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 437134
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Stigma I guess
by Bringbackanonposting on Mon 16th Aug 2010 23:43 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

I work in the VC industry, have for 10 years +.
The majority here sound like they are not interested in Video for various reasons. That's fine.
I think the technology is still after all these years, complete rubbish. The major VC manufacturers are still trying to monopolize the market holding back technology and progress. They don't want it to be in every household for free. They want money.
In my opinion we need (as Eugenia said also) open standards and a solution that trivializes VC to work everytime eerywhere on every device, the first time. It is possible. If you don't want to use video, you don't have to. If you receive a phonecall and don't want to do video the calling party should not know you have the capability and you should choose to send video if you choose. There are solutions to nearly all the arguments previously listed without having to shit-can the technology.
When 3G video calling emerged few realize that many telcos purchased racks of gateways and bridges to accommodate video calling. Boy did they get that wrong. Less than 1% utilization.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Stigma I guess
by WereCatf on Tue 17th Aug 2010 02:14 in reply to "Stigma I guess"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Even for those people who'd otherwise use video there's a few big obstacles, one being the extra costs of it and the second being ease of use. The latter one is a big one. It's a nuisance to have to open this or that, get a SIP-number and so on to call someone when we can just pick up the phone, no matter where we are, and call someone with 2 button presses.

If one could receive and place video calls on one's phone but then have the audio and video redirected wirelessly to another nearby device with equally few presses then it actually might catch up a little. Very few people want a location-bound phone service these days, mobile phones are so popular exactly because they aren't location bound. So, your phone still being the central device but just being able to redirect audio and video to a nearby device, no matter where you are, would work much better.

Just imagine it: you get a call and would like to have it in video you press "Answer on other device" and point the phone to your TV: voila, full-screen video. Or if you're not at home but f.ex. at friend's place and you have your laptop: you do the same but point at the laptop instead. People would only need that one single number to catch you from, you wouldn't need any extra clients or services, and it'd always go wherever you go.

Reply Parent Score: 2