Slashdot Mirror
Linux Based IP Videophone
Meltoast writes "As reported in Communications Convergence Magazine, Innomedia has launched the MTA 3368 IP Videophone. It's 4-inch TFT color LCD can deliver video up to 768 kpbs and with a Linux based OS it supports video streaming, gaming, IM, HTTP, SNMP, TFTP, FTP and Telnet."
I mean, seriously. I answer my phone after doing all sorts of things and I'm not really sure I'd want my boss seeing them. Take, for example, the time he called while I was licking my phone.
Had it been a videophone that could have been MIGHTY embarassing!
And the Japanese rejoice!!!
The wonders of technology! :o)
Any prototype for a video phone I've ever seen has the option to disable / enable video broadcasting. For normal use, you probably wouldn't have to show your face, but it certainly would put a new twist on phone sex =)
Second thought. . . phone sex without video is kinda like having the lights off. Even I'm sexy with the lights off.
<:
that some idiot is going to try to use this thing while driving. And the party they're video-calling will get a unique perspective on the crash. Ugh.
I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
The big question is why it doesn't support the VoIP standard rendevouz mechanism, namely SIP, defined by RFC3261 and supported by many ip-phones software and hardware out there.
H323 is dead. Should be, anyway.
In order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks on an IP videophone running on Linux, you'd have to have such a stateful firewall running on the phone - wouldn't this be a little heavyweight for a phone? Or have they modified Linux to use the BSD TCP-stack?
"Simply plug the InnoMedia IP VideoPhone into a quality-of-service enabled broadband IP network, configure and dial. In an instant you are enjoying high-quality, face-to-face communication."
:-).
The only way I'll see this any time soon is if it gets used in the workplace. It is difficult to get Broadband period, let alone "quality-of-service"
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
Estimated pricing for the IP VideoPhone is expected to be around $1,600. Contact InnoMedia for further information.u nication/it/98 9422263.html
http://products.datamation.com/comm
Overhyped, overpriced videophone that won't sell.
If you have a broadband connection and a laptop, why on earth would you need this? The thing doesn't even use encryption.
I've seen a lot of videophones come and go. Just because it uses Linux, doesn't make it better.
Ok, it does make it better, but would you buy one?
for these phones is to call up those robot dogs to see if they are chewing the furniture or using your shoes as a urinal.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
You mean I could moon the telemarketers that call? :)
http://www.fuckedcompany.com :)
Let me get this straight...it plugs into an IP network, has a browser-accessible administrative interface (ie. it's running a web server) and requires special software to work behind a firewall, which means 99% of the general populace will run it "naked on the net.")
These phones are going to get cracked in a heartbeat.
I can see it now "Honey, why is a naked picture of Anna Kournikova set as the screensaver?"
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!"
Desktop or Laptop:
RH Linux 8.0
Gnome Meeting (it does video and audio conferencing)
Quickcam 3000
Or a Sharp Zaurus using Zmeeting
@ http://zsi2.stonekeep.com/index.php?v=d&a=696 (I believe it does video, as well as audio conferencing)
(Dear Moderators: this ain't a troll, this is about how to do video conferencing while not putting your WALLET on a diet...)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
What a rip off. This is a yuppie toy at that price.
I guess this product is for non technical people.
I can build one cheaper:
1 Wall Mart Linux PC $199.00
Video Phone Software Free on Net (Linux based)
WinTV Card $59.00
MiniCamera $60.00
Monitor $99.00
Linux Telphony gateway Software
That's it!
$1,200.00 bucks.. gee this product is overpriced
I don't see support for the new 802.somethingorother that supplies power through the RJ45 jack. So if the building power fails, but the net equipment is on a backup power system, you still lose phone service. Didn't someone say the thing was rather pricey? The competition supports the power via CAT 5 standard....
