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?
Video-chat only recently started becoming popular. Sure, video-chat is not something new. It could be found 10 years ago in various IM protocols, in iChat AV, in some incarnations of VoIP SIP clients, or with Skype a few years later than that, Facetime these days. However, it still hasn’t taken off. We have the technology, and yet, it still remains something that most people either never used, or used once just to try it out and never tried again. Why is that?
I personally believe that what hindered the success of video calls is the vast majority of different protocols available. GTalk-Video can’t video-chat with Skype, or VoIP SIP, or AIM, or MSN, or 3G. Having a bunch of multi-IM protocol clients is not that difficult, but having multi-video protocol support is much more complicated, resulting in most people actually want to bother with video-chat.
I personally envision a future where video-calls via the phone, the tablet, the laptop, and the TV, are the norm, and are all compatible with each other. Maybe even go a step beyond, and have something like Yahoo! IM’s collaboration ability, where interactive data can also be sent during a call.
But before this happens, a single standard must emerge. Be it VoIP SIP, or GTalk, or FaceTime, or an open Skype, it has to be a universally accepted standard. Especially TV manufacturers would need such assurances before taking the plunge into such features, since their devices are often used by non-techies. So far, 10+ years into video-chat technologies, we still don’t have a common standard.
I understand that there are a lot of shy people who prefer the “anonymity” of the voice-only calls, but really, when you call Comcast to complain about your broken DVR and you end-up having to talk to someone with a strong accent, it sometimes pays off to be able to read their lips as a guidance to what they might be talking about. Or, calling family members while sitting on your sofa, I think it’s a really cool feature. I would love to be able to do this with my family in Greece.
Having a 720/30p wide-angle webcam, a stereo microphone and an IP connection incorporated on the TV won’t cost more than $30 for TV manufacturers. What’s missing is only the universally accepted standard — not the technical/hardware capability. And this is actually a very telling point about the reality of today’s market. Here we have all the really hard pieces of the puzzle already working, but no one can agree on the politics of the thing. Resulting in the consumer actually losing out.
I really don’t want to see you in your TV watching state.
Especially not in HD.
Apparently, it won’t look much different than some youtube vloggers’ videos. It’s not a TV-watching-state. Unless you’re the one who can’t help being in such a state when in front of the TV.
😛
You really don’t want to see me on a video call “ever”, and I have no intention of ever taking one!
To see me right now nursing my early morning coffee is not going to be a good sight, no matter how efficient or productive I am right now.
I’ve had the ability to video call for years before my iPhone 4, and I’ve never used it, nor do I know anyone who has. I much prefer the idea of an Avatar taking/relaying your call, that would be seriously cool, a proper Personal Digital Assistant.
Hi,
Most mobile phone traffic now is probably text messages because teenagers don’t want to pay for the bandwidth that voice calls cost.
I used to have a mobile phone with support for video calls, and I never used it. Of course I don’t tell anyone my phone number either – some people are lucky enough (like me) or important enough (not like me) to avoid living with the constant threat of interruption. 🙂
– Brendan
Amen!
I carefully mark my meetings that will be using video because, quite frankly, I remain partially nekkid all day long while I am working (from home).
I get dressed when I walk out into the kitchen for coffee at some point and my daughter yells at me “Daaaaad! Will you get dressed?!”
Right now I am about to bless my neighborhood by walking out to get my newspaper wearing nothing but my raggedy paid of old cut-off sweat-pant shorts. SEXY!
LOL!
i don’t like watching youtube bloggers in front of their cameras most of the time:p
No, but I will be in the “answer-the-phone” state wich can be anything from “just-woke-with-the-worst-hangover-ever-and-is-that-puke-on-my-shirt? ” to “just-got-out-of-the-shower-and-is-stark-naked”.
Also, who wants to always have to be in front of the TV when taking a call?
Do people even have phones that are not mobile any more?
Traditionally stationary phones are dead anyweay so why bother creating another one? the only way video calls are going to be mainstream and common is if mobile phones can do them.
I really don’t want to see you in your TV watching state.
Especially not in HD.
This is pretty much what I was thinking: when I am at home I am usually naked all the time, I only put something on if I have to pop outside to feed the animals or if I am expecting visitors. As such video calls just don’t really work for me, I don’t want to cause the calling party any nightmares
Nah, I prefer the old audio-only style =]
The problem is not multiple protocols, the problem is bandwidth. How much up/down connection speed will it be necessary to have a smooth video chat with enought quality to look acceptable on a (big) tv?
