiring push-to-talk from those people. Better yet: disallowing any beautification filters.
I actually don't think bandwidth costs are responsible, nor DSP effects.
I suspect the lousy audio quality in modern voice conferencing software is to compensate for people with lousy internet connections or underpowered devices: someone using an older phone in the car on 3G cell service with cell tower handoffs, or a crusty laptop using lousy coffee shop WiFi, etc.
It's a tough problem to solve. Everyone on a call can be affected by one person with a lousy connection if the software isn't very sophisticated.
People are generally willing to tolerate lower bitrate audio if it means less dropouts, and lowering the bitrate for everyone is easy to do (if a bit lazy), and solves many problems.
I suspect the lousy audio quality in modern voice conferencing software is to compensate for people with lousy internet connections or underpowered devices: someone using an older phone in the car on 3G cell service with cell tower handoffs, or a crusty laptop using lousy coffee shop WiFi, etc.
It's a tough problem to solve. Everyone on a call can be affected by one person with a lousy connection if the software isn't very sophisticated.
People are generally willing to tolerate lower bitrate audio if it means less dropouts, and lowering the bitrate for everyone is easy to do (if a bit lazy), and solves many problems.
I’ve opened facebook.com with browser dev.tools open. The 3 largest java script files are using 1 megabyte to download. Facebook is able to do that because even globally, vast majority of people have internet way faster than 64 kbit/sec. 1 megabyte takes more than 2 minutes to download at 64 kbit/sec.
It’s similar story with CPUs. Modern CPUs are insanely fast these days, smart phones included. What once required purposedly-designed ASICs (e.g. Sony Minidisk had one for ATRAC3) is now borderline free in terms of compute power. A cheap Android phone sold 10 years ago gonna have at least 500MHz CPU, and at least 256MB RAM.
96 Kbps AAC audio works on 10-15MHz CPUs, and 64 Kbps HE-AAC works on 50-60 MHz CPUs, both from 2005: https://www.helixcommunity.org/projects/datatype/2005/aacfix...
It’s similar story with CPUs. Modern CPUs are insanely fast these days, smart phones included. What once required purposedly-designed ASICs (e.g. Sony Minidisk had one for ATRAC3) is now borderline free in terms of compute power. A cheap Android phone sold 10 years ago gonna have at least 500MHz CPU, and at least 256MB RAM.
96 Kbps AAC audio works on 10-15MHz CPUs, and 64 Kbps HE-AAC works on 50-60 MHz CPUs, both from 2005: https://www.helixcommunity.org/projects/datatype/2005/aacfix...
There's much more to an internet connection than the average speed per second.
If we're talking about downloading files (and loading websites), you're mostly correct. However, temporary slowdowns, disruptions in wireless connectivity and wireless-specific packet loss affect audio quality a lot, while not having much impact on your download speed. Even when streaming audio or video, you don't feel them as much, as your device usually keeps at least 10 seconds of buffer that it can rely on. When in a call, though, 10 seconds of buffer would mean 10 seconds of latency, which is simply unacceptable.
You can have a 1.2 mb/s connection that sometimes goes down to 64kb/s for two to three seconds. Even if your download speed is still 1 mb/s, you can't really receive more than 64 kb/s when in a call, or you will get dropouts.
If we're talking about downloading files (and loading websites), you're mostly correct. However, temporary slowdowns, disruptions in wireless connectivity and wireless-specific packet loss affect audio quality a lot, while not having much impact on your download speed. Even when streaming audio or video, you don't feel them as much, as your device usually keeps at least 10 seconds of buffer that it can rely on. When in a call, though, 10 seconds of buffer would mean 10 seconds of latency, which is simply unacceptable.
You can have a 1.2 mb/s connection that sometimes goes down to 64kb/s for two to three seconds. Even if your download speed is still 1 mb/s, you can't really receive more than 64 kb/s when in a call, or you will get dropouts.
I don't know if this is common, but I have a lot more missed audio bits in Facetime than I do in other apps when I talk to my family in a third world country. I suspect what you are saying is correct. Modern apps are built for the weakest link while Facetime is built for the strongest.
While I am having trouble finding a source for this right now, I am quite certain that Discord intends to add a setting enabling all audio processing for those with good audio gear. Or at least that's what they said they would do.
Have you tried Signal? Say what you want about the philosophies and the deteriorating app quality but the call audio quality has always been superb (assuming the connection holds).
Here is a good write up on how the WebRTC implementation works for their new browser based calls. https://webrtchacks.com/facetime-finally-faces-webrtc-implem...
> For those of you old enough to remember landlines, it reminds me of those [...] When we all switched to cell service audio quality took a huge hit
I don't understand - are landline phones not in use anymore? I only use a landline phone to communicate with the family, because I simply cannot stand the audio quality of cellphones for calls which last longer than a few minutes.
Edit: In Germany, there are about 40 M active landlines. That is 1 landline phone for every 2 inhabitants, and this number seems to be have been fairly constant over the last 20 years [0].
[0] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/274339/umfrag...
I don't understand - are landline phones not in use anymore? I only use a landline phone to communicate with the family, because I simply cannot stand the audio quality of cellphones for calls which last longer than a few minutes.
Edit: In Germany, there are about 40 M active landlines. That is 1 landline phone for every 2 inhabitants, and this number seems to be have been fairly constant over the last 20 years [0].
[0] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/274339/umfrag...
Landlines are expensive in a lot of places. Looking it up, a landline would cost me $70/mo which is significantly more than my mobile plan.
I think different countries have different norms around things like landlines - or even texting. In the US, people ignored texting for a very long time and preferred to call people even if it was just a short note.
In terms of audio quality, VoLTE has improved that quite a bit when both sides will inter-operate with HD voice. Older stuff often used 8-12kbps and primitive codecs to encode your voice which simply a lot of compression. I know Speex has had some great results at low bitrates, but that's a far newer codec. However, I believe VoLTE's AMR-WB codec still chops everything about 7,000 Hz. T-Mobile US and Verizon have both implemented EVS which goes up to 14,000 Hz.
https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-make-your-cell-phone-cal...
