Audio/Video Conference with iChat and AIM

Ya right by QuaZar666 · 2004-02-05 07:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't see standard POTS phones going away anytime soon as much as a I wish it would. People still use fax machines, impact printers, and dialup. Before POTS can go completly away we would first need to get rid of at least fax machines and dialup.

Re:Ya right by GNUguy · 2004-02-05 08:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Dilaup wont go away any time soon, I work for a small ISP who's nitch is the little country towns who can't get DSL or cable because their population make it not worthwhile.

So I predict dialup will be around for at least another 5 years.

-G

--
A man, a plan, a canal, panama
Re:Ya right by The+Ancients · 2004-02-05 08:01 · Score: 2, Funny

What's a 'fax' machine? Is that like an online dictionary?
..k

--
The Mothership
Re:Ya right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-05 08:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

at least 5 years... that isn't a very long time. I think dialup will be around for another 15-20 years and that is based on the fact that a large part of the population is content with just dialing up and checking email and disconnecting.

Your companies niche is those small towns... maybe in 5 years they will have access for DSL, but the DSL price isn't for everyone.
Re:Ya right by Archfeld · 2004-02-05 08:17 · Score: 2, Informative

difference in DSL and cable prices ? Where...same cost where I am, an arm and a leg, plus your first born, and both rising, like 15 % in the last year, GO BUSH GO, let's deregulate some more to save consumers money and drive competition.

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Re:Ya right by Dictator+For+Life · 2004-02-05 08:20 · Score: 1

Before POTS can go completly away we would first need to get rid of at least fax machines and dialup.
We need to do more than that. I looked at a house this week that still had a rotary phone: not because the phone system in the area couldn't handle touch-tone, but because the homeowner - an elderly woman - didn't care for newfangled flibberty-jibbets.
The vast majority of people will have to *want* to ditch traditional phone systems before they finally do get ditched. Taco's got geek blinders on if he doesn't realize that early adopters are just that: early.

--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Re:Ya right by nat5an · 2004-02-05 10:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just my two cents, but unless it works almost exactly like an ordinary telephone, people won't be interested in using it. That is to say it has to "just work." No booting up computers, configuring peripherals, setting a proxy server, opening a port in your firewall, getting someone's IP address, etc. A techie might be comfortable with doing that, and I could see this catching on in a corporate environment, but for Joe Homeuser, seems like a lot of hassle, at this point. That said, if it's not significantly more complicated than a cellphone, it could catch on within 10-20 years, if it's cheaper or a lot more useful.

--
Head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums...
Re:Ya right by Selecter · 2004-02-05 11:34 · Score: 1

Keep in mind that 55% of the country's population are *STILL* not on the internet, and of those, the great majority do want want anything to do with the internet.
Plain old phones will be with us for quite a while. Sometimes a bit of perspective is needed.
Re:Ya right by Selecter · 2004-02-05 11:45 · Score: 1

Duh. Should read: "....majority do not want anything to do with the internet".
No communication system in this world can make up for a addled mind. :D
Re:Ya right by sessyargc · 2004-02-05 12:39 · Score: 1

FAX! it wont die anytime soon. (BTW, its one of the Ten Technologies That Refuse to Die [http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/04/18623 1&mode=nested&tid=126&tid=134] discussed yesterday)

DIALUP! IMO will never go away. I envision that the true hackers will still be using dialup even if high speed DSL is widely available.

--
- not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted

Re:no end to analog by rainman_bc · 2004-02-05 07:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Didn't you learn ANYTHING watching the A-Team? I recall almost every third episode they hacked a landline with a phone tap :)

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Redefine Video Chat on the PC side... by alohaglide · 2004-02-05 07:51 · Score: 1

This promises to truly redefine video chat on the PC. I couldn't get over how crisp and clear everything was on iChat the first time I tried it out.

End of analog? by Godeke · 2004-02-05 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Didn't anyone read the "technologies that refuse to go away" article? Analog phones have so many advantages over digital technology that I find it hard to believe they will go away anytime soon.

1. Ubiquity: not just in the US, but world wide. The analog phone network links many countries that will take a long time to bring enough bandwidth to make digital conversations useful. Even in the US, there are a *lot* of places where you can't get broadband. If you are doing video you *need* broadband. If you are doing voice, you *want* broadband for the lower latency.