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
My real problem with any kind of teleconferencing over the internet is getting though a NAT firewall. While I may be able to set up my system to take care of it fairly easily, I can't really expect most of my clients to be willing to go to the trouble, even if they are capable of it. Most IT departments at the larger companies I work with don't return calls related to internal firewall issues, even if the call is from an employee. I'd love to hear of solutions to this problem from anyone with experience, as I can see many uses for this in my line of work, assuming it is easy for my clients.
Anyone using FTP or Telnet for any password-protected account has been a damn fool for many years. Maybe the implementors left out secure versions like ssh and scp because of export restrictions?
Now every time I call one of those 900 numbers I'll definitely know if the female? I'm talking with is a 800 pound gorilla or Pamela Anderson type =)
About 8 years ago they did a study to see how video conferencing would be used in the office. What they found was that initially it was the cool new toy. Everyone in the meeting would spend a couple minutes waving to each other and commenting on how much nicer it was to see the people they were talking to.
A few weeks after it's initial use, they found that users no longer looked up. They didn't care that the camera was on them, nor did they care that they could see who they were speaking to.
Aside from things like "show me how old Timmy has gotten" or "let's see how bad that black-eye is" I don't see these things taking off anytime soon. They're too proprietary, and nobody's going to plunk down their hard-earned cash for something that maybe 0.00001% of the people they speak with can take advantage of.
telstar
I'm currently working on bringing a new project to life that involves allowing anybody to become a telecom provider and VoIP user. Using what ever hardware/operating system platform they like. This Project would involve hardeware development as well as software. If your interested, drop me a line at VoIP@avantgardesolutions.net
Thanks.
--Mike
You have heard of Kerberos and the -x option for the client programs, right?
FTP and Telnet aren't the problem. The problem is clear-text authentication (and, depending on the situation, data streams). Other than that, they're perfectly useful protocols. Using versions that solve the clear-text issue while bringing in a whole bunch of other useful features is a viable option for a lot of situations.
"The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
Other than the fact that you'd need a good wireless connection for this...
A few idiots drive headlong into semi's, off embankments, etc...
Video phones catch their last few moments
Phone video is captured on tape, whatever
There is thereafter a very good visible deterrent. Yes, somebody will still do it, but I'm guess that some people would think twice about chatting on the videophone whilst driving after seeing a few ads of their predecessors being crushed in a metal tin can.
...with a Beowolf Cluster of these. Sorry...had to be said.
~Brian
... who would buy a video phone would be single male geeks just like yourself, wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy a mirror?
"Derp de derp."
to begin with, but do you honestly want to know what the woman you're paying $3.95/minute to talk to really looks like?
The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.
thanks man, you're da best fp brother ever!!!
H.323 should be dead, because the complexity, interoperability issues, and patent licensing fees keep small players out.
However, the consolidation of the video conferencing industry into a single major player (Polycom) means that Polycom sets the defacto standard. Why should Polycom help small players out by adopting SIP, when they've already invested the required time and money to support H.323?
SIP is popular among smaller internet telephony vendors, and of course Microsoft supports a bastardized version of SIP. Look for more SIP support from Microsoft in the near future.
MS support gives SIP credibility, but it's a double-edged sword: what kind of Window-isms will MS inject into their new SIP implementation...?
Whats this machine going to do ?
Be a boot server for machines on a LAN ???
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
The article says it's "powered by InnoMedia's patented audio and video processing technology".
In the same sentence it then says it "allows for worldwide video calls".
Seems to me that's an oxymoron. Worldwide video calls, yes, but only if the other end also has an InnoMedia phone.
Unless they make the "patented a/v technology" available for free to all, you only get to talk to their other customers. Result: Nobody buys it.
Kiss of death.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The device won an award from Wind River systems for design and innovation. The press release relating to the award suggests that this is not the Linux operating system inside this device.
Having said that, if, in fact, the OS is not Linux, that should not in any way reduce the value of the device.
For $1600.00 I damn well better get a phone that doesn't pin me within 5 feet of it just to make a normal phone call. Ha!!!