Of course I'd find a Sascha Segan article when looking to confirm some information. It has some great recordings to compare and you can see huge differences depending on carrier implementations. The Sprint-Sprint test shows very poor quality. The T-Mobile 2G test also shows how old networks just used poor codecs with limited bitrates. You can even hear distinct differences between the T-Mobile-T-Mobile call and the Verizon-Verizon call where the Verizon call just sounds significantly less rich.
Back in the day, calls used a huge amount of network capacity. Even today, because calls need a more guaranteed bitrate, networks need to leave some extra room for them. 128kbps of streaming music isn't the same as 128kbps of real-time voice because the network can deliver 15 seconds of music and then it can deliver the 16th second of music any time in the next 15 seconds. Real-time two-way communications don't have that luxury. Still, bumping up the bitrate on communications makes a big difference and networks today should be more than capable of handling it.
I don't know what German operators have implemented, but cell phones have come a decent way in terms of audio quality, though carriers being lazy and interoperability problems can mean that consumers don't always get the benefits in the real world.
I think different countries have different norms around things like landlines - or even texting. In the US, people ignored texting for a very long time and preferred to call people even if it was just a short note.
In terms of audio quality, VoLTE has improved that quite a bit when both sides will inter-operate with HD voice. Older stuff often used 8-12kbps and primitive codecs to encode your voice which simply a lot of compression. I know Speex has had some great results at low bitrates, but that's a far newer codec. However, I believe VoLTE's AMR-WB codec still chops everything about 7,000 Hz. T-Mobile US and Verizon have both implemented EVS which goes up to 14,000 Hz.
https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-make-your-cell-phone-cal...
Of course I'd find a Sascha Segan article when looking to confirm some information. It has some great recordings to compare and you can see huge differences depending on carrier implementations. The Sprint-Sprint test shows very poor quality. The T-Mobile 2G test also shows how old networks just used poor codecs with limited bitrates. You can even hear distinct differences between the T-Mobile-T-Mobile call and the Verizon-Verizon call where the Verizon call just sounds significantly less rich.
Back in the day, calls used a huge amount of network capacity. Even today, because calls need a more guaranteed bitrate, networks need to leave some extra room for them. 128kbps of streaming music isn't the same as 128kbps of real-time voice because the network can deliver 15 seconds of music and then it can deliver the 16th second of music any time in the next 15 seconds. Real-time two-way communications don't have that luxury. Still, bumping up the bitrate on communications makes a big difference and networks today should be more than capable of handling it.
I don't know what German operators have implemented, but cell phones have come a decent way in terms of audio quality, though carriers being lazy and interoperability problems can mean that consumers don't always get the benefits in the real world.
My landline here near Seattle is around $60/mo. I don't know why... back when I first set up a land line here, it was $25/mo. The quality of the line has deteriorated so bad, there's noise on it, they won't bother to fix it. A few years ago the line had a physical break somewhere between my house and the DSLAM. They switched me to another pair of copper. I have 3 pairs of copper coming into my house, but now one is totally dead, and I will never be able to use it again. Apparently our street is at full capacity and they have no plans to repair or add more lines.
The other problem with land lines is the amount of robocalls you get on them. The phone companies offer no way to truly block them. Every blocking service they offer relies on Caller ID, and with the robocallers spoofing Caller ID and randomizing numbers, the blocking is totally ineffective. I literally get 5-8 calls a day. They used to offer a call blocking service, where a machine would answer, and tell you to hang up, or press 1 if you wanted to connect. This service no longer exists, and the other call (ineffective) blocking services (they offer at least 3 or 4) each cost about $6/mo each. My belief is that they are making tons of money allowing unauthenticated calls into their network, that they have no desire to actually block any calls.
Also the relatively small number of landlines left leaves a rather small audience of people to complain. So most people don't even know this is a problem.
The other problem with land lines is the amount of robocalls you get on them. The phone companies offer no way to truly block them. Every blocking service they offer relies on Caller ID, and with the robocallers spoofing Caller ID and randomizing numbers, the blocking is totally ineffective. I literally get 5-8 calls a day. They used to offer a call blocking service, where a machine would answer, and tell you to hang up, or press 1 if you wanted to connect. This service no longer exists, and the other call (ineffective) blocking services (they offer at least 3 or 4) each cost about $6/mo each. My belief is that they are making tons of money allowing unauthenticated calls into their network, that they have no desire to actually block any calls.
Also the relatively small number of landlines left leaves a rather small audience of people to complain. So most people don't even know this is a problem.
>My belief is that they are making tons of money allowing unauthenticated calls into their network, that they have no desire to actually block any calls.
I've been waiting for that to happen on cell and landline numbers. Authentication for the party calling. At this point, there's no other option than legislation. Just mandate how common voice services like landline and cellular operate their business.
It needs to happen otherwise the only solution is to give them up and only do our own outbound calling, never to actually receive any calls at all.
Other options like blocking all calls from non-contacts is risky because a call from a delivery driver or babysitter in an emergency will be missed. It's about the only option though for enduser today.
I've been waiting for that to happen on cell and landline numbers. Authentication for the party calling. At this point, there's no other option than legislation. Just mandate how common voice services like landline and cellular operate their business.
It needs to happen otherwise the only solution is to give them up and only do our own outbound calling, never to actually receive any calls at all.
Other options like blocking all calls from non-contacts is risky because a call from a delivery driver or babysitter in an emergency will be missed. It's about the only option though for enduser today.
Landlines have been digitized too, a distinct difference to what an analog landline offered.
It was more intimate, you could hear breathing for example.
It was more intimate, you could hear breathing for example.
You mean packetized. Digital isochronous landline services existed for decades. The "T" system was deployed by AT&T in 1962. Digital telephony is in fact awesome. There's no reason why "digital" needs to mean "it sucks". The reason voice over mobile networks sounds terrible is because traditional landline service uses a 64kbps isochronous channel and lossless 8-bit/8kHz coding, while mobile uses a voice estimation model that transmits its parameters every 20ms at ~3-6kbps and suffers from frequent frame loss. VoIP can sound much better than mobile but may occasionally suffer delay and loss which never happened with traditional telephony.
