I think it is unfair to label a platform with a two hundred dollar entry barrier as an equalizer. VoIP and allied technologies are the real enablers and ad-supported platforms like WhatsApp et al. have been true equalizers by allowing anyone to communicate with anyone at marginal costs. The ease of picking up the phone and calling somebody with no consideration of cost has enabled so many people to connect and communicate on a more frequent basis.

Certainly, equality is an overloaded term, so it's useful to note the context. He's not talking about economic equality. He's talking about bringing a simplified interface to an otherwise complex and confusing process, particularly for his elderly relative. Different people will suffer from the existence of different barriers. It doesn't have to be a competition.

What Apple does to simplify things (prioritize simplicity and accessibility, obsessively remove or hide options, make reasonable defaults, broaden the happy-path) can be replicated on more affordable platforms.

That said, I've struggled to teach my elderly mother how to even answer her iPhone -- she finds it overly complicated. If she could get over the technical hurdle, she could stay in better touch with remote family and friends who now prefer texting and video calls to snail mail and begin to alleviate her loneliness.

The cost of entry should be expressed as the difference between lower cost or used iPhones and iPads vs similar android devices. Even though there is a cost premium for iOS devices the proven longer longevity of arguably makes them cheaper for most people, especially light users who are happy sticking with a device for 5-8 years. The family members who do tech support for them can mostly rest happy with automatic security updates turned on.

> I think it is unfair to label a platform with a two hundred dollar entry barrier as an equalizer.

Even in poor areas, lots of people are walking around with iPhones. $200-500 gadgets are not out of the range of poor people. That works out to less than a dollar a day.

One time amortized expenses aren't that much of a barrier, from what I've seen. The real barriers the poor face are things like high rents, high medical cost, high cost of education, etc.

About a quarter of the world's population lives on less than $3.20 per day. [1] $200-500 is a lot of money to billions of people.

[1] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/17/n...

Is there anything that sets FaceTime apart from cheaper competitors like WhatsApp / Signal video calling in this aspect of ease of use?

(I say cheaper because you don't need to buy an iDevice to use those)

Don't you also need to buy a phone/computer/tablet to use whatsapp or signal? How does whatsapp is cheaper than facetime? But anyway, yeah, I noticed Facetime's both video and audio calls have better quality, in my personal experience. Also, most if not all my friends and family use iDevices, so I dont need to convince them to install signal/whatsapp/telegram etc... But YMMV.

Yes but a practical new Android phone with reasonable spec (I don't mean cheap Chinese oems with 1gb ram) can be had for $100 and can run WhatsApp/signal fine. The cheapest iphone is $399 iirc, the high entry costs that disqualifies a lot of people even in the US and certainly abroad where apple tax difference compare to base currency of usd399 exceeds regional sales tax differences (mexico for example)

In Brazil a new iPhone 6 costs about two months of the national average raw income, while a cheap Android alternative would be about 1/3rd to 1/4th of an average monthly salary.

Does average monthly salary mean much if the majority is really poor? Assuming you are middle class, here. Also: you probably mean iPhone 12. The 6 is quite old.

I remember my 6 very well as I fell on my motorcycle and I pulled this banana shaped phone out of my pocket.

> Also: you probably mean iPhone 12. The 6 is quite old

I definitely meant the 6.

Minimum monthly wage (formal jobs, before taxes): R$1100

New iPhone 6: R$1700 ~ R$2400

New iPhone 12: R$7700 ~ R$10000

> Does average monthly salary mean much if the majority is really poor?

For those poor and outside the formal job market, buying a new iPhone (even the older ones) are out of reach or a very significant investment.

Off topic... but Brazil is such a wonderful country with great people. The insane import taxes are not fair and I don't think it helps the economy - rather the opposite.

News flash the $399 model is based off 6 or 7

Brazil is such an outlier. I wonder why Bolsenaro didn't do anything about the insane import duties in Brazil. And don't get me started on the difficulty in using financial services there.