The problem is most definitely *not* bandwidth in this day and age-that may have been true as early as 5 years ago, but with the wide availability of broadband, that’s a non-issue. Most VoIP protocols have compression built-in…
As a former QA Engineer at a (now defunct)VoIP/video chat company, I believe it is mostly what people have been posting-they have no desire to be on ‘tv’. There seems to be a stigma involved with getting on video (akin to making sure you are appropriately dressed to open the door when someone rings the bell)….
The “problem” is that video doesn’t add anything useful to the mix and only makes this more complicated. I’ve been listening to people pitch video-conferencing [call it what you will] and it never catches on – because no one wants it.
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
You completely miss the point. Video calls have been technically possible for decades (my dad owned one of those ISDN “videophone”), and there’s no shortage of implementations today.
The problem is that the majority of people does not WANT to participate in video calls. Not even the tech savvy youngsters want any of it.
Others will have to discuss the psychology involved. Even Facetime will be Failtime (even when it get support for 3g/4g), because folks don’t like that way of communicating.
hav to agree , remember reading a study (dont remember wher probably science) and the basic conclusion was we dont want to see who were on the phone with.but considering the current demographic and what happened with chatroullete i thinks we may have to be worried about something else altogether
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.
The fact that you wouln’t use it for the casual phone call does not mean you wouldn’t use it for anything else. Sure you (possibly) send sms, e-mails, twitts, a postcard every three years and all sorts of shapes of text right?
I have been living the last three years 10.000 km away from home, and been using video GTalk, iChat and Skype once or twice every week. Being able to video chat has been invaluable for both work and family.
But the vast majority of phone calls are just casual calls (not to mention the fact that the sci-fi that inspired this topic only features this technology in a casual sense)
Plus lets not forget that (and generally speaking) the technology that has prevailed in the past has been technology that’s enabled a lazier or more casual approach to an existing method (texting, tweeting, facebook, etc).
So sure, this technology may succeed under exception circumstances, but topic is about normal usage by people who live normal lives.
Edited 2010-08-16 10:33 UTC
What I mean is that one is not a substitute for another. The fact that just 1 in every 1000 calls I do are without video, does not mean I do not find video handy when I need it, and I do need it in that 1 out of 1000. The same way that you sms somethings, and instead send e-mails for others.
But that does matter though. No major electronics manufacturer will build the kind of TV set that Eugene is proposing if there’s only demand for one video call in every thousand. In those circumstances, people will just stick with Skype (et al) than pay a premium for a device they’re not going to utilise fully.
So it matters a lot given the context of this thread. It matters a lot that even yourself admit that you don’t have a high demand for video calls. It matters because this thread isn’t about exceptional usage, it’s about normal calls on normal living room electronics and receiving these calls in a very normal and non-orchestrated way (ie someone unexpectedly rings and you proceed to chat to them via your TV set).
More camwhores… So if we keep adding crap to a screen that for all intents and purposes should be nothing more then a dumb screen with maybe a pass though hub then how long till it ends up running some crap OS that gets hacked on an hourly basis allowing access to the cam to spy on everything in the room? Most people I know have several TVs, living room, bedrooms, home office, kitchen if they cook allot, basement if it’s finished, I even know a guy with a TV in his bathroom…
This could allow someone to have the ability to spy on someone pretty much anywhere in their home since this would inevitably have access to every wireless spec available to the public…
Why do we have to keep tacking on more bullshit where it isn’t needed again? Does every damn thing now require a camera and text messaging? Why can’t a phone be a phone and a TV be a TV?
NSFW Samuel L. Jackson and Charlie Murphy on Texting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thtsQb89Iu4
and Sam and Charles on Bluetooth headsets also NSFW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4fJCUKA3Zk
Yeah yeah yeah, get off my lawn, up hill both ways, etc.
But I use QQ to do the video chatting thing with my girlfriend in China. I could not care less about talking to other people using video, so the one proprietary client is no problem for me.
I think most people are still happy using voice only because it means they don’t have to care about what the other party sees. I for one would not want to take a video call when I am just out of bed…
what we just need is the option to be there
since theres no real standard, we don’t really have the option – it only works with same phone etc.. actually skype is probably one of the app that works on most platforms
i use video sometimes, it can be useful to troubleshoot issues or just to show something.. thats like 5% of my coms, mind you, i wouldn’t want more than that, but it’s nice when it’s there
Money.