It was also more hackable. You could litterally open up one of those grey phone company stumps with a 7/16" socket, and then just start rewiring the connections. I had a friend that knew which cables ran to their house, and could use a couple of wires to jump them to another line. They were able to "borrow" someone's line and routed to the 2nd twisted pair for their house. They rewired the phone jack in their room to have a 2nd line. Everything was good until they forgot to unplug the phone while they were not home, and someone rang the other house and it rang in their room while the parental units were home.
A great deal of (most?) last-mile connections are still over copper, so this capability is still common.
I had forgotten about hearing breathing; you’re absolutely right it was more intimate.
As I remember it, one could be silent and still be together.
I think that at least for long distance calls, landline calls have been digitized and packet switched since the 70's, didn't they?
Digital yes, packet switched no. Traditional long-distance telephony was digital and circuit switched.
No. Otherwise why would things cost $3 a minute until VOIP?
Because VOIP hadn't come along, so they had a monopoly and could charge pretty much what they wanted.
They switched to digital because it reduced their costs, instead of multiple trunk lines you could get away with fewer fibre lines.
They switched to digital because it reduced their costs, instead of multiple trunk lines you could get away with fewer fibre lines.
Why didn’t they compete with each other to bring costs down?
You mean they had a cartel for decades, kept prices artificially high, didn’t compete and the government did nothing?
Yeah sounds like the cablecompanies…
You mean they had a cartel for decades, kept prices artificially high, didn’t compete and the government did nothing?
Yeah sounds like the cablecompanies…
> Why didn’t they compete with each other to bring costs down?
I remember that happening in the 90s due to deregulation and breakup of at&t. 10-10-321 had a lot of commercials in the 90s[1]. I'm sure they're on YouTube. Most people I knew would go to a convenience store to buy a pre-paid card for long distance. 1-800-collect was a similar service that had a bunch of ads for calling collect.
It kind of makes calling confusing (and required going to a store and buying something upfront), but I remember younger people (who probably weren't paying for the landline at home) never really considered using their home phone's long distance service. I think most landline services kept their high prices because the few that used it were too lazy or didn't know better. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still expensive (I haven't had a landline in over a decade).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-10-321#History
I remember that happening in the 90s due to deregulation and breakup of at&t. 10-10-321 had a lot of commercials in the 90s[1]. I'm sure they're on YouTube. Most people I knew would go to a convenience store to buy a pre-paid card for long distance. 1-800-collect was a similar service that had a bunch of ads for calling collect.
It kind of makes calling confusing (and required going to a store and buying something upfront), but I remember younger people (who probably weren't paying for the landline at home) never really considered using their home phone's long distance service. I think most landline services kept their high prices because the few that used it were too lazy or didn't know better. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still expensive (I haven't had a landline in over a decade).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-10-321#History
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why does digitization affect breathing sound?
Isn't that because of the position of mic of landline phones?
Everyone already has cellphones, so a landline is an extra monthly cost for something that you're already paying for.
Unless you're of a certain age. People that already had long established landlines continue to pay for them even after getting a cell phone. And people still call them on those numbers as thats the number people know and remember vs just storing a cell number in their contacts.
Also, for people getting an internet signal from the phone company (DSL), the landline was usually bundled in a package. They tried to make them viable for as long as possible.
Also, for people getting an internet signal from the phone company (DSL), the landline was usually bundled in a package. They tried to make them viable for as long as possible.
All the houses with grandparents in my family have lost landlines since all the grandparents have phones.
Even the older grandmas who did not go past grade school who do not know a non English non Latin language like to use their WhatsApp to consume media from their cousins and other friends/relatives. And of course, FaceTiming grandkids.
Even the older grandmas who did not go past grade school who do not know a non English non Latin language like to use their WhatsApp to consume media from their cousins and other friends/relatives. And of course, FaceTiming grandkids.
Its spam calls that ruined it for me
It is on the decline in India too:
> In the past decade, landline subscriber base has been on a decline, with connections reducing from 36.76 million as of 31 January, 2010 to 20.58 million as of 31 January, 2020. Of the total telecom 1.18 billion connections, only 20.26 million, or less than 2%, were landline as of February. - https://www.livemint.com/industry/telecom/trai-says-declinin...
(And yes, landline phones do offer better voice quality. Even if I am calling from a cellphone, I prefer to call someone on their landline. )
> In the past decade, landline subscriber base has been on a decline, with connections reducing from 36.76 million as of 31 January, 2010 to 20.58 million as of 31 January, 2020. Of the total telecom 1.18 billion connections, only 20.26 million, or less than 2%, were landline as of February. - https://www.livemint.com/industry/telecom/trai-says-declinin...
(And yes, landline phones do offer better voice quality. Even if I am calling from a cellphone, I prefer to call someone on their landline. )
I used to joke that even with extended frequency response, etc cell phones and VoIP can certainly sound worse. I would compare the Sprint "pin drop" commercials[0] to the (at the time) Verizon Wireless "Can you hear my now?" campaign[1] with the joke being - progress from a pin drop to yelling "Can you hear me know? How's this? Is this better? Sorry about that." 20 years of progress!
Of course now (for the most part) packet loss concealment and other advanced technologies have equalized a bit of this but there are still days where I miss B-channels on a T1 PRI.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4dIDl8sjJk
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo0xsZCRp4g
Of course now (for the most part) packet loss concealment and other advanced technologies have equalized a bit of this but there are still days where I miss B-channels on a T1 PRI.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4dIDl8sjJk
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo0xsZCRp4g
I wonder how much that translates into actual use. A lot of internet providers (in Germany) technically include a landline using VoIP, but that doesn’t reflect the number of calls necessarily.
I’ve made some calls, but less than five in the last few years.
I’ve made some calls, but less than five in the last few years.
Not really no. Landline calls are often worse than cell phones in my experience as well, especially if the other person is on a cordless landline.
