I’ve just thoroughly enjoyed watching the movie 4-3-2-1. What grabbed my attention was that two of the (rather gorgeous) girls had an international video call on their iPhones – faked, not real. Was this Apple product placement – or technical ignorance by the producer?
Perhaps all will be revealed at Apple’s Developer Conference starting tomorrow…
I have no interest in football, but I did want to test out the video capture experience on my shiny new Motorola Milestone. Chelsea FC’s victory parade today ran right past my window – good for video testing opportunity, bad news for my road being shut (again) and not being allowed to leave my garage.
In summary:
Results:
Apple has gone to war with Adobe. Adobe has invested heavily in it’s new Creative Suite 5, providing a great platform for developing cross-device mobile apps. Except Steve Jobs has just killed it, by refusing iPhone apps which are built using the Adobe tools. Ouch, ouch and ouch.
There’s a learning here. No balanced business should depend on one or two clients – though many do – and the same goes for depending on third party platforms. A business simply cannot afford to bet the farm on platforms that are controlled by others – they can wipe you out with the click of a mouse:
Apple rips 5,000 ‘girly’ apps from the app store – apps containing bikinis, skin are banned. Businesses die overnight.The Valley is creating new funds daily focussed on specific platforms – iPhone, iPad, Facebook. A risky strategy.
I don’t disagree with Apple’s stance on Adobe – I am in two minds on this and respect Jobs’ decision. And I hold no pity for Adobe – they wield similar power through their Flash platform (eg. they refuse to provide echo cancellation to third party developers of Flash-based chat apps, requiring all users to wear headsets).
It’s not the rules that are lethal, it’s the changing of the rules. If Apple chooses not to allow bikinis or Adobe CS5 apps then we won’t build businesses based on this. But when Apple allows bikinis or Adobe CS5 apps and then changes its mind, trouble arises.
Don’t let your business’ success/failure be controlled by another business/individual – it’s will probably end in tears.
Update: The war of words heats up – Adobe’s evangelist tells Apple to ‘go screw yourself‘. What’s next?
Admob’s latest mobile metrics report makes fascinating reading:
This data only represents Admob’s ad traffic – and is therefore not fully representative. In particular, on-portal activity will be significantly under represented (and Admob is owned by Google 
), however it’s extremely insightful data none the less.
Mobile calls in the developing world are all about Nokia. Mobile content in the developed world is all about iPhone and Android.
Techcrunch reports today that Justin.tv was required by Apple to provide 64 kb/s versions of all its live streams in order to gain approval for the app store. We have been battling with this over at Orca Digital for a few months now – and it’s extremely frustrating.
Apple has started rejecting all live streaming apps unless they provide adaptive bit rate streams (ie. the quality of the stream is optimised for the available network conditions). In itself, that’s reasonable – and ensures a great user experience – however the requirement to provide a 64 kb/s video stream is not appropriate in today’s world. For those of you who know anything about video, you will know that quality at 64 kb/s is ropey – certainly not in line with the user expectations of an iPhone.
We have appealed hard against this, but Apple is not giving in. We believe that it’s better to get no video than a 64 kb/s stream, but Apple is adamant that streaming works on EDGE networks – rather than just 3G.
The other challenge is that many live encoders won’t stoop to 64 kb/s – requiring the purchase of new (expensive) live encoders unless you really know your video salt. It has driven us to develop our own mobile optimised encoders – which we’re now using to power live streams.
Apple continues to keep us on our toes – are they going to insist on 64 kb/s video for the larger screened iPad? It would look truly shocking…
Prior to the unveiling of every new Apple device there is immense speculation about its features – Microsoft, Nokia and even Google must sit back in helpless awe and jealously watch the hype surrounding each announcement. Steve Jobs is a marketing genius.
Few features have been more anticipated than video calling – it is expected in every device launch and never arrives. It was rumoured back in 2008 in the original iPhone 3G, then the 3GS, then the iPad and iPhone OS 3.2 now apparently has hooks to allow for video calling. But no devices have a front facing camera so that’s not much use. Yet.
Third parties such as Fring offer video calling support on a variety of devices (now including the iPhone), though they have a long way to go on usability / quality (our tests showed it to be unusable on Nokia devices).
Video calling has not been the success that 3G networks hoped for – most 3G handsets and networks support video calling over a 64kb/s circuit (quality is moderate) – but today’s IP networks can handle higher bandwidth and higher quality. Given Apple’s relentless pursuit of control, user experience and quality they’ve probably been waiting for the networks to catch up. Which many have now.
What the market really needs is Apple to jump onto it – and provide a compelling user experience. This will doubtless be via iChat – but third party apps are also likely to gain access to forthcoming front facing cameras through the SDK.
Given this week’s OS 3.2 announcements, what’s the betting that our next iPhone will have a front-facing camera? It’s exciting – and will see mobile video calling finally hitting the mainstream.
Update 21.02.2010: Mashable is reporting even more evidence that video chat is on its way to the iPhone + iPad – it looks like it’s definitely more than rumour now!
Products |
 |
Newsroom |
|
About us |
|
Contact us
© Orca Digital 2010 |