2. Reliability: with the exception of *major* disasters (which would bring any network down) the analog phone system just works. I keep one corded phone in the house because it works when the power goes out. (Handy, say, to call the electrician on.) My PC will last 15 minutes on battery backup: not what I want to rely on if I come home to a dark house. My local cable provider has "digital phone" service which has outage issues at least once a month, and sometimes weekly. My cell phone is likewise prone to sudden disconnects, but I put up with it for the sake of being mobile.

3. Quality of Service: I have a few friends too cheap to pay for long distance who like to voice chat over Yahoo and other services. It works. Kinda. Except when it doesn't, and drops the connection, or crashes or makes my sound card cry. But even when it works, it sounds bad.

That isn't to say these are insurmountable problems. The analog phone network is mostly digital at it's core, so it isn't a matter of technology, per se. Instead, it is the attempt to shoehorn voice over IP, and particularly over the laggy, drop prone and quirky public Internet. Voice is almost there, if you have good broadband. Video is a joke still: it reminds me of Internet radio about 4 years ago, mostly a novelty. It is going to take a lot of work at the infrastructure layer to make digital VOIP and video a common occurrence that is relied upon, instead of as a novelty, or in applications where people put the infrastructure in place themselves (tele-medicine, big companies with video conferencing between T1 connected locations, etc).

--
Sig under construction since 1998.

Re:End of analog? by sockit2me9000 · 2004-02-05 08:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Points two and three are no longer necessarily true. The analogue phone network is the single most complex network on the face of the earth. The Internet is evolving and will most likely overtake the POTS but today the intricacy of the phone network is boggling. Think about it: You can pick up a phone anywhere in the world and call anyone else anywhere and have a near real time conversation. And this was achieved over half a century ago! The problem today is that the older people who originally designed and implemented these systems are now almost all retired and left in its place are those people who are now more technicians than designers and don't understand the intricacies of the network. And the network is overloaded now, in a way that can cause failures due to very tiny and subtle problems. As more and more of these old guards are forced into retirement--the ones that understood both the scale and the complexity and had been a part of the jury-rigging of the structure as it began to balloon-- I think we're going to see a huge drop in the dependancy of the phone service, both through reliability and quality of service in the near future. With our current rate of growth I see it happening within the decade. And this is when digital/internet phone will just be becoming viable. I think the phone companies have a lot to worry about right now.
Re:End of analog? by pHDNgell · 2004-02-05 09:14 · Score: 1

2. Reliability

[...]

3. Quality of Service

You know, last time I was doing a video chat with my friends in Australia, I had the audio drop out a couple times for a few seconds. This mainly happened during a file transfer (I have IDSL, which puts me at the bottom of the requirements for video chat).

I thought this was a bit annoying, but then I remembered the last time I used my mobile phone...

--
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
Re:End of analog? by mbbac · 2004-02-05 10:07 · Score: 1

All of your other points are good, but Ichat isn't Yahoo. The voice chat is amazing. I haven't bought an Isight yet so I can't say much about the video -- except it was pretty neat to play with in the Apple Store once.

--
mbbac
Re:End of analog? by edwdig · 2004-02-05 10:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

To support your theory, here's a story I heard from my Uncle, who retired from Verizon about a year or two ago. He worked there for over twenty years. I forget the original company he started working for, but he ended up in Verizon after several mergers.

In the past, management positions were awarded to people who worked their way up through the ranks. That meant they understood how the phone networks worked, and in a crises, knew how to fix the problems.

Now, people are hired straight into management positions. When there's a crisis, they don't know what to do. They give orders which don't help the problem. The people below them ignore their orders and do what needs to be done. In the end, the problem gets solved and the management is unaware of why it really got solved.
Re:End of analog? by pyros · 2004-02-05 10:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Are you smoking crack? Do yo not realise that the quality wireless networks in the Eastern hemisphere because they don't have the same ubiquitous, affordable, reliable PSTN that we enjoy here? See, the U.S. spent load of time and money investing in public infrastructure like the PSTN, and cable networks, and highway systems. In turn, we created a situation where the services are so good, we're having trouble progressing past them. In regions where this infrastructure wasn't created, you see greater broadband penetration than we do. You see better wireless phone networks than we get.

