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."
Why do we even need this technology? Webcams are so cheap these days, and a good broadband connection isn't difficult to get in most areas.
And do you really want to be prank-phone-called by someone at 3 in the morning by someone not wearing any clothes?
Oops!
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.)
No no you are not most likely you do not live near one. They are kind of a Costco for electronics and computer parts. Not too many stores.
http://www.frys.com/
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Just curious - whenever some thing comes along with a "novel" method of communication - people have to immediately try to push it on my grandma.
"Have the kids call Grandma this"
"Grandma can see the kids that"
I mean, I cant even get my grandma to look at a computer - and she is mostly deaf, where email would really help her.
but she hates technology - just write a letter she says.
we all know that it will be the young technophiles that will be early adopters, so you should say things like:
"get a new girlfriend with this nifty whiz bang video phone that shows your technical prowess"
Only $499.99 for a pair!
They're gonna need more $ than that when Apple Sues them for using Aqua buttons on their site.
Visit LostBrain
tcd004
"Sir, a VideoPhone is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
Read Epic the first RPG novel.
David Foster Wallace described, in Infinite Jest, why video phones are unlikely to ever catch on, and I don't think he was the first. The great thing about the telephone is that one needn't give the person on the other end of the line one's complete attention.
On the telephone, you can look through a magazine, clip your toenails, read you email, or make a sandwich, all without the other person suspecting that you are not hanging on his or her every word. Meanwhile, you are free to maintain the illusion that the other person is giving you their undivided attention.
With video phones, it would immediately become clear that we busy 21st century people don't have the time or patience to be attentive throughout an electronic conversation. It also would make answering the phone in one's underwear riskier, and might make people feel like they needed to be made up and dressed well when in their own homes.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
How many of you want to be awakened by your boss calling you because you're late, and you have to stare at him through a camera, with your hair running every which way and eye crusties looming?
How many of you girls want to get calls from your hot date and have to show him your green exfoliating facial mask and curlers in your hair?
People like voice communication because it's easy to seem professional and mature on the other end, no matter what you are looking or feeling like. I can discuss networking plans in my shorts and undershirt at home, or order a pizza while I'm blind drunk, without fear that the other person is staring at one particular feature of me and giggling.
I predict absolutely no adoption of this for phone sex, either. You don't want to know what that sultry-sounding woman on the other end looks like.
Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
Forget about "geekiness is next to godliness," why would I need it?
The only reason I'd want the video would be to convey additional information. Like putting a document close to the camera so they can read it.
But the screen's too small for that.
My guess is that new families (if they aren't broke) will want it so they can see what their kids made in school.
What's this Submit thingy do?
If these devices were in widespread use, and if the phone companies would shoot a picture down the wire along with the caller ID information, I'd be all over it. I'd pay $20 a month for it, no problem.
The problem with caller ID in my mind has always been that it's not specific enough. Sure, I can tell that someone is calling from my office, or from my girlfriend's office, but who is it? If it's a number I don't recognize, or a business name, then immediately I can see if I want to bother picking it up.
I'd even pick up for telemarketers if the chick was hot enough. Wait, I bet people would start using stock photos of hot pr0n chicks just to get me to pick up. Scratch that.
Of course, the phone companies will never get that into play - they can't even get caller ID to work across providers, so adding a photo is out of the question, I'm sure.
What's your damage, Heather?
Still is a grocery store in Arizona and some parts of California. Not too many years back, they started opening up the computer Fry's too.
It seems that they are not expecting you to be connected to the internet while you are phoning, and if they are using the POTS, you get a maximum data-rate of 53.2kbps, which will have to carry your voice data AND the video data, both ways.
so it either means REALLY bad quality video, or really SLOW video, either of which seem quite pointless.
I videoconference every night with about ~200kbps, and the quality still can stand improvement.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
I work in a social services non profit organization. Our client services director made a big hoopla about getting a video phone inorder to do casemangement for people getting out of prison with certain diseases that fit our mission statement. After a bigger hoopla it was even installed and guess what it works. its not that bad (decent compression allows for a 240xsomething video stream to go through) along with voice but you know how many times its been used since it was installed.... 6 months ago? once, by me to make sure it works....
Into the closet it goes along with all the secure wifi *smirk* projects and other novelty things purchased before my time.
According to some reviews at USA Today and the WSJ, the product works as advertised.
Gees, Louise! I'm used to slashdotters not reading the articles before submitting comments. But I don't even think the submitter read them this time!
From USAToday's review: But based on my tests, Beamer sometimes worked and sometimes didn't. And when it did, the pixilated video could be as jittery as Jell-O.
From WSJ review: That's much better than the 1992 AT&T phone did, but it's a far cry from normal, full-motion video. In our tests, if either of us moved too much, the video resembled that old, jerky footage of astronauts on the moon. And, when the connection quality deteriorated, or was poor to begin with, the video froze up momentarily. Also, there were times when our words didn't match up with our lips -- kind of like a badly dubbed movie.
This is works as advertised? I don't think so...
GMD
watch this
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.