Money money money money money. Too many companies want to charge too much money for their slice of the pie. The telcos don’t want to be dumb pipes, the TV manufacturers want to distinguish themselves from other TV sets and so don’t want interoperability, the software vendors want market dominance for their brand, so also don’t want interoperability (e.g. Skype).
It’ll happen when money is right and not before.
First of all, multiple protocols isn’t really an issue as you can get numerous IM clients like Kopete and Pidgen that supports multiple platforms and runs multiple IM engines all under one app.
Granted you still then have to sign up to each service, but this isn’t really an issue either as you’re only going to sign up to the services which you already have friends, family or business connections with. So few people would need to sign up to every protocol anyway.
Now given that most laptops are sold with in built cameras and external webcams have been cheep enough to afford with pocket money for a good decade now and the majority of the west can already buffer good quality video streams (many of who can already watch glorious full HD straight off their internet connection), it becomes pretty clear that the problem isn’t technological. We have the technology. We already know that the problem isn’t fragmentation as users will just flock to whatever protocol their contacts are already on. So the problem must be personal….
Most people don’t want to dress up, apply make up / shave and comb their hair just to answer the phone. In fact, a lot of people don’t really like answering their phone as it is now as they find the interrupting nagging of device rude and intrusive. So having to constant look your best incase someone rings is a step much too far for these people (and I see myself sympathising with their opinion). This is perhaps why the biggest users of video chat tend to be around adults performing “adult games”. An impersonal scene which is centred around dressing up (or rather down) to impress and then once the deed has been executed, you never have to speak to or accidentally bump into said person again. We see time and time again how video chat is turned into an adult sex toy, the most recent example being Chatroulette.
Another drawback for video chat is how it doesn’t lend itself to multi-tasking. With a normal telephone call, you can be walking your kids to school, driving to work or performing any number of household chores. But add a video camera to the TV or desktop and you are stuck in one room in the house. Start a 3G video call and you can’t have a hands free conversation whilst driving (though I’m not in favour of the more traditional voice calls while driving either) nor manage your hyperactive children on their walk to school. So recipients of the phone call are forced to stop whatever they were previously doing to engage the call. This is just impractical for the majority of us given our busy lives.
So while HD video calls makes perfect sense for sci-fi movies and TV shows, it’s also a highly scripted and directed affair and the actors have an army of make-up artists at their disposal. Real life just doesn’t translate like this.
That all said, there is hope for video chat. While my girlfriend spent a month in Germany as part of her university’s exchange program, we kept in contact via skype as it was cheaper than traditional phone calls (ie free) and meant we could still see each other even when it was impossible to be in the same country (let alone town). But those were pre-arranged dates under exceptional circumstances.
Anyway, I’ve rambled on for long enough
Video conferencing is a great thing but to have it on my TV provided by my TV manufacturer no thanks. I’ll do my own where I know that the software, hardware is not recording when I’m not using it.
Corps just love to share data between each other these days with no ethical, moral qualms about your privacy, nor do they give a hoot about making products that allow you to exercise that privacy. To allow a video camera and live net feed in your TV that could be turned on any time they saw fit, for whatever purpose is just asking for trouble and don’t put it past them either!
I will never connect my TV to the internet, rather I will do as I do now, connect my HTPC loaded with trustworthy open source software to the internet and then I decide what is displayed on my TV and what goes down the wires.
Great, lets put yet another camera in our lives, better yet, in our living rooms… TCP/IP connected…
I’m already scared enough surfing the web on my laptop with a webcam right there in my face at all times…
Hello! The burning hot summer arrived, this is the demonstration stature good season,
the retreat winter sincere appearance, lets lithe, the individuality, the fashion,
the sex appeal, mature you start from here! Has a good news to tell everybody: Recently,
every bought full 200 US dollars in this company, then has the present to see off,
Vietnam which buys delivers are more, please do not miss this good opportunity!!!
welcome to :
ONLINE STORE——————-http://www.famalegoods.com
we accept PAYPAL/credit card payment and all the products are the FREE shipping .
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
UGG BOOT $50
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
New era cap $9
,
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
http://www.famalegoods.com
If you think that telemarketers are a nuisance now, just wait until you can see the bastards on a videophone call!
Ring, ring, ring…explicit porn pops up on your TV…Sexy naked woman appears…
“Hi honey, I’m Zelda. Wow, you look hot. Want to talk dirty to me and watch me do naughty things? You can, for just US$5 per minute.”