AOL Users by nick_davison · 2004-02-05 07:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?

No. This market segment probably never used telephones anyway. AOL users just drooled in bland confusion at their complicated number pads, while Mac users couldn't understand why the peripheral had more than one button.

Re:AOL Users by MikeXpop · 2004-02-05 07:56 · Score: 1

I actually thought this was kinda funny. Although you're forgetting something. AOL kiddies are v3ry f4m1l14r to the numb3r p4d, if you catch my drift.

I can just see them now, typing out the persons name.

--
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.

phones by flynt · 2004-02-05 07:51 · Score: 4, Funny

Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?

If I remember Taco, you're still on dial-up, so we better not be nearing the end, for your sake.

Re:phones by The+Ancients · 2004-02-05 08:05 · Score: 2, Funny

If I remember Taco, you're still on dial-up, so we better not be nearing the end, for your sake.
What about for our sake?
..k

--
The Mothership
Re:phones by gryphokk · 2004-02-05 09:35 · Score: 1

Nice username.

Yes fan?

--
And you, madam, are very ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.

Cell Phones ? by rhino_badlands · 2004-02-05 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

i think cell phones already broke that barrier long long ago, most college kids now have a cell phone rather then getting a phone for their dorm or house/apartment. And i also know that alot of other people are doing this aswell for home and buisness.

--
- MOSKIE

Re:Cell Phones ? by Skye16 · 2004-02-05 08:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Kind of interesting that I went the exact opposite route. I was sick of carrying the little bastard around, sick of being tethered to it, sick of having to check my voice mail every five minutes or else get the inquisition from family members for failing to respond to their call. I'm not much of a fan of the phone, and the fact that I had no excuse to leave it behind bothered me even more. I'll stick with my land line, thanks, but I'd still prefer not to use it unless there's ane emergency.
Re:Cell Phones ? by davidhan · 2004-02-05 08:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

In countries that don't have a high percentage of land line penetration, wireless comm often expand at a faster rate and overtake land lines. Its easier and cheaper to roll out cell networks than it is to lay cable to everyone house.
Re:Cell Phones ? by leifm · 2004-02-05 08:34 · Score: 1

We still have our landline because my s/o needs to dial in to work occasionaly, which is better than driving 35 miles into the city at 3AM. Aside from that we probably wouldn't keep it.

--

"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
Re:Cell Phones ? by Del+Vach · 2004-02-05 08:40 · Score: 1

Count me on that one. With just the cell I'm saving about $30/month for a phone I never used.

Plus I've lived in three zip codes over the last three years, and never had to give out a new number.

But most importantly, no telemarketers! (well, maybe two or three)
Re:Cell Phones ? by 74nova · 2004-02-05 08:55 · Score: 1

most definitely. that's me too. not only that, but since my wife has one too, i know she can call anytime she is broken down in the middle of nowhere on teh way out of this forsaken college town(ever been to stillwater?).

free long distance, no telemarketers(i got pissed at one guy for calling it, he was the only one since), and wherever i am, its a local call for my family(tho this took a great deal of convincing over a year or so for my mother). ive convinced the wife that i NEED cable access for my major (which is probably true), so no need for dialup. cable is actually cheaper than a land line + access.

i see little reason for anyone to own a real phone anymore, unless coverage sucks where you are. okay, there are probably reasons, but not for me. i save money and its more convenient.

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Re:Cell Phones ? by Wedge1212 · 2004-02-05 09:09 · Score: 1

This is true. I hardly use my apartment land line for anything. I use my cell for long distance calls and local calls. I really cant explain why. I just do. It probably has to do with the fact that the phone is right there with you and you dont have to remember a number. However, landlines are great in power outages and other instances where digital communcation would be inturrupted. Plus most older people, lets say 40+, dont rely on cell phones or IM clients nearly as much as we do. The only 40 year olds I know who use an IM client are fellow techies and my mom . Its funny because she only wanted to try it out because my sister and I use it all the time. Its just not the same experience for her because she only has family members on there...so a buddy list of 5 doesnt make much sense.

