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?
Thread beginning with comment 437024
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Social issues
by richsax on Mon 16th Aug 2010 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Social issues"
Member since:

hav to agree , remember reading a study (dont remember wher probably science)

Yeah, found it - at least a similar one.

It conveys these points, translated into people-speak:

1] Ubiquitous video phones means, from a social conduct standpoint, that you either always use or never use the video feature. It would be "odd" if you didn't, if it was established practice.

2] Point 1] thus "forces" people to show their face when groggy (the many girls who depend on makeup wouldn't be able to answer), unable to make unwarranted sick leave calls (who haven't at one point or another?), uncomfortable calls would become even more so, etc, etc.

Hence, people hate video calls, except maybe under well defined office hours where the above points matters less. But even then, most people just don't want any of it (exceptions exists.)

Making the case for video-chat is dead on arrival.

Reply Parent Score: 1