Strange preamble: I found the quality of analog landlines to be terrible. Since we got switched over to VoIP, the voice quality is crystal-clear if the person on the other end also has a VoIP connection. It almost sounds too good. Better than most online voice chat stuff.
Interesting human psychology note: I was involved in some early deployments of HD-ish codecs. HD codecs are considered to be anything that provides greater than the (less than) 4kHz frequency response of the traditional PSTN. At the time "HD audio" was generally 8kHz frequency response (16 kHz sampling rate because of Nyquist-Shannon[0]).
This was around 2009 and many users, having not experienced that kind of frequency response/fidelity were kind of "unnerved" by it because (as you say) it can sound "too good". Users were freaked out by the extended frequency response and added fidelity. A common complaint was that previously undetectable breath sounds, etc were audible.
"These days" with FaceTime, WebRTC, etc sampling rates go all the way to 48 kHz, being able to represent the entire range of human hearing (and far beyond the range of human speech[1][2]). Not only have people become more used to the extended audio range, various other parts of the stack (quality microphones/hardware, speech detection, noise cancellation, etc) has caught up and some of those early pesky issues like breath sounds, etc have been largely addressed.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampli...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_frequency
[2] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0058...
This was around 2009 and many users, having not experienced that kind of frequency response/fidelity were kind of "unnerved" by it because (as you say) it can sound "too good". Users were freaked out by the extended frequency response and added fidelity. A common complaint was that previously undetectable breath sounds, etc were audible.
"These days" with FaceTime, WebRTC, etc sampling rates go all the way to 48 kHz, being able to represent the entire range of human hearing (and far beyond the range of human speech[1][2]). Not only have people become more used to the extended audio range, various other parts of the stack (quality microphones/hardware, speech detection, noise cancellation, etc) has caught up and some of those early pesky issues like breath sounds, etc have been largely addressed.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampli...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_frequency
[2] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0058...
That's funny, because I remember missing breath sounds when switching to digital cellular. That plus the added latency still makes it difficult to converse sometimes.
It's weird to me how, after a century of obsessive attention to quality and latency all throughout the whole analog era, through the digital isochronous transition, and up into the first-gen analog cellular system, digital cellular was so much cheaper that we just rolled over and accepted all the terrible compromises. It's not like customers who preferred AMPS had the choice to stay on it.
Only recently have I experienced VoIP calls that start to claw back some of that lost quality. Frequency range, bit depth, maybe even latency if I'm lucky. I don't think we'll ever again have it as good as ISDN, but I can dream.
It's weird to me how, after a century of obsessive attention to quality and latency all throughout the whole analog era, through the digital isochronous transition, and up into the first-gen analog cellular system, digital cellular was so much cheaper that we just rolled over and accepted all the terrible compromises. It's not like customers who preferred AMPS had the choice to stay on it.
Only recently have I experienced VoIP calls that start to claw back some of that lost quality. Frequency range, bit depth, maybe even latency if I'm lucky. I don't think we'll ever again have it as good as ISDN, but I can dream.
I miss landlines, talking on the phone was actually enjoyable. I rarely have a cellphone conversation (verizon/iphone x) anymore that feels anywhere near as natural or enjoyable as the landline did. I keep thinking it's the phone, a setting or the network and it's not. The latency and talking over one another just doesn't work for me. We used to have multiple people on a POTS call and it worked fine and now it's always "sorry, go ahead" even when there's one other person on the phone.
The BEST cell phone call I've ever had was back in 2004 on a sony ericsson in Bangkok of all places calling my parents on their landline in Chicago. Crystal clear, almost zero latency, it felt like I was in their living room talking to them. I've never had that in the states and I would like to.
The BEST cell phone call I've ever had was back in 2004 on a sony ericsson in Bangkok of all places calling my parents on their landline in Chicago. Crystal clear, almost zero latency, it felt like I was in their living room talking to them. I've never had that in the states and I would like to.
It very well could have been that breath sounds just sounded differently, or the whole experience was unnerving to our user base (healthcare) at the time. In any case we set the sampling rate back to 8kHz and moved on.
I too miss the days of a B channel on a T1 PRI!
I too miss the days of a B channel on a T1 PRI!
Can anyone recommend a similar service that provides true high-quality video chat functionality on par with FaceTime but not requiring Apple hardware (but still easily usable on mobile)?
We're looking for such a service for use in developing countries where iPhones are rare and connectivity is often mediocre at best.
Tests with the like of Telegram, Duo and others have been okay-ish for voice-only calls but pretty bad for video. Mostly because of lack of Apple hardware on the other end we are until now unable to conduct any comparative tests to see whether FaceTime would outperform these apps in terms of quality and stability.
We're looking for such a service for use in developing countries where iPhones are rare and connectivity is often mediocre at best.
Tests with the like of Telegram, Duo and others have been okay-ish for voice-only calls but pretty bad for video. Mostly because of lack of Apple hardware on the other end we are until now unable to conduct any comparative tests to see whether FaceTime would outperform these apps in terms of quality and stability.
This wasn't focusing on 1:1 calls, but a couple years ago we tested all the video chat services we could access. We had offices spread across India, Malaysia, and the US with varying qualities of connection and many people working from home. Zoom had the best results when working with a poor connection. I'm not sure I'd say the peak quality was as good as FaceTime.
Jitsi works fine as well.
WhatsApp does a decent job
WhatsApp is usable but nowhere near the video and audio quality of FaceTime. It's also only on mobile where the screen is rather small and audio quality is never great - not very important since they seem to use very high audio compression anyway.
Can't speak for the quality, but video calling has been available on desktop (Windows/MacOS) for a little while now –
https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/04/whatsapp-rolls-out-voice-a...
https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/04/whatsapp-rolls-out-voice-a...
I could never make video or audio calls work on my Mac. They were technically available, just didn't work.
I disagree. I think it's one of the worst. I've used it around the world and it's often terrible.
You can join Facetime calls without apple devices in iOS 15
Join, but not start if I recall the announcement correctly.
I find FaceTime video calls really superb, but for whatever reason the audio only calls have short (sub-second length) moments where it cuts out and it's very disconcerting. This happens when calling both my parents and my brother, both of which are only KMs away and like me have 25Mb/s or faster fibre connections.
