Can FaceTime survive in the mobile video-calling world?

With the news this week that Apple will allow third party developers to use the front-facing video camera within their applications comes a question about the life expectancy of Apple’s very own FaceTime. Is there enough of an individual market for FaceTime to make a name for itself, or is the competition too big to allow another player into the market? Some people feel FaceTime will be a huge success for Apple, but if so, they have a lot to get right in a relatively short space of time.

Let’s look at the scenario as a whole. In June, Apple released the brand new iPhone 4, complete with a front-facing VGA camera for use with what Apple likes to call, FaceTime. FaceTime is an application that allows video calls to be made between mobile devices, providing that (currently) they are both iPhone 4s, and are both on a wireless (Wi-Fi) network. There’s no doubt the iPhone 4 will continue to grow and expand its share of the mobile device market, but at present, the number of people in your FaceTime contacts list is too small for it to become a mainstream application.

Next is the news that Apple will allow third party developers to implement usage of the front-facing camera into their applications, which could be either the biggest mistake or best decision for Apple regarding its own FaceTime. As we know, it’s already possible to video call on a computer; iChat and Skype are two of the bigger contenders in this field. Skype alone had over 36 billion minutes of Skype-to-Skype calls made across their networks, with 36% of these involving the use of video. It’s quite clear from these figures that video calling on a desktop is quite popular, so surely the move to video calling from a mobile device would prove to be such a hit, too, right? With Apple allowing third party developers to use the front facing camera, it’s only a matter of time before they do. We’ve already heard the news that Fring has been updated to allow video calls from an iPhone 4—even across a mobile data network. A Skype spokesperson said the company is unable to comment directly on whether they would be implementing video calling on the iPhone 4, but they did have this to say:

“Skype is the market leader and champion of video calling for consumers and it’s clear to us at Skype that the next generation of innovation involving video calling will not be bound to the computer and that mobile video calling will become increasingly important to our customers in the coming year. We’re seeing a proliferation of video calling shared between all kinds of connected devices. It’s on computers, TVs, and it is starting to come to mobile devices too, such as Skype video calling (over 3G) on the Nokia N900. We envision a world where video plays a larger role in the way we communicate. We’re betting big on video, and we intend to set the bar on mobile video calling.”

I think it’s quite clear from that where Skype stands. They really don’t appear to be phased by Apple’s attempts in the mobile video calling market, so should Apple be worried by the strong competition? Why would consumers choose to use FaceTime over Skype, for example? There are a couple of advantages that Apple already has in this area, although their biggest relies on the decisions of others.

FaceTime works seamlessly on the iPhone 4. It was designed for the hardware, with the interface, features and networking tools built for the single purpose. The first advantage that Apple has over Fring or Skype is that it’s simply already there; consumers don’t need to download FaceTime, and once the iPhone 4 penetrates the market even more, it’ll be even easier to hold a video call through it.

The other major advantage to FaceTime however, will take much longer to show its effects and, at the moment, its results hang in the balance. When Apple announced FaceTime, Steve Jobs made a point about it being an open-source platform, available to other mobile phone companies to integrate into their devices. Ultimately, FaceTime could be available on every Android, Windows Mobile and Palm device in the next couple of years, but is there any incentive for Microsoft, Google or Palm to use Apple’s software and technologies? They are competitors in the mobile market, after all. Would it not simply be easier for them to allow Skype, for example, to create their own application on each platform, since most of their users would likely already have a Skype account of their own. As for Google, it’s very likely that they have plans to implement video calling into Google Voice for their Android handsets, and if they did, they surely wouldn’t want Apple’s technologies available on their devices.

At this point, the future doesn’t look all that bright for FaceTime. It appears much simpler to allow the big names in the video calling market to continue their domination. On the other hand, this is Apple we’re talking about, and they don’t have a track record of bad ideas. Apple has made a calculated entrance into the mobile video calling market. I’m sure they’re aware of competition, and the risks before them if they don’t necessarily succeed. Apple doesn’t need FaceTime to be a success, so why not take a go at the very least?

And os, FaceTime will survive—it’s inevitable. But I don’t necessarily feel that it will be a huge success. There will always be the strong user-base of Apple fans who will swear by FaceTime, and who can blame them? It’s a solid platform with a proven idea. There’s by no means anything wrong with FaceTime. Given the choice, I myself would select to use FaceTime, but I’m in a position where the majority of my friends have an iOS device. If, on the other hand, I had friends with a range of mobile handsets looking for a way to video call, FaceTime would not likely to be the best platform to chose.

Only time will tell whether FaceTime will have a long lasting future, and whether the likes of Google or Microsoft will decide to implement the platform into their own devices. It’ll be around for a while, I’m sure of that, but I don’t think it’s going to be Apple’s next big success.

Follow Ed on: