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 437133
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ubiquitous, but incompatible
by whartung on Mon 16th Aug 2010 23:40 UTC
whartung
Member since:
2005-07-06

The amazing thing to me about this debate is Apple.

You'd think if anyone wanted to be on the "leading edge" of this, it would be Apple. And they were pretty leading edge with iChat AV, that we've had for years as a "added feature", but hardly worthy of 10 minutes of add time on national TV.

Yet, now it's on the iPhone, it's a premier feature of the iPhone, and it'll no doubt be a premiere feature of the iPad when it comes out with a camera.

Yet, as ubiquitous as it is in the world of Apple, you can't place a Video call to someone with iChat. I can't AV iChat on my machine with my friends phone.

Perhaps Apple is holding back until the iPad comes out to try and force families and friends to upgrade to the new iPhone if they want Video chat "on the run".

But either way, it's telling that as much as Eugenia wants it to be "everywhere", here's a company that could have made it "everywhere" (for their little domain of everywhere), an arguably "forward thinking", "trend setting" company, but chose not to.

Reply Score: 2