--
See Sig! See Sig Zig! Zig Sig Zig!!!!!
Re:Cell Phones ? by Spyky · 2004-02-05 10:00 · Score: 1

I'm a college student and I have done this (although I have a land line right now). Mostly it is because I never seem to live in one place for more than 9 months. And it is a pain in the ass to keep switching phone service, paying installation costs, etc.

If cell phone service were just a little more reliable, I think I lot more people would go this route.

-Spyky
Re:Cell Phones ? by CatOne · 2004-02-05 10:43 · Score: 1

Get a bluetooth phone and use it for your modem on her laptop (with bluetooth adapter). Piece of cake on my PowerBook.

911? by Beatbyte · 2004-02-05 07:52 · Score: 4, Funny

Nope. Why?

Guy A : "OMG I just cut off my leg! Call 911!"
Guy B : "Can't man the latest Windows worm is destroying the 'net"
Guy A : "Oh ok I'll wait.

--
Get paid to code OSS

Re:911? by CrazyTalk · 2004-02-05 08:14 · Score: 1

Except, chances are someone in the room has a digital cell phone they can use to call 911. And all over the country, 911 systems are being upgraded so they can identify the location of the caller (which was a big advantage of using landlines to call for emergencies in the past)
Re:911? by happyfrogcow · 2004-02-05 08:19 · Score: 1

bleh. I don't know why the parent is modded flaimbait. Is it not true that Windows worms have crippled the Internet in the past? Is it not true that people do need to call 911 on occasion? I don't think it's too far fetched to think of the parents post comming true if analog phone lines were taken out of service and videoconferencing over the public Internet became a primary means of communication (which is what taco implied).
Re:911? by Beatbyte · 2004-02-05 08:31 · Score: 1

yes because when i have my leg cut off, i'm going to rely on chance on whether or not i'm going to die by bleeding to death.

--
Get paid to code OSS
Re:911? by blogboy · 2004-02-05 08:49 · Score: 1

Don't know about you, but my cable modem service has been *much* more reliable than landline phone. And when the landline phone dies it takes *days* for a repair. Plus I'm playing over $70/month for it. It's a relic technology. Moving to Vonage this week...
Re:911? by sryx · 2004-02-05 09:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Well if you put Windows in the mix it might sound like this.

Guy A: "OMG I just cut off my leg! Call 911!"
Guy B: "Ok ok one sec, I got to boot up Windows!"
Guy A: "Oh the pain the pain!!!"
Guy B: "Man chill out, Windows is still booting, because I'm to cheap to own a land line or a cell phone I'm also too cheap to get a fast computer"
Guy A: "I think I can see a light down a dark tunnel"
Guy B: "Ok Windows is up, now lets see..."
Clippy: "I noticed you are bleading to death, would you like help?"
Guy A: "I'm so sorry I never gave enough to the poor, God, please forgive me, my life has been meaningless, I just want to know you before I die"
Guy B: "Woah, slow down there Guy A, I'm trying to call 911, Just need to get Clippy to leave me alone"
Clippy: "I noticed you are trying to atone for you sins before you blead to death, would you like help?"
Guy B: "Well, would you like help with your atonment?"
Guy A:...
Guy B: "Crap, I need a faster PC"
Clippy: "I noticed that you have a dead friend in your living room, would you like me to despose of the body?"

-Jason
Re:911? by Beatbyte · 2004-02-05 10:46 · Score: 1

I've NEVER had my phone line go out. EVER. (knocking on all wood surfaces within 1 square mile...brb) ...ok I'm back. And I'm on Sprint. So I'm really surprised I've never had problems.

--
Get paid to code OSS
Re:911? by Beatbyte · 2004-02-05 10:49 · Score: 2, Funny

Don't forget you MUST activate your copy of MS-Voip otherwise you can just sit there and watch him die.

--
Get paid to code OSS
Re:911? by pyros · 2004-02-05 11:23 · Score: 2, Funny

You got it all wrong.

Guy A : "OMG I just cut off my leg! Call 911 !"
Guy B : "No you didn't! It's just a flesh wound."

Re:no end to analog by viking099 · 2004-02-05 07:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

That and most people don't like the idea of having to look at whoever they're talking to, or have who they're talking to looking at them.

Who here even stays seated the entire time they're on the phone anyway? Cordless phones were a huge hit for a reason; it lets people do other things when they're on the phone, although that can be a bad thing (like when you're talking to someone and you realize they're using the bathroom) Yeah. Video phones won't be very useful outside of business transactions.

