FaceTime

Meet Manveer. I’ve known him since I was in the 6th grade. Somewhere around the 8th grade we started a ritual of calling each other every day after school and talking about video games, computers and dumb things that happened at school. We talked on the phone for hours. Back in those days we would even play the same game on separate computers while talking on the phone. It was a precursor to voice chat in gaming networks like Steam or Xbox Live. It was ridiculous amounts of fun.


Manveer is up in the corner, the crazy guy is yours truly

Tonight Manveer and I FaceTimed. It’s the feature I wish we had when we were back in middle school. These days it’s a lot harder to explain why you’ve got some random dude’s face on your phone talking to you about completely pointless things at 12:54AM on a Tuesday night. I spent part of the chat covering one of the lights in my room with my head and calling it an Anand Head Eclipse. At the risk of further embarrassing myself publicly, it was fun.

For those of you who don’t know, FaceTime is Apple’s VoIP protocol built into the iPhone 4.

Granted we’ve been able to do this sort of thing for quite a while now over instant messenger networks. Integration into your smartphone is just the next logical step, and in the right conditions it works very well.

The first requirement is that both users need to have an iPhone 4 obviously. Both also need to be on WiFi. While the FaceTime icon will appear if you call another iPhone 4, if you try to activate the connection you’ll get this error unless you’re on WiFi:

With a bit of poor UI design Apple will actually display a FaceTime icon with a question mark in it if you call another iOS phone. Trying to activate FaceTime however gives you an error.

FaceTime requires roughly 100 - 150Kbps of bandwidth in both directions to work smoothly. The download should be fine but the upload is pretty high given that many broadband providers in the US are ridiculously stingy with their upload bandwidth. For FaceTime to work well you can’t be uploading or downloading anything large in the background, or if you are just throttle everything else to give you enough bandwidth to work with.

The next problem with FaceTime is the iPhone 4 lacks an absolutely necessary integrated stand. HTC got it perfect with the EVO 4G, unfortunately the 4 has no such thing. The closest you can get is Apple’s iPhone 4 dock, it’ll set you back $29 but it’s necessary to prevent you from getting tired holding your phone out in front of you. Laying the 4 down on your desk while you FaceTime just gives the person on the other end of the line a great view of your nostrils. Not very welcoming.


This is the on-table view of FaceTime, you need a stand

Even once you’ve met all of the requirements it’s still not a guaranteed thing. Even with ample bandwidth I had one FaceTime chat stall in the middle of the chat. My incoming feed froze and I had to wait a couple of seconds for it to resume. I also had a problem where FaceTime would fail to start on the first try. A subsequent try fixed it.

As you'll see in our camera investigation, the low light performance of the 4's front facing camera is horrid. Couple that with FaceTime and you will get bad image quality if you're not in a well lit room:


Ugh, what is this, 1998?

While in FaceTime you can easily switch between front and rear cameras by tapping the camera icon in the lower right corner. Unfortunately the compression on the video is enough to render text illegible while in FaceTime:


This was taken using the rear facing camera over FT

Obviously everyone knows where FaceTime is going. Apple is supposedly opening the protocol up to all developers, so you’d be able to theoretically build desktop and other smartphone FaceTime clients. And ultimately as mobile broadband speeds (hello WiMAX and LTE) improve the WiFi requirement will be dropped. But is it a good feature today?

It really depends on who you know with an iPhone 4. If you’ve got a Manveer, absolutely - the feature is worth it. If you have a bunch of casual acquaintances with iPhone 4s, probably not. It’s only useful if you know the person on the other side very well.

There is one other major benefit to FaceTime. Once enabled your call is routed over WiFi to the Internet, not AT&T’s 3G network. It doesn’t use any of your plan’s minutes and more importantly, voice quality is much improved over a regular 3G/EDGE phone call. It’s VoIP, not a crappy cell connection. Even if you just cover the camera it’s actually better to make calls over FaceTime than 3G based on the sound quality alone.

Camera Usability Sidebar: Luxa2 H1-Touch, a Great FaceTime Stand
Comments Locked

270 Comments

View All Comments

  • Belard - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link

    On the back of all iPhones... whats with the ugly logos on the back of the phones?

    I don't know another phone that has such things and you'd think on a style-brand such as Apple, they really would work to NOT put such things on.

    Look at the HTC-EVO review. Other than HTC & Sprint logos, its all nice and clean looking.

    My SONY phones... only say Sony. Even the bottom of my Logitech mouse only has a CE logo and product text "DUAL LASER".
  • mikelward - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link

    The Nexus One photos looked much better to me. The iPhone 4 was too yellow and the Evo was too noisy.

    Out of interest, is this something that could be fixed in a firmware update, and what version of Android was the N1 running?

    Thank you very much for the review, especially the antenna section.
  • QuantumForce - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link



    Did you average dBs as if they were linear numbers? Really? They are a log transform of a ratio between measured and standard linear intensity or pressure. 20 dB * 2 is not equal to 40 dB. Just how did you deal with the math here in your sample analysis of six readings?
  • metalev - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link

    I re-charted the signal strength quoted in this article to make the huge signal strength range given to 5 bars much more obvious:
    http://www.metalev.org/2010/07/apple-caught-red-ha...
  • KOTULCN - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link

    You said you restored your iPhone 4 to a back-up of a jail broken 3.1.3? Alittle bit more explanation is due!
  • MrBrownSound - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link

    Very detailed review. In the end with Froyo coming I'd have to choose Evo no matter the extended wait because of integration with sense UI. Although I will have to compromise battery life, stunning display and sheer expensive look and feel compared to the iphone. To make up for it I will be able to make calls, have a bigger screen, and also have the all open android OS. trade-offs trade-offs. I'll take it over being locked to at&t for two years with three hundred something termination fee.

    Again very thorough review. This is why i read Anandtech
  • spiritu - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link

    I note that some subtle but significant changes have been made to your article since it was first published.

    In particular, the following line:

    It originally said:

    "Apple should add an insulative coating to the stainless steel band (which implies a recall), or subsidize bumper cases." (which implies apple should pay for the cost of the bumper)

    Now it says:

    "The most sensitive region of the antenna should have an insulative coating (next time round?), or everyone should use a case. (which implies the user should buy a bumper).

    I can only presume that you made these changes under duress.
  • orangpelupa - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link

    great review. very in-depth. Nice knowing what the reason behind iPhone 4 "signal problem".

    btw
    seeing this
    http://images.anandtech.com/doci/3794/iPhone4-3422...
    i got struck by nostalgic feeling :D

    it really looks like my 4 years old cellphone. (now its dead lol)
    Sony Ericsson M600i.

    http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9964/030720101018...

    the "sides" design really remind me of my old phone :)
  • drwho9437 - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link

    "The Antenna is Improved" is a subheading. The content is more or less fine, but it shouldn't be called the Antenna is improved. If the software is correctly reporting the number of dBm and it just works at lower levels because of a lower noise floor in the RF amplifier, then you should say "reception is Improved" or something.

    The improvement in the signal is down to the mixer, amp or filters not the antenna gain as you note from your dBm level measures.
  • Axelband - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link

    This is simply the best and most thorough product review I have ever read. It had just enough technical information to satisfy an engineer like me but not too much to bore a layman. Bookmarking your site now.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now