After 46 Years Of Unfulfilled Hype And Promises, Is Video Calling Finally Ready?
from the and-here-we-go-again dept
With the recent launch of the HTC Evo and (more importantly) the announcement of the iPhone 4 -- both of which include front-facing cameras and video calling software -- lots of people are now asking (yet again) if video calling is finally going to catch on. Of course, everyone points to same things: it's been a long time since AT&T introduced the first video phone, back in 1964. Six years ago, on the 40th anniversary of AT&T's intro of the phone, I wrote a column that was skeptical of the 2004 hype around video calling. You may (or may not) recall that when various UK mobile operators were all rolling out their 3G networks, video calling was a big selling point. And, as I noted in that column, the only people who seemed to be using it, were guys calling up women to expose themselves (see? ChatRoulette users exposing themselves is nothing new...).And, of course, lots of folks are pointing out all of the standard reasons why video calling has never taken off: people don't want to have to "look good" just to use the phone. They don't want to have to even think about it. Slashdot points us to a typical story about how people in the UK won't adopt it -- and that's no surprise. As I noted in that column six years ago, it was all the rage (from operators) in the UK, and almost no one used it. So the UK has already gone through this whole video calling craze.
Now, as someone who's been skeptical of video calls for ages, I'll admit that I'm still skeptical of this go around. But... I may finally be hedging those bets, and admitting that I can see some uses for video calling. I just don't think it's what most people think they'd use it for. I still don't see any real market for your everyday video calling, adding video functionality to the calls people make on a daily basis. There's just so little benefit, and enough potential downside that I just don't see people doing it. But I can see some interesting other uses, including opening up new possibilities. For example: tech support. I can't count the number of times I've had to call my home broadband provider to complain about downtime -- and the conversation almost always involves "what are the lights on the modem doing" or "where is this cable plugged into" or whatever. I could definitely see value in just being able to show them what's going on. Same thing with calls to doctors. Your kid has a rash? Why not do a video call with a nurse to see if you really need to bring him into the doctor? And, of course, as more and more people have discovered with webcams, you have a whole new world of communicating via video (it's becoming more important for families, for example) -- and people will use video phones to set up more mobile video services for broadcasting themselves live to larger audiences (rather than just one to one).
Beyond the standard "vanity" and "looks" reasons why video calling never took off, there was really an infrastructure problem. You had a serious "empty room" problem. No one would buy a video phone if no one else had one. But what's happening now is that smartphones are becoming advanced enough that people are happily buying them for a whole variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the video calling. And, because of that, the infrastructure to do more regular video calls is actually becoming more widespread. With ubiquitous built-in video for phones, I can actually see more people starting to use it. I still don't think most people will use it on everyday calls. In fact, I still don't think it will really be that big of a feature in terms of usage. But I'm not yet convinced that it will totally crash and burn this time around. Could it be... after 46 years.. that some element of video calling's time has come?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: video calling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
skype uses the internet which isn't real, and computers, which are just a fad.
also, people who use skype are stealing phone service. who wants to video call a bunch of phone pirates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Skype already does this very well, for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course my phone it internet based too, so if my internet is down I need to send tech support a letter :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The tech nerds on the other hand, and those that are hard core "Free" people will use skype. with the way net neutrality is going you will see a decreased performance in video quality, etc... just like with VoIP calls from vonage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
facing the wrong way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: facing the wrong way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: facing the wrong way
Well, I imagine that if two people have never met video calling can be used to first introduce them to each other. There could be some phone dating services going on here that use video calling perhaps, or perhaps people can use it to introduce friends to other friends.
The thing is that when you talk to someone on the phone you probably already know how they look, so you don't learn anything new from looking at them. But when that person is showing you something on the phone they are likely showing you something new that they believe you haven't seen before or because they think it is easier and quicker to express what they are looking at with a video than with words to help you better identify what they are looking at (ie: tech support).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: facing the wrong way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: facing the wrong way
Your setup would alleviate that, I suspect, but it'd have to be a particular mount, and require that the other party would pay attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: facing the wrong way
HEY... TREE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: facing the wrong way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: facing the wrong way
But the ability to quickly/temporarily 'show something to the other person' could open up all sorts of compelling uses in medicine, technical support, etc.