Re:no end to analog by cayenne8 · 2004-02-05 07:52 · Score: 1

Well, I just got cable internet..dropping my dsl...and experimenting with just using cell phone. If it works out under my current phone plan..I think I'm gonna drop the land line..

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Not a chance by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-02-05 07:52 · Score: 4, Informative

Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?

Not anytime soon, as long as (1) IP-based applications remain best-effort solutions, (2) IP stuff remain significantly more insecure than phone connections (that's quite a low standard to achieve, but still) and (3) any relevant part of the rest of the world doesn't want to switch to VoIP (i.e. everybody who doesn't enjoy the standard of living found in the 5-10 most developed countries in the world).

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re:Not a chance by mbbac · 2004-02-05 10:10 · Score: 1

MCI does everything VoIP. It's just that no one knows it or needs to know it.

--
mbbac
Re:Not a chance by AntiTuX · 2004-02-05 10:50 · Score: 1

I used to be a phone tech. You have no idea how easy it is for me to eavesdrop on your conversations. Go down to best buy, buy a cheap phone, a couple of alligator clips, and you can make yourself a buttset. All you need to open a house box is a pair of needle-nose pliers, and hook up to the correct pair, and you're gravy.

VOIP is MUCH more secure than copper will EVER be. Sorry, but it's the truth.

Not likely the end... ever. by reiggin · 2004-02-05 07:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Remember that very recent article on here about technologies that refuse to die? 100 years from now, analog phones will be on that list. iChat/AIM is great but my mother will never use it. Same can be said for VoIP.

Re:Not likely the end... ever. by MacFury · 2004-02-05 07:58 · Score: 3, Funny

about technologies that refuse to die? 100 years from now, analog phones will be on that list. iChat/AIM is great but my mother will never use it
Is your mother likely to be around in 100 years?
Re:Not likely the end... ever. by reiggin · 2004-02-05 08:00 · Score: 1

She's mighty spry. I'll let you know.
Re:Not likely the end... ever. by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-02-05 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

iChat/AIM is great but my mother will never use it. Same can be said for VoIP.

I say bull.

There are 3 things that count with new technologies : (1) the technology, (2) packaging, (3) packaging. If you package VoIP in the form of a telephone set that plugs into the wall, doesn't take a genius to configure and provides the same sort of service (no choppiness, somewhat okay phone quality, and the ability to dial a number), your mom will use it.

The best example is the Tivo : it's 20+ years people have been able to record shows at predefined times with VHS recorders, even sometimes using barcodes printed in TV guides so you don't have to program your VCR yourself. Yet that sort of application is only taking off since Tivo and ReplayTV, because they realized they should take the basic idea and turn it into a box that connects onto some wall socket, asks your zip code to configure itself, dials, do everything for you, and then present you with menus and things that a 6 year old can understand. But in the end, Tivo boxes are VCRs on steroid. The success comes from the packaging.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Not likely the end... ever. by rmlane · 2004-02-05 08:12 · Score: 1

I hope for your sake that a 100 years from now your mother be a "dead technology" as well as the analogue phone.
Re:Not likely the end... ever. by reiggin · 2004-02-05 10:48 · Score: 1

Man, you guys sure do have it out for my mom. Did she ground you as much as she did me??
Re:Not likely the end... ever. by jaysones · 2004-02-05 12:59 · Score: 1

My mother DOES use iChat. She can barely turn on her computer, but she understands that she can nag me and my sister at almost any time for free with iChat.
Re:Not likely the end... ever. by cmodcmodcmod · 2004-02-05 14:27 · Score: 1

I can't comment on *your* mother, but *my* mother is already using it. Granted with my help in setting it up.

I can attest that iChat AV works well. So well that it's the only way I've communicated with my family back in the states for the last 8 months living over here in Tokyo.