Face it. Grandma was a technophile in her youth. My grandmother loved her first electric typewriter. My grandfather patented devices that vastly increased efficiency at the factory he managed.
So why is Grandma a technophobe now? Because of repeated disappointments. The sexiest technologies always fail on their first couple attempts. How many times have you heard on CNN about an Old technology being put to a new use?
What's this Submit thingy do?
Where the hell do I find a Frys? Am I the only person whose never heard of the place?
Why don't you take a wild guess what their URL is? If that fails (God help you...) then you could always try a google search. If that fails, then not even God is going to waste time with you.
GMD
watch this
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!
Then the other person will wonder why you're covering up, it'll be rude if you can see him but not yourself. There's too much potential for miscommunication, while searching for privacy. More tedious etiquette would have to be developed, but quite frankly I don't want to be seen on the phone, ever. Not just occasionally, but ever.
I'm a little segfault, short and stout.
Why bother with a video stream? It's just a gimmick as far as I can tell. One of those things a crazy CEO would order for all of his staff because "it's so cool".
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
What they need with video phones is for the video camera to be behind the screen (in the top third), so you can make eyecontact. Otherwise you're just talking to someone while you're watching a video of them and it ends up being weird.
Of course, I don't think it's possible (at least not for a reasonable price) to do that yet, and that is the thing holding back videophones, and it's logical successor, telepresence/teleimmersion (I prefer the word telepresence, more appropriate).
Telepresence is where you sit in front of a videoscreen, and behind the screen is an array of video cameras. same thing on the other side (person you're "viewing"). So when you both sit down, it's just like sitting across the table from someone (in theory, at least).
So I've heard...
This product IS at last very close to being consumer friendly.
:-D
A: Invisible... Needs no extra software/hardware other than a standards compliant video phone on the other end...
B: Backwards compatible.... Works with standard phones... even rotary..
C: Non-complex... Requires no additional parts... nor includes unecasary parts.... such as including a phone as part of the unit would stop home users from being able to use their own phones easily...
D: WYSIWYG.... the device is straight forward and involves no special instructions beyond press button after phone is answered.
On the bad side
A: device reuires you to press buton and confirm if the other person has a video phone before hand... "hey you got video?", "yea, but i dont wanna link"... etc.... The phones should detect if the other has video and have a simple alert on the LCD saying "video link possible, start video?". This eliminates a user anoyance that will slow Sales...
b: the device is not high enough quality for user satisfaction.... plain and simply 15fps in best conditions is not good enough... in NY city the phone lines here are so bad i get a 28.8 connect at home... even with a 56k modem... The makers need to find a very very very high video compression algorithm... anything less just isnt gonna satisfy the user.... plus... if a better algorithm is devised in the future how compatible will these phones be?
c: the last issue is that 30 second delay when commence video... plain and simply this is the largest hurdle... and is probably technicaly required in such a manner that it may never be fixed without a major change in our phone lines. sadly this is the one that will most likely kill this best iteration.
for those saying... "why not just use my webcam"..
Web cams suck... are inconsistent as a consumer whole.. require special software and a computer, are far less mobile being tehered to a computer, are complex to set up (comparitivly), are as bad as this product in 90% of homes without the high speed bandwidth... are greatly less likely to be set-up in remote areas... etc.... The bottom line... web cams are not invisible.. and require technical maintenece/know-how....
lastly... Cell phones will probably be the way this video phoning actualy enter consumer hands... everyone buys cell phones... the advent of web services on them has introduced color and pictures to them... and the next step is simply to put small video cameras in them... like in japan...
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
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.
There's really no way to transmit much useful info over copper wires that have been at more or less the same specifications since the telephone was patented by Bell.
The future of the videophone (if there actually is a future) is wireless broadband, whether it is 3G cell phone tech (which should have the bugs worked out in a year or so or wireless networking. But it will never be popular.
This is why:
I could set up videophoney with my broadband connection right now -- and set it up for my friends too -- probably in about a day. But demand, as far as I can tell, is zilch. Let's face it: the face we put on outdoors is, for many of us that aren't naturally built and beautiful, and PITA. How wonderful it is that we can still sit around at home sweaty, stinky, and half naked and yet still interact with our friends, and they still think we are cool.
Somehow I just don't think the vid phone will *ever* catch on. The video-free phone just has so many advantates over it, why should anyone want to take a step backwards in technology?
"Face it, the only people who are going to buy these phones are no-life geeks like you. Therefore, wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy a mirror?"
"It's hell being an early adopter."
Okay okay, Scott Addams worded it better, but you get the idea.
It hasn't moved from techie toy to household item yet. And price point? Youch. $300 for one phone That's not exactly affordable. I can get 20 cordless phones or 1 phone and $285 toward the bills. Or a $50 cell phone or I can buy an XBox, PS2 or Gamecube or... Well, you get the idea. Economics have already ensured that nobody but the geeks and large corporations (with geeks) will buy this and even then they're only going to have a handful of people to "vidphone". I'll pass, thanks.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
...when she answered the phone holding a cardboard mask on a stick front of her early-morning face so as not to freighten the caller. As I recall, Jane had a closet full of masks!