Strangely I've never noticed this audio problem during video calls.
So I tend to do voice only calls using WhatsApp and video calls with FaceTime.
Strangely I've never noticed this audio problem during video calls.
So I tend to do voice only calls using WhatsApp and video calls with FaceTime.
If you have 25Mb/s connection while anyone on the other end has only 1.5Mb/s connection, then you have a 1.5Mb/s connection. Just because you pay for fiber doesn't mean you always get that speed. Most benefits of highspeed badwidth at home allows for multiple connections to reach their "full" speed without forcing other connections to lower speeds.
Even if you have a 1.5Mb/s connection you should hear crystal clear audio.
I wonder how much of this has to do with the speed of a connection and how much has to do with Jitter? Especially on wifi, Jitter can become a huge barrier to overcome, even if the speed of your connection is extremely high.
I wish other statistics about connections were more public, since there is much more to a connection than just bandwidth.
With that kind of information publicly available, they'd have a hard time getting people to join the network!
Most people don’t even have an option at home in the US, but it would make it harder for them to lobby politicians by not being able to claim everything is fine.
For home, you chose fiber if you’re lucky to have fiber. Most people only have access to coaxial cable internet. If you’re unlucky, you do not even have that.
For mobile, you have Verizon, ATT, and T-Mobile so it is not so bad there.
For home, you chose fiber if you’re lucky to have fiber. Most people only have access to coaxial cable internet. If you’re unlucky, you do not even have that.
For mobile, you have Verizon, ATT, and T-Mobile so it is not so bad there.
Wow, take things litteral much? The numbers were just used to demonstrate, and not meant for actual comparisons. If the other party has a lower bandwidth than you, you are limited to that lower bandwidth. Fat pipe connected to little pipe means fat pipe can only move little pipe's worth of volume. If the other party has kids that are playing games, streaming youtube, listening to music, downloading torrents, etc, their bandwidth is fractioned too. If no QOS is enabled for ensuring mom&dad's phone calls are good before little Timmy's Fornite and little Suzzie's TikTok videos, then mom&dad can get the short end of the stick. Let's also not forget those IoT devices and Ring doorbells, and blah blah all cutting into that available bandwidth. People forget and take for granted how many things in their homes feed on that bandwidth
Yes, with 1.5Mbps one should hear crystal clear audio, but you have no idea how much bandwidth is actually being used.
Yes, with 1.5Mbps one should hear crystal clear audio, but you have no idea how much bandwidth is actually being used.
GP said that both they and the other participant had faster than 25Mbps connections…
FaceTime audio is the standard to beat. It’s just absolutely incredible.
We used to use Skype with my wife's parents and it sucked: there were delays, freezes, low quality video, etc. It worked great with my mother, but she had far better internet than my wife's parents. The alternatives were even worse: Telegram, whatsapp, jitsi. Then we tried FaceTime: the difference was night and day. Everything was smooth, the sound was better, no stuttering, we could actually read things they held to the screen, etc.
It is a shame that FaceTime isn't easier to use as an alternative to Slack-calls and screen sharing. At least last time I tried, or I'd use it for work as well.
It is a shame that FaceTime isn't easier to use as an alternative to Slack-calls and screen sharing. At least last time I tried, or I'd use it for work as well.
I literally can't even type phone numbers into Skype on my iPhone without a massive input delay that actually makes the digits appear all at once, with their tones coming out like a musical chord.
In the 21st century, this is unacceptable. The app is so clunky I loathe using it but it's unfortunately still a good (the best?) solution for dialing landlines and mobile phones abroad for extended periods of time.
In the 21st century, this is unacceptable. The app is so clunky I loathe using it but it's unfortunately still a good (the best?) solution for dialing landlines and mobile phones abroad for extended periods of time.
At one time, you could configure Skype to make a point-to-point call and the quality was great provided both endpoints had high bandwidth, low latency connections. Microsoft changed it to make all calls go through their servers and the quality took a big hit.
macOS Monterey will include screen sharing for FaceTime! It should be released in a month or so.
Will the feature also be coming to older MacOS versions? The only Mac I have on hand runs Mojave, and I have no intentions of upgrading anytime soon.
If you're on Verizon LTE usually if you talk to someone else on Verizon I think it uses VoLTE [1] which sounds as good to me as FaceTime audio -- excellent. Like completely uncompressed CD-quality audio.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_LTE
Edit: mdasen says more about VoLTE below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28249217
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_LTE
Edit: mdasen says more about VoLTE below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28249217
FaceTime is amazing. I keep in touch with my entire family using FaceTime video, often across thousands of kilometers.
It's also such an equalizer, allowing even the non-computer literate to use it and focus on the actual conversations.
In fact, my 103 year old grandmother is able to do video calls with me, which is great because I rarely see her in person these days. I don't think there exists an alternative she would be able to use.
It's also such an equalizer, allowing even the non-computer literate to use it and focus on the actual conversations.
In fact, my 103 year old grandmother is able to do video calls with me, which is great because I rarely see her in person these days. I don't think there exists an alternative she would be able to use.
I think it is unfair to label a platform with a two hundred dollar entry barrier as an equalizer. VoIP and allied technologies are the real enablers and ad-supported platforms like WhatsApp et al. have been true equalizers by allowing anyone to communicate with anyone at marginal costs. The ease of picking up the phone and calling somebody with no consideration of cost has enabled so many people to connect and communicate on a more frequent basis.
Certainly, equality is an overloaded term, so it's useful to note the context. He's not talking about economic equality. He's talking about bringing a simplified interface to an otherwise complex and confusing process, particularly for his elderly relative. Different people will suffer from the existence of different barriers. It doesn't have to be a competition.
What Apple does to simplify things (prioritize simplicity and accessibility, obsessively remove or hide options, make reasonable defaults, broaden the happy-path) can be replicated on more affordable platforms.
That said, I've struggled to teach my elderly mother how to even answer her iPhone -- she finds it overly complicated. If she could get over the technical hurdle, she could stay in better touch with remote family and friends who now prefer texting and video calls to snail mail and begin to alleviate her loneliness.