Actually, not only is my mother using it, but so is my 84 year old grandmother and 87 year old grandfather. Anyone who is knocking video chat technologies clearly a) doesn't own a mac, b) has never used iChat over broadband. It works.
Re:Not likely the end... ever. by reiggin · 2004-02-05 18:01 · Score: 1

I own a mac and I use iChat.
I was not knocking video chat tech at all. My only comment was directed towards the predicted end of analog telephone (aka landline). I don't see it happening. Time will prove me right or wrong. So be it.
The comment about my mother never using iChat AV or VoIP was an aside; not directly related to the supposed eventual death of analog phones. I only used the comment to support the idea that there will continue to be a need for landlines so long as there are those who do not adopt the new, superior technology. Perhaps your mother and grandparents make great use of "video chat technologies." Wonderful. But not all people do or will. It's a niche, not a replacement. Still, I don't believe I was ever "knocking" the technology. Only pointing out that it is not ubiquitious and that I do not believe it will be for quite some time. I hope I'm wrong, though.

At least AOL is supporting us.... by LnxAddct · 2004-02-05 07:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

If your running Linux and go to their site you'll see that they have a linux version and they keep it updated:) Wonder if it has these new features.
Regards,
Steve

Re:At least AOL is supporting us.... by reiggin · 2004-02-05 07:58 · Score: 4, Informative

It doesn't. AIM for Linux is like using AIM for Windows 95. It kinda sucks. GAIM is much better, IMHO. There are others out there, too. It'd be interesting to know if any of the OSS guys plan on rolling these video chat features into their clients, though.
Re:At least AOL is supporting us.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-05 07:59 · Score: 2, Informative

The Linux version has never supported audio/video. I would like to think that they would start supporting us now, but I'm not getting my hopes up. About the only comprable tool for this on Linux which will allow us to at least have video chat with Windows users is Gnomemeeting.
Re:At least AOL is supporting us.... by LnxAddct · 2004-02-05 09:53 · Score: 1

Your obviously ashamed of not using linux Mr. Anonymous Coward. And yes actually Slashdot is known for being a majority linux/unix news group. We don't announce every windows release, but we do announce every kernel update and FreeBSD release. We interview kernel developers and follow Linus arund the globe. We are cited in the media as being the center of discussion in the open source world, which tends to imply Linux. Slashdot was also mentioned several times in reference with MyDoom because we are known to be linux centric. Its like in the FAQ Cmdr Taco says that this website is based around America but anyone from anywhere is welcome and so are their stories.Well this website is based around Linux users but anyone using any OS is welcome here (but be prepared for "constructive" criticism like this :) ). I don't know if Taco has stats somewhere but I'm fairly certain there'd be alot more mozilla/linux then internet explorer/windows users.
Regards,
Steve
Re:At least AOL is supporting us.... by aastanna · 2004-02-05 14:48 · Score: 1

[Gnome|Net]meeting is a poor substitute for video conferencing through a instant messanger program, if only because you have to go through the trouble of looking up your IP and sending it to the other person every time (my IP always changes). It's just annoying.

I personally use my powerbook most of the time, but I don't really like iChat. I use Proteus because of the support for multiple protocols and the cool transparent background (blue transparent windows with white text look awesome). I just wish every client would support audio video conferencing....I wonder if the AIM/iChat protocol is open, I'd love to see GAIM and Proteus implement it.

Not in Software Update... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-05 07:52 · Score: 1, Informative

FYI-- the new version is not available from Software Update. it's a beta v.21 available from here.

Apple release iChat for Windows, world goes blind by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-05 07:52 · Score: 5, Funny

I don't want to see half of the people I chat with... My poor world depends on coolgrl973 being the cute one in that picture!

"...end of the analog phone system?" by Bradee-oh! · 2004-02-05 07:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

Not quite yet. The analog phone system will persist until there is a replacement that is not only superior in cost and flexibility but also in ease of use. I can pick up my phone and dial a friend's number and be connected within seconds. If my computer is off or I am not logged into AIM, the process of connecting with them becomes slower and more complicated than dialing their digits.

--
"This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com

Re:"...end of the analog phone system?" by The+Ancients · 2004-02-05 08:07 · Score: 1

That's ok - with Bluetooth, the handset will be on your fridge...
..k

--
The Mothership
Re:"...end of the analog phone system?" by Suidae · 2004-02-05 08:42 · Score: 1

If my computer is off

You allow your computer to turn off?