I hate call waitin`~+~~~
NO CARRIER
Count your blessings.
actually said by frys's employee:
"If you are on channel 4 of your CB, anybody in the world can here you if they are on channel 4."
yes, they are that clueless.
you have been warned.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Call a random girl, say it is a bad number and send the end-of-connection video then black screen, she thinks the call is over, but you're still behind the cam!
Chances are, just like a regular phone, she'd hang up on her end too - or do you know women who, upon hearing a phone go 'click', just put it down whereever they are, thus tying up their phone line?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
During the 60's, when videophone was offered in Chicago, Bell said it wasn't successful because people let it ring on average 20 rings before answering as opposed to 4 rings for a normal phone. (Never mind that it cost $1800 per month, plus $10 per minute)...
"Look for the place where you need a season pass to get into their customer service line."
Obviously the moderator that modded me down has never been to Fry's. Heh.
"If you are on channel 4 of your CB, anybody in the world can here you if they are on channel 4."
yes, they are that clueless.
Are you sure that he wasn't just referring to the fact that anybody in the world (provided they are near you) has the ability to hear you if you are on channel four? I'm sure he realized that CB's can't transmit that far.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Apparently my memory of the 1964 Picturephone is faulty, because it says here that "The image only refreshed once every few seconds." That's sure not the way I remember it, but...
On the other hand, something doesn't quite jibe, because this article says that the bandwidth was 1,000,000 Hz, which was about one-quarter that of full broadcast EIA RS-170-A black-and-white video; so if you assume that the screen resolution was half that of broadcast in both dimensions, it should have been possible to get a full 30 fps. Or if the screen had full broadcast resolution, it should have been possible to get 7 fps, which is a far cry from "once every few seconds."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Am I nuts here, or is everyone just avoiding using better video codecs?
I mean, with something like MPEG-4, you could likely get decent video and audio over 33.6. It would be better than video over a modem since there's not going to be routers droppign packets, or any protocol overhead (ppp, ip, tcp, then rtsp, all doing their own signaling an error checking and correction)
So, what's the big problem with making decent videophones? For $300 I could build a device exactly like mentioned here, just using a cheap PC, TV output, and a cheap web cam.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Think about it:
- Costumes
- Animals
- Video feeds from other sources
Ew, video feeds... telemarketers will probably now call you with commercials. Oh boy! "Honey, the advertising alarm is going off again!"Fuck video phones. My webcam sucks but I think I'd rather stick with it.
I really would like to make some prank calls in a costume though...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
It seems that this product is behind the curve. With VoIP coming on strong and broadband leading that push, I don't see why people would people shell out $300 a pop for these. OK, it works with a regular phone and phone line, but what about the demographic that would actually buy this toy? 99% likely they have a computer, and webcams are $50 each. NetMeeting comes with MS (you can find similar free tools for *nix).
... but anyway). I have cable broadband and they have ADSL, and we are about 6000 miles apart, and it all works great.
I actually do NetMeetings on a regular basis with my in-laws so they can chat with their granddaughter (my poor 3 year old is going to grow up with a seriously distorted age gap view of the world - she regular chats on NetMeeting, only ever sees cordless or more often cell phones, already knows how to work the DVD player in my rather complex setup,
OK, it can be washy sometimes, but the review wasn't all that hot on the quality of this video phone either. The sound is just fine if you avoid feedback problems. It's a perfect use of modern tools for distant relatives to keep close at all times.
It's my own opinion that there's little or no need for the live-motion video in it's current form. It just plain sucks. The National Research Council did some work with HDTV videoconferencing that was incredible, and really gave the impresion you were right there with the person. The problem is they needed some major bucks and heavy use of CANet, Canada's high speed research and education network. This is a long time off, and is amoung the things that super high bandwidth everywhere will bring. Without the government backing that initiative, it'll never happen, though.
I argue your opinion on the webcams, though.
Like most of you out there I talk to a lot of people online.. I have a decent quality digital camcorder connected via firewire to my powerbook. I just use it to snap a picture (in high res) and upload it every couple minutes when I'm talking to someone. They can check via the web whenever if they care. Same thing applies to my PC with a cheaper, but still nice (640x480) webcam. If I have a problem, this is usually sufficient to send a picture of what I'm working on. I wish there were more tools that focused on this approach rather than the netmeeting style blurry mess.
If it's not convienent to use a webcam, a video phone is likely to be equally as inappropriate. I'd much rather one really nice frame every couple minutes or when the sender wants than the sick low-res joke h.263 and it's friends provide.
My $0.02cdn..
..don't panic
I thought the advantage to regular phones was that you can talk to people while lounging in your underwear and such.
Huh, do video-phone cameras tend to take crotch shots?
Here I figured half a shirt and pulled back hair would suffice. (you think Max Headroom wears clothes below the monitor??)
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
She was proportionate, mostly. She would've had to be 300 lbs to really be proportionate. I thought I had a picture of her on my site, but it's shoulders up only.
jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...