I’ll pass on this great new technology, thank you.
Even when using a wired phone, I can move around, do the dishes, get a drink from the fridge, or watch the newsfeed scroll past on whatever screen is handy. With a video call I am tethered to the camera.
It’s rare that the extra trouble of a video call adds anything to a conversation, it’s just a bad idea.
I my opinion it’s not the technology that makes video-conferencing so “Jetson”esque (does anybody remember The Jetsons?) and hence futuristic, it’s the fact that (in the movies at least) that feature is consumed as if it were breakfast cereal.
I tried video conferencing myself and found it rather annoying, since I’m limited to do “only” talking. When on the phone I can talk (of course), read/write an email, look at the stock ticker, etc… I know, all bad habits. But: Even if I don’t have to, I can if I choose to…
best regards.
It makes me think that most of you just can’t stand the idea of being “exposed” to your peers. Your problems seem to be psychological/social. You prefer the impersonal nature of voice calls.
I guess I’m one of those who likes to open up to others. I would give my right arm to be able to video-chat in good quality with my family who live so far away. Maybe not with any random person in the world, but I would still cherish the ability to video-chat with family and friends. The problem is that it’s consumers like you, afraid of their own shadow, that fuck it up for people like me too.
Opening up to others and allowing a corporation into your living room with a camera and a live net connection are completely different things.
I don’t think anyone has stuffed anything up for people like you Eugenia, there are plenty of ways to video chat now without making it the norm on your TV.
It makes me think that most of you just can’t stand the idea of being active during the night and sleeping during the night.
You prefer the bright nature of the day.
I guess I’m one of those who likes to look at the stars, and hear the sound of owls. I’d give my right arm for the ability to shop, work and chat at night.
The problem is that it’s people like you, afraid of the shadows, that fuck it up for people like me too. [sic]
Why do you need that functionality on your TV?
I for one don’t want my TV to be like a mobile phone, full of stupid useless gimmicks.
I’d rather my TV be as dumb as a monitor.
If I need more functionality, I’ll get a set top box, dvd player, media center, whatever…
As has already been stated numerous times, you can still do all that.
Furthermore, why should we have to like something just so that someone like yourself can use a TV to make video calls instead of a computer, 3G mobile or video phone.
In fact, your attitude in that last post strikes me as a tad selfish.
I am totally with the crowd: transforming all your phone calls in video-chat is a giant no-no.
And I’m a bit offended by your phrase: “Your problems seem to be psychological/social”. Wanting to have some privacy in your own home is a problem now? I think is nothing less than a basic human right. If you don’t want to use it, no problem. But please don’t ask everyone else to do the same. And much less bring us to a psychyatrist if we don’t.
I’m sick of seeing people reject their own privacy as something silly, outdated or not trendy. Your privacy is at the base of your freedom and your security. And if you can’t understand that, sooner or later you are going to regret it. Read these two links:
http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/starcraft-ii/news/bloggers-attack-real…
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Counter-Strike-FPS-Knife-Fight,105…
And these are only an example. We are not “afraid of our own shadow”. There is much more than a shadow, and people who fails to acknowledge that is not seeing the elephant in the room.
Most of regular people I have talked about video-chat react with horror to the possibility of transform regular voice phone in videochat. And I think it is the most sane reaction you can have.
Reasons to not enforce video in phone calls:
– Privacy. Obvious, if you are not a natural born showman. Not only I don’t want to be seen in my underpants; neither I want to see everyone else’s.
– Freedom. You are forced to stay in front of the camera and only talking. Have you ever had a call just after putting something in a pan? Most of the personal calls I receive are around 8-9 PM.
– Security. An example: if I want to assault you, I only need to call you to know if you are alone at home and where are you exactly, and how strong or capable of defending yourself you are.
– Unwanted calls. Imagine what kind of calls would do the same perverts that harass people by phone. Imagine what kind of spam you would receive.
You want to make video an optative and prearranged thing? Fine; no problem. In fact, you have it already, use your media center (if you really need to use your TV), or your PC, or your mobile phone. But don’t force everyone into it. Much less try to convince us we are nuts because we don’t like this cool and shiny feature very few people wants.
Edited 2010-08-16 19:44 UTC
What happens if you and a bunch of friends are sitting down to watch a movie, and you get a call? Do you really want to disrupt the entire movie, and have the entire group of people watch your call?
Putting this is a TV makes no sense. TVs are meant to be used by groups of people. Phone calls are (usually) meant to be between two people. Video chat on a cell phone, tablet, palmtop, computer, etc makes a lot more sense.