To be useful, it would require being able to turn the camera on/off easily during the call ("Just a sec, let me show you what I see...") and to use both front and rear cameras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The company I work at has had video cameras on every PC and every conference room for 4 years now, and they simply aren't used for interoffice calls. We have clients that occasionally want to make use of it, but the vast majority still prefer Phones + computer meetings like Webex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sexting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sexting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO this is why they spent a billion on the g20 crap
so instead of a major video conferance they spend on a fake lake
and ya know we actually discussed why terrorists would want to kill the 3300 journalists holed up in and aorund this so called lake and ....we thought they neeed people to report the bombings right?
LOL
so instead of actually showing these people canada they BUY and have hollywood create it for them.
HOPE THEY realize that IT IS NOT CANADA.
and
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24376152-HST-Tshirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still remember video phones...
- You could only use it with a certain brand
- Latency was a huge turnoff
- Once you buy it, there were certain fees (broadband) that increased the price significantly.
------------------------------
All in all, it wasn't a good purchase. Perhaps if AT&T or Panasonic or whoever sold phones could make a universal standard that would fit the phones. Sadly, collusion on this front would interfere with profit even if it's for a greater good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And working around that by limiting video calling to wireless (IPhone) will not make people take it up much more either. If you are near a wireless router you can access for vid calling, you are probably near a PC with a cam where you can get 30 times bigger/better picture
Latest mobile phones with vid calling will be just another useless feature and will remain so until the telco’seriously upping their capacity/reliability, maybe when they start rolling out ‘8G’?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once millions of people have the new iPhone everyone is going to want to try out the video call, so there will be a sudden rash of use, but I think soonafter it will stop as people realize there just isn't much merit to staring at a talking head while you converse.
In fact, as I sit here with my iPhone in my hand, pretending i'm on a video call, it just feels awkward. I don't think the psychology of audio-only phone calls is going to be erased any time soon.
It will have its use for special events and situations, but I doubt it will become the new standard for phone calls for a long time, if ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because...
...not seeing the other person is a BENEFIT, don't you get it?
1) without video, it's easier to tell lies (to one's wife about where the person is; to a rejected applicant that "we will call you next week", etc etc etc);
2) in about 90% of all calls, people just don't feel like being seen. Take me for example -- on most of the incoming calls I take, I'm not groomed, shaved, dressed, or all of the above; most of the outgoing calls, I make while on the loo (need to use that time for something useful, you know).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T cannot handle Video Traffic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heck, many of us don't even use our cellphones to call people. No, we have gone back to writing words via text messages or using services such as BlackBerry Messenger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ease of use and interoperability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Showing peope things?
Because it costs too much.
In the UK, I could "show you" via a videocall at 50p a minute. Ouch. Or I could send you an MMS, for 10p.
If I need to show you, which method will I choose?
MMS costs have gone down, and when I last checked the number of MMS messages being sent was going up. (Services like twitpic may be changing that.)
The argument against "show me" via MMS is the low resolution of an MMS. But video resolution isn't much higher in this case.
Frankly, if I need to show you for anything diagnostic, a picture uploaded to twitpic or emailed to you is the better option.
Video calling isn't wanted socially, because it's intrusive and expensive. If you make it cheap, it merely becomes intrusive. Video call me and I'm likely to not answer, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
I've had the option to video call for a long time now, and never made or received one. I don't think that's about to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Showing peope things?
I've so far used it once, purely to test it out, though the quality was lousy. Lack of any real reason to use it, along with it being rather expensive put it firmly into the category of "nice-but-useless toy". The fact that 95% of my friends had no facility to do video calls also contributed to its lack of use. Add to that the problems of talking/hearing when using it for video (who wants to see my ear close-up?) (although you could use a hands-free to get round that) and it really hasn't been a killer app by any measure.
But then, I don't use MMS either, mainly because phones seem such a pain to actually configure to work with it (and I used to work in customer support on this!). Plus I'm not 20 any more, so again, just gadget-y :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holding the phone ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some people may have little to do and want to watch people talk, but I have crap to get done. I don't have time to watch scripted television, let alone a relative recapping how they've been working on their garden.
At least with Twitter, I can skim past people's small talk banter ... but on a phone, I'm an audience of one that should respond, and if you add video then I'm on performance to not only pretend like I'm listening ... but now I'd have to pretend like I care!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's all the hype?
In fact, my carrier makes no differentiation between video and voice calls as far as pricing is concerned.
Hence the disappointment many expressed here when the iPhone was released with no front ca,era - what werre they thinking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video Calling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two Way Wrist Radios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
video calling be standard in 46 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]