Weirdo.
Re:"...end of the analog phone system?" by 74nova · 2004-02-05 09:09 · Score: 1

agreed on the level of telephone versus IM. however, i think cell phones add a complication to the mix that makes analog lines look less appealing.

speaking of ease of communication, i know you were talking about analog land lines, but this is precisely the reason i dont understand text messaging on one's phone. the process of typing all those letters by hitting the 7 key eighty five times and the 3 key forty two times, etc, is beyond me. CALL them with that PHONE you are pounding away on. people try to say its so you can do it in meetings, class, etc... crap. hearing someone hitting those keys is annoying as hell in class and the vibrating on the desk is just as bad as ringing.

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy

I never understood by CompWerks · 2004-02-05 07:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why we need to see the person on the other end of the line unless they were giving a presentation or something.

Other then that it's quite useless unless you are going to make faces at each other or possibly have cyber-sex but then again we're talking about the /. crowd.

--
If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.

Re:I never understood by Threni · 2004-02-05 08:17 · Score: 1

> Why we need to see the person on the other end of the line unless they were
> giving a presentation or something.

Eye contact. Easier to tell is someone is/might be lying. Apart from the extra bandwidth and hardware costs, why wouldn't you want it? I'm sure it'd be socially acceptable to deny video access to strangers once it takes off, and even friends/colleagues.
Re:I never understood by CompWerks · 2004-02-05 08:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

I see denying video as more of a problem then enabling it. Something tells me that people will get offended if you do not enable video access for them.

--
If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.
Re:I never understood by Clod9 · 2004-02-05 08:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

You've never lived for a few months with your fiancee on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, have you?
And now that we're married, she only sees her family once a year and in pictures.
We'd pay good money for an easy videoconferencing solution.
Re:I never understood by Threni · 2004-02-05 08:37 · Score: 1

That's what I was talking about - I don't think it would. I can see times where I'd not want to be seen (just got up, in bed with someone etc), just like there are times now where I don't answer the phone. There's email for non-intrusive communication. A phone call, especially if video is expecter IS intrusive, and people must - indeed, will - learn that it's not always convenient. Perhaps video enabled phones will allow the owner to press a `video not available` button so callers know the situation beforehand.
Re:I never understood by redJag · 2004-02-05 09:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Body language. Sarcasm, jokes, lies, tones, undertones. Communication!? Text cannot replace voice and body language, I'm sorry.
Re:I never understood by wiremind · 2004-02-05 09:05 · Score: 1

dito.
Parents are in Pittsburgh, PA, USA,
I'm in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
and i spend about 4 months a year on business trips in europe.

I get to see my parents once a year, and i'm away from all my friends for 2 months at a time.

I too would pay good money for an easy videoconfrecing solution.

Kyle
Re:I never understood by rajpaul · 2004-02-05 09:07 · Score: 1

How about this one:

Young Parents
New baby doing cutesy stuff
Distant Grandmother

And such variations.
Re:I never understood by pHDNgell · 2004-02-05 09:18 · Score: 1

I took a tour of my friends' house in Australia recently. I only get to see them every couple years.

When we were roomates, we'd sit on the couch for hours doing stuff, occasionally looking over and saying something. We can do that again (though the scheduling isn't as easy).

--
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
Re:I never understood by jonahark · 2004-02-05 13:39 · Score: 1

I am currently on assignment in Manila, Philippines. I use iChat to videoconference with my family in the US.

Less delay than an anolog phone call, excellent video quality, and zero cost.

Have to say this---if you think videoconferencing/VOIP still of too poor quality, you aren't using a Mac.
Re:I never understood by orasio · 2004-02-06 02:22 · Score: 1

You said _easy_, didn't you?
Dlink makes something like that

Too expensive or me (just a couple hundred dollars, but I live in Uruguay, South America), but you said you were willing to pay good money.

gaim by (startx) · 2004-02-05 07:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm glad to see that I can finally video chat with my windows using friends too. Anyone have an estimate on how long it'll take the gaim folks to impliment this addition so EVERYONE can videoconfrence?

Re:gaim by Reivec · 2004-02-05 08:00 · Score: 1

It must suck to live in your world with only 3 IM clients.
Re:gaim by Echnin · 2004-02-05 08:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think what he means is that persons using any of the three most used operating systems will be able to communicate over one network.