What Apple does to simplify things (prioritize simplicity and accessibility, obsessively remove or hide options, make reasonable defaults, broaden the happy-path) can be replicated on more affordable platforms.
That said, I've struggled to teach my elderly mother how to even answer her iPhone -- she finds it overly complicated. If she could get over the technical hurdle, she could stay in better touch with remote family and friends who now prefer texting and video calls to snail mail and begin to alleviate her loneliness.
The cost of entry should be expressed as the difference between lower cost or used iPhones and iPads vs similar android devices. Even though there is a cost premium for iOS devices the proven longer longevity of arguably makes them cheaper for most people, especially light users who are happy sticking with a device for 5-8 years. The family members who do tech support for them can mostly rest happy with automatic security updates turned on.
> I think it is unfair to label a platform with a two hundred dollar entry barrier as an equalizer.
Even in poor areas, lots of people are walking around with iPhones. $200-500 gadgets are not out of the range of poor people. That works out to less than a dollar a day.
One time amortized expenses aren't that much of a barrier, from what I've seen. The real barriers the poor face are things like high rents, high medical cost, high cost of education, etc.
Even in poor areas, lots of people are walking around with iPhones. $200-500 gadgets are not out of the range of poor people. That works out to less than a dollar a day.
One time amortized expenses aren't that much of a barrier, from what I've seen. The real barriers the poor face are things like high rents, high medical cost, high cost of education, etc.
About a quarter of the world's population lives on less than $3.20 per day. [1] $200-500 is a lot of money to billions of people.
[1] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/17/n...
[1] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/17/n...
Is there anything that sets FaceTime apart from cheaper competitors like WhatsApp / Signal video calling in this aspect of ease of use?
(I say cheaper because you don't need to buy an iDevice to use those)
(I say cheaper because you don't need to buy an iDevice to use those)
Don't you also need to buy a phone/computer/tablet to use whatsapp or signal? How does whatsapp is cheaper than facetime? But anyway, yeah, I noticed Facetime's both video and audio calls have better quality, in my personal experience. Also, most if not all my friends and family use iDevices, so I dont need to convince them to install signal/whatsapp/telegram etc... But YMMV.
Yes but a practical new Android phone with reasonable spec (I don't mean cheap Chinese oems with 1gb ram) can be had for $100 and can run WhatsApp/signal fine. The cheapest iphone is $399 iirc, the high entry costs that disqualifies a lot of people even in the US and certainly abroad where apple tax difference compare to base currency of usd399 exceeds regional sales tax differences (mexico for example)
In Brazil a new iPhone 6 costs about two months of the national average raw income, while a cheap Android alternative would be about 1/3rd to 1/4th of an average monthly salary.
Does average monthly salary mean much if the majority is really poor? Assuming you are middle class, here. Also: you probably mean iPhone 12. The 6 is quite old.
I remember my 6 very well as I fell on my motorcycle and I pulled this banana shaped phone out of my pocket.
I remember my 6 very well as I fell on my motorcycle and I pulled this banana shaped phone out of my pocket.
> Also: you probably mean iPhone 12. The 6 is quite old
I definitely meant the 6.
Minimum monthly wage (formal jobs, before taxes): R$1100
New iPhone 6: R$1700 ~ R$2400
New iPhone 12: R$7700 ~ R$10000
> Does average monthly salary mean much if the majority is really poor?
For those poor and outside the formal job market, buying a new iPhone (even the older ones) are out of reach or a very significant investment.
I definitely meant the 6.
Minimum monthly wage (formal jobs, before taxes): R$1100
New iPhone 6: R$1700 ~ R$2400
New iPhone 12: R$7700 ~ R$10000
> Does average monthly salary mean much if the majority is really poor?
For those poor and outside the formal job market, buying a new iPhone (even the older ones) are out of reach or a very significant investment.
Off topic... but Brazil is such a wonderful country with great people. The insane import taxes are not fair and I don't think it helps the economy - rather the opposite.
News flash the $399 model is based off 6 or 7
Brazil is such an outlier. I wonder why Bolsenaro didn't do anything about the insane import duties in Brazil. And don't get me started on the difficulty in using financial services there.
Hungary:
Cheapest iPhone: 120000 HUF
Cheapest Android: 9700 HUF
Cheapest reasonable Android: 21000 HUF
Minimum wage after taxes: 111000 HUF
Cheapest iPhone: 120000 HUF
Cheapest Android: 9700 HUF
Cheapest reasonable Android: 21000 HUF
Minimum wage after taxes: 111000 HUF
True. That $399 iPhone SE is sold for $540 in Mexico at the Apple store. And middle-class Mexicans have between 1/3 to 1/10 of the buying power of an American counterpart.
>How does whatsapp is cheaper than facetime?
Whatsapp ,Skype, Telegram, Google Duo, etc apps work fine on Android phones which are lots less expensive than Apple Devices that are needed for Facetime
Whatsapp ,Skype, Telegram, Google Duo, etc apps work fine on Android phones which are lots less expensive than Apple Devices that are needed for Facetime
Trust me, you don't want to put family on Android. My mother started out with Android (to save money), and she never even fully understood how the bottom buttons worked. I became the customer care. Now she's on iPhone and there's no support burden. Phew.
You don’t usually get to choose what devices people buy. All my family is on Android simply because they’re not interested enough in tech to spend triple the price on an Apple device, and there’s nothing I can say to make them spend that much.
Fair enough, but often family members will go to you for advice. So based on your advice, you'll also get the support calls :-)
Definitely easier to use than any of the alternatives. An intuitive video calling system should do just that: video (and/or audio), not chat.
Firstly; she has not heard of WhatsApp, it would have to be taught to her that it is a chat app that has additional functionality to allow phone and video calls.
Blank stare.
She does not chat and has no interest in doing that.
The UI of WhatsApp is confusing and unintuitive if you assume you know nearly nothing except that you want to make a video call.
Firstly; she has not heard of WhatsApp, it would have to be taught to her that it is a chat app that has additional functionality to allow phone and video calls.
