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

VOIP/Skype on iPhone

Grakkle

Grakkle

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 6, 2006
624
2
Earth
I've noticed that one useful function the iPhone could theoretically integrate hasn't been commented on much: WiFi/VOIP.

For a phone that costs $600 it seems reasonable to integrate it. I, for one, would appreciate the option of being able to use Skype in WiFi hotspots. Since the phone already incorporates WiFi connectability, it ought to be easy to make it a true WiFi/GSM dual-mode phone.
 
Yeah, it SHOULD be a no-brainer......

But we won't know until it's released. The software of the iPhone isn't subject to FCC scrutiny, so Apple could have safely left a lot of the features out of the MacWorld keynote, and surprise us with them when the iPhone is actually released.

I, for one, am hoping for at least voice iChat functionality. Adding a VOIP-to-POTS service (like Skype) would be icing on the cake.
 
ehurtley said:
Yeah, it SHOULD be a no-brainer......

But we won't know until it's released. The software of the iPhone isn't subject to FCC scrutiny, so Apple could have safely left a lot of the features out of the MacWorld keynote, and surprise us with them when the iPhone is actually released.

I, for one, am hoping for at least voice iChat functionality. Adding a VOIP-to-POTS service (like Skype) would be icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

Hopefully. I suppose they do want their competitors to know as little of the actual specs as possible.

I agree: if Apple doesn't even support their own iChat on the iPhone, that would be quite disappointing.
 
as much as u guys want the iphone to be a free small computer, remember this is not in total control of apple, skype? may or maynot be there, I won't hold my breath for it
 
Danksi said:
Cingular on the other hand (any carrier I imagine) would prefer you used it's data network... and of course charge you for it.
Click to expand...

But if it's a feature in which they have absolutely no say- i.e. an application that only uses WiFi- I can't really see them having any influence.
 
pdpfilms said:
But if it's a feature in which they have absolutely no say- i.e. an application that only uses WiFi- I can't really see them having any influence.
Click to expand...

why not, no open voice transmit API for wi-fi.
 
pdpfilms said:
But if it's a feature in which they have absolutely no say- i.e. an application that only uses WiFi- I can't really see them having any influence.
Click to expand...

They could have said "if you plan to offer VoIP service through Skype or iChat, ask someone else to handle your business" and that would be finished.

The phone companies seem no better than the record companies. They're in control and will allow others to piggyback onto their network, as long as their demands are met.
 
pdpfilms said:
As the manufacturer, is Apple giong to decide to leave out a simple feature such as VoIP simply because Cingular says "Bad Apple"?
Click to expand...

yes, why not, they are partner, which means both of them want profit, why do u think cingular would give away their money, just for your convenience? if Apple wants wi-fi skype, they can just produce a new iPod+PDA, why bother doing cellphone and co-control the product with cingular?
 
bousozoku said:
The phone companies seem no better than the record companies. They're in control and will allow others to piggyback onto their network, as long as their demands are met.
Click to expand...

To defend the phone companies a little, if I'd spent billions on building a network (or billions on a 3G license alone in Europe!) - I'd want to make some 'demands' that ensured I recovered those costs + some. This is why Verizon & others will disable handy features such as Bluetooth, because they want you to use their network.

Apple's done similar with it's Sync solution, moved away from local-sync to an Internet based solution, which you pay for.
 
Danksi said:
To defend the phone companies a little, if I'd spent billions on building a network (or billions on a 3G license alone in Europe!) - I'd want to make some 'demands' that ensured I recovered those costs + some. This is why Verizon & others will disable handy features such as Bluetooth, because they want you to use their network.

Apple's done similar with it's Sync solution, moved away from local-sync to an Internet based solution, which you pay for.
Click to expand...

Eventually, the U.S. companies will end up doing something better for their customers. I get the feeling from looking at my bill that they're recovering their costs quite nicely. I suppose they'll get to a point where the technology will be settled and we'll all be able to get along. Then, they'll possibly start to remember that we're the customers.

Verizon, in particular, doesn't make much sense. They're so heavy-handed in what they're doing that it's a wonder that they have any customers at all. I had a really good experience with their land line service in Philadelphia when they were Bell Atlantic but a lot has changed with them since then.

I haven't seen Apple move away from its (not it's, that's it is) sync solution, if you're talking about iSync. They've always been slow to add new phones.
 
bousozoku said:
I haven't seen Apple move away from its (not it's, that's it is) sync solution, if you're talking about iSync. They've always been slow to add new phones.
Click to expand...

I thought Apple iSync app used to allow Mac sync, as well as Phone/PDA sync, before switching to the .Mac service?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back