Hungary:

Cheapest iPhone: 120000 HUF

Cheapest Android: 9700 HUF

Cheapest reasonable Android: 21000 HUF

Minimum wage after taxes: 111000 HUF

Thought Hungary had Euros.

Unfortunately we don't, the first target date was 2007, and the numbers looked like we're getting there, but it just never happened. Nowadays there's no target date and the propaganda is eurosceptic, so I'm not holding my breath.

True. That $399 iPhone SE is sold for $540 in Mexico at the Apple store. And middle-class Mexicans have between 1/3 to 1/10 of the buying power of an American counterpart.

>How does whatsapp is cheaper than facetime?

Whatsapp ,Skype, Telegram, Google Duo, etc apps work fine on Android phones which are lots less expensive than Apple Devices that are needed for Facetime

Trust me, you don't want to put family on Android. My mother started out with Android (to save money), and she never even fully understood how the bottom buttons worked. I became the customer care. Now she's on iPhone and there's no support burden. Phew.

You don’t usually get to choose what devices people buy. All my family is on Android simply because they’re not interested enough in tech to spend triple the price on an Apple device, and there’s nothing I can say to make them spend that much.

Fair enough, but often family members will go to you for advice. So based on your advice, you'll also get the support calls :-)

Definitely easier to use than any of the alternatives. An intuitive video calling system should do just that: video (and/or audio), not chat.

Firstly; she has not heard of WhatsApp, it would have to be taught to her that it is a chat app that has additional functionality to allow phone and video calls.

Blank stare.

She does not chat and has no interest in doing that.

The UI of WhatsApp is confusing and unintuitive if you assume you know nearly nothing except that you want to make a video call.

There is Google Duo that just does video calling.

> Firstly; she has not heard of WhatsApp

I am pretty sure she had not heard of FaceTime as well before you introduced it to her? :)

Disc: Googler.

Yeah, definitely some training is needed for that age group. It will be easier for you and me when we grow to be 100+ years old. She clicks on the green symbol that shows a video camera, maybe that helps to recognize. I am sure Google Duo would have an understandable icon as well, so you raise a good point.

It integrates well with your mobile phone number as identity. Add a SIM to an iPhone and you can FaceTime it in the same way you’d call it.

> Is there anything that sets FaceTime apart from cheaper competitors like WhatsApp

Not signing up to anything Facebook is the first criteria in any service I want to use.

You can take the call on a computer?

macs come with facetime preinstalled (the newer ones at least) and you can send facetime links to people and they can join using the web client if they dont have a mac.

Only on a mac.

Unfortunately, calls with more than two people seem to fall apart quickly if the network connection isn't perfect, even where Meets, Zoom, etc. work flawlessly.

This substantially the opposite of my experience so I’d bet there is some factor for proximity to CDNs or traffic shaping done by your ISP. FaceTime is rock-solid; Zoom is also good but has noticeably lower video quality (but good noise handling). Meet’s native apps are good but their browser UI is coded to break Firefox so I don’t use it much.

So it sounds like Facetime's Firefox support is better in your experience?

I’d flip it the other way: Google decided to remove the benefits of portability, similar to how Zoom removed the benefits of being able to use their service without installing a client first.

FaceTime is limited to Apple devices until iOS 15 allows anyone with a browser to join a call, so you’d think they’d be emphasizing the benefits of portability more.

Facetime doesn't work in any browser, does it? On macOS and iOS it uses a dedicated app, the protocol is proprietary so no 3rd part clients exist?

FaceTime is coming to the web

https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522889/apple-facetime-an...

The benefit of FaceTime being an open standard.

It’s not an open standard

Nor does it currently work in Firefox. Hence the continuation of the joke.

It was originally announced as an open standard, though. Anyone who remembers Steve Jobs would have caught on. It is easy for us old-timers to forget how long ago that was now, so I extend my apologies to the youngsters.

Hahaha you’re right! I remember jobs saying that, or was it iMessage He was talking about?