Blank stare.
She does not chat and has no interest in doing that.
The UI of WhatsApp is confusing and unintuitive if you assume you know nearly nothing except that you want to make a video call.
There is Google Duo that just does video calling.
> Firstly; she has not heard of WhatsApp
I am pretty sure she had not heard of FaceTime as well before you introduced it to her? :)
Disc: Googler.
> Firstly; she has not heard of WhatsApp
I am pretty sure she had not heard of FaceTime as well before you introduced it to her? :)
Disc: Googler.
Yeah, definitely some training is needed for that age group. It will be easier for you and me when we grow to be 100+ years old. She clicks on the green symbol that shows a video camera, maybe that helps to recognize. I am sure Google Duo would have an understandable icon as well, so you raise a good point.
It integrates well with your mobile phone number as identity. Add a SIM to an iPhone and you can FaceTime it in the same way you’d call it.
> Is there anything that sets FaceTime apart from cheaper competitors like WhatsApp
Not signing up to anything Facebook is the first criteria in any service I want to use.
Not signing up to anything Facebook is the first criteria in any service I want to use.
You can take the call on a computer?
macs come with facetime preinstalled (the newer ones at least) and you can send facetime links to people and they can join using the web client if they dont have a mac.
Only on a mac.
Unfortunately, calls with more than two people seem to fall apart quickly if the network connection isn't perfect, even where Meets, Zoom, etc. work flawlessly.
This substantially the opposite of my experience so I’d bet there is some factor for proximity to CDNs or traffic shaping done by your ISP. FaceTime is rock-solid; Zoom is also good but has noticeably lower video quality (but good noise handling). Meet’s native apps are good but their browser UI is coded to break Firefox so I don’t use it much.
So it sounds like Facetime's Firefox support is better in your experience?
I’d flip it the other way: Google decided to remove the benefits of portability, similar to how Zoom removed the benefits of being able to use their service without installing a client first.
FaceTime is limited to Apple devices until iOS 15 allows anyone with a browser to join a call, so you’d think they’d be emphasizing the benefits of portability more.
FaceTime is limited to Apple devices until iOS 15 allows anyone with a browser to join a call, so you’d think they’d be emphasizing the benefits of portability more.
Facetime doesn't work in any browser, does it? On macOS and iOS it uses a dedicated app, the protocol is proprietary so no 3rd part clients exist?
FaceTime is coming to the web
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522889/apple-facetime-an...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522889/apple-facetime-an...
The benefit of FaceTime being an open standard.
It’s not an open standard
Nor does it currently work in Firefox. Hence the continuation of the joke.
It was originally announced as an open standard, though. Anyone who remembers Steve Jobs would have caught on. It is easy for us old-timers to forget how long ago that was now, so I extend my apologies to the youngsters.
It was originally announced as an open standard, though. Anyone who remembers Steve Jobs would have caught on. It is easy for us old-timers to forget how long ago that was now, so I extend my apologies to the youngsters.
Hahaha you’re right! I remember jobs saying that, or was it iMessage He was talking about?
Agreed. For me, the hallmark of a good system is being able to forget that I'm using it. That has never happened to me with Facetime.
Semi-related question since I'm looking to get my grandma setup. Waffling between an iPhone and iPad, maybe an iPad mini but don't know if the air would be better (lighter I think). What device does your grandma use to FaceTime? Do you know does she do anything else with it?
I think a bigger device/screen is easier for older people to use. I think they can struggle a lot with typing on a smaller phone screen, as well as the font and overall display size.
I second this. I bought iPads for my parents and in-laws and I gave them the choice between iPad Mini and iPad thinking they will prefer mini because it's lighter. Both of them chose iPad precisely because it has a larger screen. I don't think it was just because of the ease of typing.
Just FYI in the accessibility settings there's options for increasing the text size and input options for people with mobility/dexterity issues. A larger screen of an iPad makes for physically larger targets but you can also zoom the UI.
Also - knob handle on the back of an iPad is handy. To older hands, it can be really difficult to hold a tablet without touching the screen.
Older ladies might also have long nails which makes touching icons hard too.
Older ladies might also have long nails which makes touching icons hard too.
I think iPad Air is worth it for older people since it does not cost much more and the grandparents in my family appreciate the size of the screen, especially since they use it with enlarged text size.
Just three days ago I've set up my 93 year old grandfather on a Lenovo Smart Display 7. I think it has multiple benefits over an iSomething:
- Always plugged in - no need to remember to charge
- Shows our family picture albums that I can remotely update via my Google Photos
- It is loud. Left the volume at 3/4
- Sits on a table and you're never holding it wrong™
- No settings to mess up, two previous tablets were too complicated
I had to google it to see what it looked like, looks great if all you care about is photo + videocalls.
In the end i guess it all depends on the persons ability to manipulate and see things.
I've pushed my parents hard into the Apple ecosystem and it has worked out great.
My mom first got the iPhone 4, before that she had a nokia flip phone, she could use it from day 1. Nowadays I buy the newest iPhone, and after 1-2 years or so I sell it to one of my parents for a 'nice' price. The iPad I made them buy (and they upgraded it once) is very popular.
But the most used Apple product is the AppleTV. It has enabled them so watch the news when they want, and Youtube has given them access to content (travel) they'd never had before.
Sharing photo albums, facetime video calls, imessage and ease of use is just on a level I don't think exists with android - of course, sometimes theres the small hiccup.
But they are not 93 years old so the mileage might vary :)
In the end i guess it all depends on the persons ability to manipulate and see things.
I've pushed my parents hard into the Apple ecosystem and it has worked out great.
My mom first got the iPhone 4, before that she had a nokia flip phone, she could use it from day 1. Nowadays I buy the newest iPhone, and after 1-2 years or so I sell it to one of my parents for a 'nice' price. The iPad I made them buy (and they upgraded it once) is very popular.
But the most used Apple product is the AppleTV. It has enabled them so watch the news when they want, and Youtube has given them access to content (travel) they'd never had before.
