Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 16th Aug 2010 06:41 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless I've seen it so many times in the movies and TV: a person wakes up in this futuristic world, walks by his kitchen, and a computerized voice is telling him that someone is calling him. But instead of picking up a receiver, the call is actually a video-call, and his TV is used for the conversation. If you put 2 and 2 together, this is not really that futuristic. Having a camera attached on your TV, and a VoIP SIP or Skype connection with it, is not mad science. So why don't we already have this on our TVs?
Permalink for comment 436978
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Technology/Closed protocols
by Lennie on Mon 16th Aug 2010 07:31 UTC
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

Yes, it could be people don't want it, but on the technical side. It's just a big mess. There are many, many protocols and initiatives.

There are many possible reasons for that:
- some protocols are closed, although there is no need for that, because H.323 already existed in 1996 (which can support H.264) and it's spec is open. SIP and Jabber (2002) both have video-support, so it most be for other reasons.

- maybe it's just those stupid patents and certain manufacturers didn't want to pay for example for H.264, which I doubt Apple for the iPhone 4 had to

- maybe the existing open protocols are to slow ?

- maybe H.264 and other existing protocols uses to much CPU for encoding

- maybe it's to generic and doesn't work well for the intended environment, like the iPhone 4 where they wanted to highest quality possible within the bandwidth constraints they have to work with and there wasn't a protocol that had that yet.

- maybe the engineers feel the existing open protocols are to complicated

- for business reasons they had other things they wanted to add, realmedia always had the ability add html-like content to their stream, Skype has encryption, etc.

What else could it be ?

Edited 2010-08-16 07:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2