Samsung Galaxy S can make video calls

[Guest untrueparadox]

i dont think the android communication framework is designed to receive 3g calls in the first place so it would probably be a huge task. there's probably a good number of other people who want 3g calls on android phones too and i'm sure someone would have written an app for it by now if it is as simple as coding an app.

[Guest mrmrmrmr]

don't worry. we have 2 possibilities:

1. Gingerbread supports 3g video calls; hopefully if we can get Gingerbread for Dell Streak, we'll have that feature.

2. Samsung Galaxy S supports 3g video calls even on Eclair (2.1) ; if we could install Samsung Galaxy S dialer on Streak we might have that as well.

[Guest ClippinWings]

don't worry. we have 2 possibilities:

1. Gingerbread supports 3g video calls; hopefully if we can get Gingerbread for Dell Streak, we'll have that feature.

2. Samsung Galaxy S supports 3g video calls even on Eclair (2.1) ; if we could install Samsung Galaxy S dialer on Streak we might have that as well.

Or as I stated clearly in the other thread (thanks for the link vinokirk)

3. Stop troubling yourself with 1996 technology required by dumb-phones of that era and step into the present.

Laserdiscs were big in 1990's... You still buy a lot of them?

Do you refuse to buy a PS3 because the Playstation 'works' and other people still use it?

sure I'm being a little antagonistic here... But I really am puzzled by some people's desire to cling to out-dated technology in this case... Especially technology that was never universally adopted... It's like the people who still had Betamax players in their homes in the early 90's...

Edited December 28, 2010 by ClippinWings

[Guest wired]

3. Stop troubling yourself with 1996 technology required by dumb-phones of that era and step into the present.

Laserdiscs were big in 1990's... You still buy a lot of them?

1996? 3G video calling was in the 2000s.

sure I'm being a little antagonistic here... But I really am puzzled by some people's desire to cling to out-dated technology in this case... Especially technology that was never universally adopted... It's like the people who still had Betamax players in their homes in the early 90's...

The problem here is, you seem to think that your own little world is the entire world. Maybe in your own world, video calling is not universally adopted. Your profile says you're in the USA... y'know, for a long time, people from other countries would look at the dated patchwork phone network you have there and smile. Finally american phone networks have caught up, but even now, phones are carrier-specific - you can't take your Droid and switch to AT&T. So many different technologies on different frequencies.

In many other countries, video calling is just about as widely supported as SMS - you know, that 1990s 160-character technology that you still use? A very large number of phones support video calling, and it's enabled by default on many networks, which makes it dead-simple to use. No need to check and see if the other person is using a specific phone platform, get them to install a specific video calling app, register a new account with them, get their user ID, and call them. You just dial their number and hit video call. No need to leave third-party programs running in the background either.

If it doesn't interest *you*, it doesn't mean nobody else is interested in it. Why even comment on a thread that relates to something you're not interested in? As small as the user base is, it's the easiest form of video calling in many countries.

Edited December 30, 2010 by wired

[Guest ClippinWings]

1996? 3G video calling was in the 2000s.

The problem here is, you seem to think that your own little world is the entire world. Maybe in your own world, video calling is not universally adopted. Your profile says you're in the USA... y'know, for a long time, people from other countries would look at the dated patchwork phone network you have there and smile. Finally american phone networks have caught up, but even now, phones are carrier-specific - you can't take your Droid and switch to AT&T. So many different technologies on different frequencies.

In many other countries, video calling is just about as widely supported as SMS - you know, that 1990s 160-character technology that you still use? A very large number of phones support video calling, and it's enabled by default on many networks, which makes it dead-simple to use. No need to check and see if the other person is using a specific phone platform, get them to install a specific video calling app, register a new account with them, get their user ID, and call them. You just dial their number and hit video call. No need to leave third-party programs running in the background either.

If it doesn't interest *you*, it doesn't mean nobody else is interested in it. Why even comment on a thread that relates to something you're not interested in? As small as the user base is, it's the easiest form of video calling in many countries.

I commented because Vinokirk took a jab at me (well at anyone who had my point of view and commented in the other thread, but I'm sure I was included).

The video calling standard was adopted in 1996, hence my 1996 comment.

I don't use 160 character SMS, and most people with smart phones don't either... see modern technology has improved it by splitting and combining multiple 160 ch messages into single long blocks of text.

I like the idea of video calling, as stated I had a phone capable of it back in 2006 (an HTC TyTN imported from the UK), but networks here and other users phones didn't support it... it was about as frustrating as could be... maybe as frustrating as you find IP video...

and that's the thing... we are now getting to the point where IP calling is becoming universal... if we cling to old tech (that is still not supported in the US BTW) then there is no need to push forward...

Plus, why would I want to waste minutes on a 3G video call, when I can tap into my unlimited data plan and IP video call.

I hope that at some point we standardize IP calls... whether that be facetime or Tango or Fring... I don't care... but we are not there yet... just as we are not to a place where 3g calls are universally supported. You may say "universal everywhere but the US" but that isn't very universal... I think this is simply a case of me wanting what is best for everyone and you wanting what is best for you.

We'll never bridge that gap.

[Guest wired]

The video calling standard was adopted in 1996, hence my 1996 comment.

The first UMTS 3G phone networks in the world were only set up in 2001/2002.

I don't use 160 character SMS, and most people with smart phones don't either... see modern technology has improved it by splitting and combining multiple 160 ch messages into single long blocks of text.

Yes - but it's still the same basic technology - 160-character SMS. I was replying to your "...people's desire to cling to outdated technology" comment.

Concat'ing multiple SMSes has been around since the late 90s, way before phones had color LCDs, much less video calling - yet, you and all of us still use it. Why? Because a huge number of phones out there support it natively without requiring any user action to enable it - just like 3G video calling. It just so happens that the phone networks where you live don't support 3G video calling. They all don't even use the same standard.

I like the idea of video calling, as stated I had a phone capable of it back in 2006 (an HTC TyTN imported from the UK), but networks here and other users phones didn't support it... it was about as frustrating as could be... maybe as frustrating as you find IP video...

That's my point... it is frustrating to you because the networks around you don't support it, and that's fair enough. But in some other countries, it's almost as common as SMS. Here, even prepaid phones support video calls. So just because you can't use it, doesn't mean it's useless to everyone else in the world.

and that's the thing... we are now getting to the point where IP calling is becoming universal... if we cling to old tech (that is still not supported in the US BTW) then there is no need to push forward...

It's becoming universal? How is it universal? There's Skype but only iphones support video on that at the moment, there's facetime but only between the iphone 4s on wifi, there's Qik but few phones support it, there's ooVoo but only certain android phones have it, then there's a bunch of small-time programs that only work on certain phone platforms. And all of them require registration of some sort, either with a new ID or email address. There is also no QoS with these basic IP video calls - call quality can vary greatly, or sometimes not even work.

Compare that to 3G video calling in other countries. All you need is the other person's phone number. An SE phone can call a Nokia which can call a Galaxy S which can call a Motorola, all without requiring anyone to install anything extra, without having to make sure a third-party program is always connected to the network (which can drain the battery), or having to sign up with a new ID which would also need to be distributed.

Don't get me wrong, I think IP calling is much better than 3G-324M video, but only in terms of video quality. No third-party program will be as reliable as a core embedded network feature like 3G-324M.

Plus, why would I want to waste minutes on a 3G video call, when I can tap into my unlimited data plan and IP video call.

Ahh you see, once again, plans are different elsewhere in the world. e.g. my phone network offers unlimited free voice and video calls to anyone else on the same network, while both voice and video calls to other networks get charged at the same rate under a cap - so there's no extra cost involved in doing a 3G video call as it's covered by the cap. Not everyone burns through all their credit or minutes each month.

I hope that at some point we standardize IP calls... whether that be facetime or Tango or Fring...

Yes, definitely! Although IMHO for it to be reliable, it would have to be an official standard which means telcos would want to charge you for it.

....which can be a good thing. I like how SMSes cost a bit of money - when I receive an SMS I know it's something reasonably important as someone has bothered to pay money to send me that message, as opposed to an email that's free. I'd read an SMS that came in ASAP, but I can take my time with emails.

You may say "universal everywhere but the US" but that isn't very universal... I think this is simply a case of me wanting what is best for everyone and you wanting what is best for you.

There are what, 4 cellular networks in the US all using different technologies? There are ~169 3G/UMTS operators across ~71 countries in the world. That's definitely as close as universal as you can ever hope to get. Any phone from any network here in Australia will work in Egypt, Nigeria, Brazil, Bahrain, Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, China, Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Portugal, Norway, the UK, Thailand, etc all on 3G. (and if only voice/edge/gprs is needed, the same phone will work in 212 countries worldwide)

Realistically, how would you implement a reliable IP video calling system that's universal across all phone OS platforms and a large majority of phone networks, yet staying independent from the phone network and not cause a drain on the phone battery? If you get the phone network involved with a core network-level standard somewhere, they will charge you for it, negating your point.

Saying the 3G-324M standard should die is like saying SMS (and MMS) should die. They certainly should die as they're getting a bit old, but without an alternative that's just as reliable and universal as those, they will not die. Unfortunately right now (or in the foreseeable 3G future) I really doubt there will be anything as universal as what we have now - therefore imho we should keep it alive for those times where all these propreitary ip video calling systems can't do the job.

Edited December 30, 2010 by wired

[Guest ClippinWings]

I think the facetime frame work or Skype have the best chance at becoming the "standard" for a couple reasons:

facetime exists already on millions of iphones, ipods and macs... it is in theory "open" though that is debateable and I have yet to see even an attempt to port it over to android or any other mobile OS.... But the simple fact that it is already on millions of devices and works quite well, makes it a candidate.

Skype because of it's computer installed userbase and now iphone app is Ii think where we are headed... I expect the android app soon... if not a CES next week, shortly after.

I do not expect a "standard" in the form of an official certification that is then controlled by the carriers, I mean standard like Microsoft Office... where it is just the default format that everyone uses... Sure you can use Open Offic, but in the end you save that document you need to send to a friend in .doc

[Guest mrmrmrmr]

if 3g video calling is obsolete, why did Google try and implement it in the recent version of their Android OS ?

as wired has stated, it is a commonly used standard in many countries charged within the normal voice calls plan.

3g-h324m standard puts video and voice in just 64kbits/s and thus has a very big advantage to any type of ip/sip video calling.

[Guest wired]

I do not expect a "standard" in the form of an official certification that is then controlled by the carriers, I mean standard like Microsoft Office... where it is just the default format that everyone uses... Sure you can use Open Offic, but in the end you save that document you need to send to a friend in .doc

That would be great, but looking at the reliability of mobile IP networks today, I think it's safe to say a reliable third-party ms-office-type standard will not happen anytime soon. Even facetime still requires wifi.

One day, one day. But for today, 3g-324m. :(

Edited December 31, 2010 by wired

[Guest MP4704]

That would be great, but looking at the reliability of mobile IP networks today, I think it's safe to say a reliable third-party ms-office-type standard will not happen anytime soon. Even facetime still requires wifi.

One day, one day. But for today, 3g-324m. :D

Yes, i agree with you..3G call is still the best..because in some country, data subscription still cost a lot of money, and still there is users who did not need and use internet 24 hours a day. So, whenever you need it, 3G call is still the best for quick and relatively cheap to use for video call...