Why is every DF post ending up here on HN? For comments perhaps?
Google / Google Voice / Gizmo5 or any SIP provider offers data calls. I've been messing around with this on my iPad and it's very close to being viable. There's no question it is on Android.
I hope Apple keeps moving in this direction but I doubt they'll be the first to route around the carriers. Right now all signs point to Apple being happily engaged to AT&T.
Furthermore, couldn't you replace "FaceTime" with "Skype" and the article would still make sense?
"[Skype], I think, is a first step in the direction of a mobile “phone” with no mobile carrier. If and when [Skype] is supported over 3G in addition to Wi-Fi, it’ll be data, not voice — megabytes, not minutes."
How many people own said Skype 3G device? How many people own cell phones? The point is, if you want to be making calls over the wireless network when you're out and about, chances are you won't be using a device capable of making unmetered Skype calls over 3G (at least not for very long, or with much success). You'll be using the carrier's sanctioned and costly services. You can make calls over 3G today with Skype on the iPhone, and it's free for now, but they say it'll only be free until the end of this year, and then they'll be charging for it.
The carriers are flexing their leverage over Apple/FaceTime and Skype to fight any free VoIP services on their networks. Look for a paid FaceTime-over-cell-data-network plan to emerge in short order, with revenues going straight to the carrier, along with Skype's.
From what I can tell there's no revenue model around FaceTime so I doubt Apple cares about competing with Skype. Probably just didn't want to rely on a third party to provide the essential software that makes an important hardware feature work.
they start late, yes. but they have sold 100 million iOS devices. so in a year or so most of those could have facetime. plus 70+ million new ones with facetime preinstalled.
Internationally Apple works with dozens of carriers, frequently more than one in a territory. This is still the company whose CEO referred to carriers as "orifices" not so long ago. They're going to keep putting a brave face on the AT&T relationship right up until the morning when they announce an alternative.
I think reliable blanket wireless coverage (which is what the cell phone providers are supposedly offering) is harder to realize than people think.
What are the overheads for yourself to provide a quality wi-fi enabled home. Your workplace, likewise, expends the effort to be a device hub. On-the-go data everywhere? It's likely more difficult than you think.
The cell-tower network was funded by everyone owning a mobile phone to exchange calls... data hungry devices are still in the minority. Apple could have rolled their own "A4" 3G network if feasible. It's in their DNA to control all the pipes. The fact that they haven't tells me that the pipes are prohibitively expensive.
Right now all signs point to Apple being happily engaged to AT&T.
Sure, but they were also happily engaged to the PowerPC chip while they had the Intel-compatible OS X waiting in the wings. It would behoove Apple to have a strategy for routing around the carriers at such time that a relationship with said carriers is no longer advantageous to them.
Google / Google Voice / Gizmo5 or any SIP provider offers data calls. I've been messing around with this on my iPad and it's very close to being viable. There's no question it is on Android.
I hope Apple keeps moving in this direction but I doubt they'll be the first to route around the carriers. Right now all signs point to Apple being happily engaged to AT&T.