Slashdot Mirror
Are Video Phones Back From The Dead?
gwizah writes: "A company by the name of Vialta is peddling a new product all you future loving geek's can enjoy, A VideoPhone! Yes, Im sure you can all remember the many attempts to bring video-phonecall technology into the home or office, but unlike the flying car, you can pick up a pair at Fry's today! According to some reviews at USA Today and the WSJ, the product works as advertised. A new way to call Grandma? Or just another silly little toy to collect dust in that hall closet."
I don't think conventional phone lines can handle the data of voice and video. You'll have horrible quality on both, and is it really worth it? I'd much rather use a a quick cam and netmeeting, or equal program since i have the bandwidth to support that.
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
The wireline guys have to offer this, because the 3G cell phone people are. The 3G phones have a better data rate, too; remember, you only get 34Kb/s on a phone line. (56K modems are actually 56Kb/s down, 34Kb/s up; the host has to interface to the phone network digitally.)
This reminds me... Who would have been the first person that bought a normal phone? And who would he call, since he was the only one having a phone?
Teenagers these days don't have as much sex as they want each other to think they do.
There are 3 problems that are holding back video conferencing.
1. Commonly agreed codecs that can be expanded without breaking backward compatibility.
2. Easy to use dialing for a standalone video phone hooked up via broadband.
3. Video phones are unnatural. This I think is the biggest problem. If you are looking at the screen, you are not looking at the camera. As a result you are not making eye contact. This is very disorienting at first and takes time to get used to. The camera needs to be as close to the screen as possible, otherwise when you are talking to a girl, it will look to her like you are looking at her breasts.
Easiest solution (while not being the cheapest) is for ATT, Sprint, etc setting up on the internet Video phone router stations and people could order a phone number that works with standard phones and with video phones. If such a thing were done, they need to avoid the Token Ring style performance of current "expensive" solutions (connections are all dropped to the lowest bandwidth for multi person calls).
Burn Hollywood Burn
"The product works as advertised?"
The WSJ article says
"based on my tests, Beamer sometimes worked and sometimes didn't...when it did, the pixilated video could be as jittery as Jell-O... on none of my Beamer calls were the voice and the movement of the other party's lips in sync..."
"If both people press the button before a connection is made, the video may fail. [If you get it right] there's an uncomfortable silence for between 15 and 45 seconds.... the audio resumes when the person at the other end shows up on screen... If the person does show up, that is. My initial efforts to connect with my father-in-law repeatedly failed, until Vialta replaced the unit I had sent him."
Have our standards for "computerish" devices fallen so low that Slashdot considers THAT to be "working as advertised?"
I personally used a Picturephone at the World's Fair in 1964. To the best of my recollection, the picture was black-and-white, and small (perhaps 5" wide by 7" high--it was in portrait orientation). But it was razor sharp, had a good grayscale, and looked pretty much like good live television--I'm sure it was a 30 fps rate or close to it.
Oh, and the audio on the 1964 Picturephone was perfectly lip-synced. OF COURSE. I didn't even think about it at the time, I took it for granted.
Until I read the article, it had never even crossed my mind that there could BE a videophone that WASN'T lip-synced.
To work, a videophone has got to give you a closer emotional experience than voice alone. A jittery non-lip-synced picture is going to be a distraction and, I would think, would INCREASE your perception of emotional distance.
It's not enough for these new gadgets to be affordable and easily self-installed on a phone line. If they can't match the "user experience" of a 1964 Picturephone I'd say they're dead in the water.
Remember the scene in "2001: A Space Odyssey" where Dr. Floyd is talking to his daughter on, IIRC an "AT&T Picturephone?" It's 2002 now, why don't we have them yet?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
If you've never been to EPCOT at Walt Disney World, the attraction called Spaceship Earth (it's the REALLY BIG golf ball) is a slow-moving ride about the progress of communication. It is, of course, sponsored by AT&T.
Throughout this attraction you pass animatronic exhibits that show the discovery of fire, the history of written works, the dark ages, and the renaissance. Then they show television, telephones, and other modern inventions.
After a view of the top of the inside of big ball (it's like a planetarium), you go through some highly (AT&T branded) exhibits about "what's next for communication in the near as well as the not-so-distant future.
Do you know what they displayed? VIDEO PHONES, AND NOTHING BUT THEM! There must be at least 5 exhibits showing off video phones, and no other improvements in technology. The discovery of fire only got one exhibit! After a contemplative look about the history of the transfer of information over thousands of years, I thought to myself, "is the best they can come up with is VIDEO PHONES?"
Once we get video phones, is that it? We are communication-complete? I don't get it. Videophones are obviously NOT the future. It is blatant hype and although it seems like the obvious next step (like radio->television), it is not. I'm out of ideas, but video phones are nothing but hype.
This sig provides no comical value.
Actually, current research suggests that there is an asymmetry in our sensitivy to eye contact. In fact, humans seem to be less sensative when someone is looking below their eyes (I don't think the asymmetry covers where men look, though). Some folks at Stanford looked into it - look here.
On the Beamer, it appears that the camera is located just above the screen. It might be a coincidence, but this is the best setup to take advantage of the asymmetry. Add to that the small screen and eye contact is probably not an issue at all.
Still don't know if people really want video phone calls though...
Never underestimate the power of fiber.