That, and TVs should remain nothing more than video displays. The fewer builtins, the better.
Even worse: football.
People would kill you for that.
It makes me think that most of you just can’t stand the idea of being “exposed” to your peers.
Indeed. Why should we be exposed to or expose ourselves to our peers? As far as I know, most people like to hang around at home in very casual wear (if any at all, like me) and it’s just not a surprise in the least that they don’t then want others to see them like that. Or to have to see others like that.
Besides, a lot of people feel awkward having to talk on the phone even as-is, what do you think they’d feel like if they were forced to start a complete stranger eye-to-eye?
The problem is that it’s consumers like you, afraid of their own shadow, that fuck it up for people like me too.
No, the problem is consumers like you, self-righteous bastards, that try to force things upon people who don’t want to have anything to do with them and then blame those people for any issues arising.
I prefer that they *are* voice calls. If I want someone to see me, or I want to see them, I’ll pay them a visit or have them over for dinner.
I’d guess that most people don’t like being exposed to their peers. Except strippers and flashers, maybe.
I’ll tell you what my preference for voice calls is not, and that is a desire to snub or undermine you personally (or any other TV-video-chatting fans). “That Eugenia, you know, the woman with her crazy idea of talking to her mom on her tee-vee…”
I can see one of your points; if my family lived overseas, and I only saw them once or twice a year, then yes, I’d be looking into some sort of video-chatting mechanism (though I believe it exists today, if in a rather crude form). But the fact you are unhappy with the state of progress in this area does not make it everyone else’s fault.
Or cunts like you, who, despite being an editor for a tech site, doesn’t understand average Joe.
What happens if you put one of those in your bedroom, and it gets hacked?
Suddenly YouPorn has a year’s worth of footage of you and your husband making babies…
I for one, would sue the TV company to no end… Not that it’s going to fix anything really…
Edited 2010-08-16 17:31 UTC
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.
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.
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.
You can buy a TV with skype client and camera today AFAIK
http://gizmodo.com/5440231/skype-goes-720p-jumps-onto-lg-and-panaso…
Cuseeme… that was video chat some years ago ~ 15 to be exact. I recall mitibushi came out with pre-internet small desk camera monitor combo.. must has been around 1990 if i recall. Anyway. Must not be too much of a market for that.
All the naysayers do not realize that videoconference on the tv will be pretty huge. This is directed at families that have to spend time away from each other and who can now easily see each other without having to deal with a standard “computer”. They just get calls from Dad on the TV.
My Panasonic Viera already does this with Skype and it has been wonderful for my 3-year old to be able to see and interact with his grandparents who are on the other side of the Atlantic.
So, no, this will not substitute the phone for everyday calls. Nobody wants that. That doesn´t mean that there isn´t a market or a need for it.
It would be a hell of a lot better if the protocol in use wasn´t skype, but something open and that had been subjected to serious academic scrutiny.
This is what we’re lacking. Or at least even if there’s one, apparently nobody bothered to use it. Imagine if you can do video call with a Skype user from MSN client.
I must be about the only person on the planet who loathes the idea of using a telephone – the idea of a video phone sends shivers up the spine only matched by the sight of Palin giving a speech on economic management. There something about the phone I find impersonal which makes me sooner meet the person face to face – there are a whole heap of clues which are missing when one just relies on a voice for communication.
What I do hope to a certain degree is that telecommuting undermines the current way of doing things; people get up do some work from 8:00am to 11am, spend some time doing something they want to do with friends or family or just chilling out then come back at around 4pm and then knock off at 9pm. If the role of video phone allows that to happen as to free up more time to spend with in the community then the technology will be a good tool to use.
Edited 2010-08-17 12:00 UTC
I mostly agree. For me, telephone is the worst form of communication. Next is writing (e-mail, snail mail, etc.). Video phone is next. And then face-to-face is best. My guess as to why I feel this way is that I hate the sound of my recorded voice. Telephone, being all recorded voice, sends a shiver up my spine. Personally, I wouldn’t really mind video phone (it’s the voice part that annoys me, not the video), but I don’t think it’s a good idea, because most people seem to hate it.
This is most definitely *NOT* a technological issue but rather a social and psychological one. In fact if we want to be accurate, the first video call happened in the 70’s by AT&T. This is 40 years old technology!
http://www.oreillynet.com/etel/blog/2005/04/the_problem_with_video_…