Agreed. For me, the hallmark of a good system is being able to forget that I'm using it. That has never happened to me with Facetime.

Semi-related question since I'm looking to get my grandma setup. Waffling between an iPhone and iPad, maybe an iPad mini but don't know if the air would be better (lighter I think). What device does your grandma use to FaceTime? Do you know does she do anything else with it?

I think a bigger device/screen is easier for older people to use. I think they can struggle a lot with typing on a smaller phone screen, as well as the font and overall display size.

I second this. I bought iPads for my parents and in-laws and I gave them the choice between iPad Mini and iPad thinking they will prefer mini because it's lighter. Both of them chose iPad precisely because it has a larger screen. I don't think it was just because of the ease of typing.

Just FYI in the accessibility settings there's options for increasing the text size and input options for people with mobility/dexterity issues. A larger screen of an iPad makes for physically larger targets but you can also zoom the UI.

Also - knob handle on the back of an iPad is handy. To older hands, it can be really difficult to hold a tablet without touching the screen.

Older ladies might also have long nails which makes touching icons hard too.

I think iPad Air is worth it for older people since it does not cost much more and the grandparents in my family appreciate the size of the screen, especially since they use it with enlarged text size.

Just three days ago I've set up my 93 year old grandfather on a Lenovo Smart Display 7. I think it has multiple benefits over an iSomething: - Always plugged in - no need to remember to charge - Shows our family picture albums that I can remotely update via my Google Photos - It is loud. Left the volume at 3/4 - Sits on a table and you're never holding it wrong™ - No settings to mess up, two previous tablets were too complicated

I had to google it to see what it looked like, looks great if all you care about is photo + videocalls.

In the end i guess it all depends on the persons ability to manipulate and see things.

I've pushed my parents hard into the Apple ecosystem and it has worked out great.

My mom first got the iPhone 4, before that she had a nokia flip phone, she could use it from day 1. Nowadays I buy the newest iPhone, and after 1-2 years or so I sell it to one of my parents for a 'nice' price. The iPad I made them buy (and they upgraded it once) is very popular.

But the most used Apple product is the AppleTV. It has enabled them so watch the news when they want, and Youtube has given them access to content (travel) they'd never had before.

Sharing photo albums, facetime video calls, imessage and ease of use is just on a level I don't think exists with android - of course, sometimes theres the small hiccup.

But they are not 93 years old so the mileage might vary :)

For the past few years I've had my grandma using a Linux desktop (for her, it's always the year of the Linux desktop!) She has no idea how to use the system, but I just lock it down for the most part, exposing mostly Skype and a solitaire game, and giving myself full access to SSH and x11vnc (through SSH, with my key required, of course).

To her, it's almost like a television, as family members are able to call her and even initiate calls. (Although we often have to call her on the normal phone to get her to realize that we're calling her on her computer, or to plug it in --- this is the one thing she does do with the hardware.)

Those are good selling points but all but the last applies equally to a tablet (e.g. there’s no law requiring you to use a tablet on battery).

The key point is the single function: a general purpose computing device has more UI & management than some people want to deal with. This is something the industry really hasn’t done a great job with, especially since it overlaps with the problem of treating things as disposable because the revenue model for single purpose devices is mostly broken and so people are often forced to churn them because the device they’re used to has been discontinued or no longer works with their WiFi.

That's cute but also kind of horrific if you want to do anything else. You are essentially ensuring he's stuck in a sandbox.

My grandmother as mentioned uses an iPad which is the only user friendly tablet or "computer" I would ever give her.

She uses it for general browsing and e-mail as well, as well as taking photos and browsing albums in iCloud. No messaging though.

She uses an iPad Mini.

I would also recommend a handle/knob type thing on the back so it is easier to hold it without accidentally touching the screen.

It's so great and easy to use it even works for video calls with a person in China, while all other foreign communication apps are blocked there. Isn't that interesting.

CCP doing analysis on foreigners' faces and call contents so that they can cull dissention after they take over in 10 years. But Apple wants to do business there!