Sharing photo albums, facetime video calls, imessage and ease of use is just on a level I don't think exists with android - of course, sometimes theres the small hiccup.
But they are not 93 years old so the mileage might vary :)
For the past few years I've had my grandma using a Linux desktop (for her, it's always the year of the Linux desktop!) She has no idea how to use the system, but I just lock it down for the most part, exposing mostly Skype and a solitaire game, and giving myself full access to SSH and x11vnc (through SSH, with my key required, of course).
To her, it's almost like a television, as family members are able to call her and even initiate calls. (Although we often have to call her on the normal phone to get her to realize that we're calling her on her computer, or to plug it in --- this is the one thing she does do with the hardware.)
To her, it's almost like a television, as family members are able to call her and even initiate calls. (Although we often have to call her on the normal phone to get her to realize that we're calling her on her computer, or to plug it in --- this is the one thing she does do with the hardware.)
Those are good selling points but all but the last applies equally to a tablet (e.g. there’s no law requiring you to use a tablet on battery).
The key point is the single function: a general purpose computing device has more UI & management than some people want to deal with. This is something the industry really hasn’t done a great job with, especially since it overlaps with the problem of treating things as disposable because the revenue model for single purpose devices is mostly broken and so people are often forced to churn them because the device they’re used to has been discontinued or no longer works with their WiFi.
The key point is the single function: a general purpose computing device has more UI & management than some people want to deal with. This is something the industry really hasn’t done a great job with, especially since it overlaps with the problem of treating things as disposable because the revenue model for single purpose devices is mostly broken and so people are often forced to churn them because the device they’re used to has been discontinued or no longer works with their WiFi.
That's cute but also kind of horrific if you want to do anything else. You are essentially ensuring he's stuck in a sandbox.
My grandmother as mentioned uses an iPad which is the only user friendly tablet or "computer" I would ever give her.
She uses it for general browsing and e-mail as well, as well as taking photos and browsing albums in iCloud. No messaging though.
My grandmother as mentioned uses an iPad which is the only user friendly tablet or "computer" I would ever give her.
She uses it for general browsing and e-mail as well, as well as taking photos and browsing albums in iCloud. No messaging though.
She uses an iPad Mini.
I would also recommend a handle/knob type thing on the back so it is easier to hold it without accidentally touching the screen.
I would also recommend a handle/knob type thing on the back so it is easier to hold it without accidentally touching the screen.
It's so great and easy to use it even works for video calls with a person in China, while all other foreign communication apps are blocked there. Isn't that interesting.
CCP doing analysis on foreigners' faces and call contents so that they can cull dissention after they take over in 10 years. But Apple wants to do business there!
I'm a little irritated by all the normative assessments of the A/V quality of various communication software. I'm sure we can test latency, audio fidelity, and video fidelity in a useful way without resorting to super useful comments like "<service> audio is the standard to beat" and "<service> works fine as well".
I'd legit pay money for a Consumer Reports around Google Meet, Jitsi, Zoom, and FaceTime. Load up a LAN with a packet loss/jitter simulator and gimme some charts.
I'd legit pay money for a Consumer Reports around Google Meet, Jitsi, Zoom, and FaceTime. Load up a LAN with a packet loss/jitter simulator and gimme some charts.
[deleted]
Telegram also provides this service quality, its available on all platforms and its free.
FaceTime is also free, and Telegram’s audio and video quality is vastly inferior.
FaceTime is a free part of Apple's software offerings, but you can't start a FaceTime call if you aren't an Apple user.
I don't understand your point, you can't start a Telegram call if you aren't a Telegram user as well.
Anyone can become a FaceTime-calling Apple user for a mere $199. https://www.apple.com/ipod-touch/
Anyone can become a Telegram (or Signal) user. For $0, infinitely less than $199.
I wonder how could you make a Telegram video call with no device. Or android devices are free?
Free, no. Less expensive and more widely available than iOS devices, yes. Telegram also works on Linux, Windows and MacOS. There is a web version as well which works anywhere there is a reasonably recent browser available. The web version does not yet support calls as far as I know, this will most likely be added in the near future given that it is a rather trivial addition with plenty of free-software implementations available.
a telegram account is free, a facetime account requires an apple device.
an iCloud account is free, a Telegram account requires a device. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
He means that you need Apple hardware to start a Facetime call.
That's my point too, you need hardware anyway for a Telegram call. Whatever device you use has an inherent cost.
Not to mention has less friction
Only when you live in an Apple bubble which in practice comes down to the USA and parts of Europe. Elsewhere Apple is a margin player with the vast majority of mobile devices running Android. Telegram is available everywhere, for all "significant" devices and categories (desktop, mobile, web) which makes it a more universal option. It is growing at a rapid pace (200 million users in March 2018, 400 million users in April 2020, 500 million in January 2021 so probably around 600 million by now) with ~15% daily active users. This growth rate will probably increase with the recent brouhaha around Apple scanning devices in the hunt for illegal imagery.
For Telegram, your relying on the general populous caring that Apple is scanning their devices. I want this to be understood by the HN population: the general populous does not care about privacy concerns that they cannot see. They will not care that Apple is scanning for CP on their devices because they do not care that Apple scanned for Cp on the Cloud. The only time they would care is if Apple themselves were to physically send someone to their house, untie themselves in , and go through their stuff. Non tangible privacy violations outside of SSN data breaches are not on the mind of the general public.
There is also Nextcloud Talk [1] (based on Spreed [2]) for those who have their own Nextcloud server. I use both Telegram as well as NC Talk, quality is comparable. Telegram is a more capable messenger though, that part of NC Talk is underdeveloped.
[1] https://nextcloud.com/talk/
[2] https://www.spreed.eu/
[1] https://nextcloud.com/talk/
[2] https://www.spreed.eu/
I use both, and prefer facetime when I can (all people with iphones have it so barrier to entry is lower) - but Telegram is the next best thing for me.
I mean its a complete misnomer to state that the quality is remotely comparable.
We found a free app Sonobus that works really well for low latency audio for what we were doing in the end. FaceTime is great for just calling the family on the iPad though.