Complexity: I've implemented SIP, H.323, et al., and SIP is just as complex as H.323.
0 082.html).
Not true. I've developed two commercial SIP stacks, each about one man year. While I haven't developed an H.323 stack, I've worked with both the OpenH323 and RadVision H.323 stacks, and SIP is much, much simpler.
To wit, RFC 3261 is the largest RFC ever produced and even larger than the H.323 Recommendation.
I don't have a copy of the H.323 Recommendation because I'm not willing to buy it. However, the ITU's H.323 download page shows that the H.323 spec is 2,112,158 bytes in pdf format, while the latest SIP spec is 1,231,871 bytes. This non-conclusive evidence suggests that the H.323 spec is in fact twice as large as the SIP spec.
Add on all of the supporting RFCs and I-Ds, and you have a real mess. Folks even talk about the mess on the SIP reflectors.
H.323 has numerous annexes as well. Most SIP developers speak highly of the protocol, and while there are problems, I certainly wouldn't call it "a mess".
Interoperability: SIP is not more interoperable than H.323. Geez, I think their up to 13 or 14 interop events so far, and I've heard from those in attendance that SIP interoperability is getting harder and harder to achieve.
I have not seen these kinds of interoperability issues at the interops. I have seen many stacks fail the various torture tests, but this does not preclude interoperability. The only reason H.323 is just now achieving interoperability is because of the consolidation of the video conferencing industry into a single dominate vendor: Polycom.
Patents: There are no patents that I am aware of regarding H.323. There are, however, patent claims against some codecs used by H.323, e.g., G.723.1 and G.729, but those same codecs are also used by SIP.
One difference: H.323 requires support of patened codecs, building in a revenue source for those controlling the standard. SIP has no such codec requirements, although I agree that in practice those same codecs are used by many SIP clients.
Moreover, there are several patent claims against SIP (http://www.aful.org/wws/arc/patents/2003-01/msg0
This is certainly a potential liability, and it is indeed "aful". Interestingly, those filing patents against IETF standards tend to be frozen out of the standards process, which hopefully acts as a deterant.
Microsoft: I agree that they will hurt SIP more than help. Note that Messenger is merely SIP-based.
Hey, we agree about Microsoft! Yes, Messenger is currently SIP-based (in a bastardized way), but as I said, MS is soon moving to more fully embrace SIP. It will be interesting to see what happens...
Damn, this means I'll have to break my habit of answering the phone naked after leaping out of the shower.
Fellow programmer, greetings! You are reading a letter which will bring
you luck and good fortune. Just mail (or UUCP) ten copies of this letter
to ten of your friends. Before you make the copies, send a chip or
other bit of hardware, and 100 lines of 'C' code to the first person on the
list given at the bottom of this letter. Then delete their name and add
yours to the bottom of the list.
Don't break the chain! Make the copy within 48 hours. Gerald R. of San
Diego failed to send out his ten copies and woke the next morning to find
his job description changed to "COBOL programmer." Fred A. of New York sent
out his ten copies and within a month had enough hardware and software to
build a Cray dedicated to playing Zork. Martha H. of Chicago laughed at
this letter and broke the chain. Shortly thereafter, a fire broke out in
her terminal and she now spends her days writing documentation for IBM PC's.
Don't break the chain! Send out your ten copies today!
For example, if \thinmskip = 3mu, this makes \thickmskip = 6mu. But if
you also want to use \skip12 for horizontal glue, whether in math mode or
not, the amount of skipping will be in points (e.g., 6pt). The rule is
that glue in math mode varies with the size only when it is an \mskip;
when moving between an mskip and ordinary skip, the conversion factor
1mu=1pt is always used. The meaning of '\mskip\skip12' and
'\baselineskip=\the\thickmskip' should be clear.
-- Donald Knuth, TeX 82 -- Comparison with TeX80
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...