--
Lalala
Re:gaim by Unregistered · 2004-02-05 08:29 · Score: 1

Considering that video chat sucks and nobody actually uses it besides as a neat gimmick, it'll be a long time before the gaim devs waste their time writing a video module, imo.
Re:gaim by RAMMS+EIN · 2004-02-05 08:39 · Score: 1

I think the main reason it sucks is the lack of good and interopable implementations. The AOL/Apple interop is a _major_ step in the right direction.

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re:gaim by ObiWanKenblowme · 2004-02-05 09:05 · Score: 1

Yeah! And talking pictures will be the end of Hollwood!

--
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.

Re:no end to analog by Mod+Me+God · 2004-02-05 07:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

(Analog direct-connection) land lines are not very secure - IMHO it is less secure than splitting into packets sent different ways around the world - the analog line could be tapped anywhere on the journey, but the digital packets are only interceptable (meaningfully) at the terminal-to-exchange space.

Now quantum security is real security.

--
-- FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?

the end of landlines. by leperchen · 2004-02-05 07:53 · Score: 1

mabye, for example, here in Ireland a product was developed some years ago, a phone with a little b/w screen and was prototyped perfectly. But the telecoms regulator would not allow this product to go on sale. It seems that the phone co. will have no control over cyberspace.

end of POTS? not yet.. by epiphani · 2004-02-05 07:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

i picked up a USB headset yesterday for my 11 year old sister, because a bunch of her friends have webcams and headsets. She immediately tried it out with her friends. From what I saw, the quality is still sketchy.

Until they get these messenger/aim/ichat systems up to par with VOIP or other standards, people will still use the telephone.

And, while slightly offtopic - why is it that we have so many different IM networks out there? Why cant we just have a simple single protocol allowing each of the different clients to interoperate. I'm stuck using trillian, lacking half the features of all the others, because i dont feel like running four (aim,icq,msn,yahoo) damn messenger clients.

--
.

Long live analog by savagedome · 2004-02-05 07:54 · Score: 4, Funny

we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?

You can't slam down one of those messsage clients. Its more satisfying to slam down the phone after you get mad at someone !

--

Free XBox, PS2

Re:Long live analog by caller_number_six · 2004-02-05 08:05 · Score: 2, Funny

more satisfying to slam down the phone after you get mad at someone !

For the same reason, I can only use "flip" cell phones. Before I got my first one, the only way to hang up on anybody (with any degree of satisfaction) was to throw my phone across the cab of my truck at the end of each conversation.

Actually, that system works fine in the winter, when the windows are rolled up, but...
Re:Long live analog by mbadolato · 2004-02-05 08:08 · Score: 1

Yeah, clicking Exit really hard just doesn't quite have the same effect :)
Re:Long live analog by rajpaul · 2004-02-05 09:09 · Score: 1

For sure. You're realling going to miss that ability when you start receiving flashy video telemarketing calls.
Re:Long live analog by 74nova · 2004-02-05 09:12 · Score: 1

ah, brings me back to the days of "warning" wars on AIM, hehe. some friends and i got a female friend of ours blocked off AIM for quite a while by warning her repeatedly... good fun. it can at least make it a little easier to be angry at them.

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy

Re:Apple release iChat for Windows, world goes bli by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-02-05 07:55 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't want to see half of the people I chat with...

Oh come on, I bet you'd really like to see the lower half, you dirty thing you...

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

No audio by ciryon · 2004-02-05 07:55 · Score: 2, Informative

I just tried it and it doesn't seem to support audio. Only video is also mentioned at Apple's website.

Would be great if they implemented audio chat also, but hey this is just a beta.

Ciryon

Re:No audio by MikeXpop · 2004-02-05 08:00 · Score: 3, Informative

On windows aim, if both people have microphones plugged in, you can click the talk button, and you'll connect with voice. This has been around in aim longer than iChat has existed. I don't have a windows box/webcam to try this on, but perhaps you have to enable talk and video at the same time for it to work?

--
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Re:No audio by slycrel · 2004-02-05 08:48 · Score: 1

iChat 2.0 supports audio only chat, at least mac to mac. This is probably an upgrade on the windows side to be compatible with this, and possibly enhance things a bit in both camps.
Re:No audio by mbbac · 2004-02-05 10:17 · Score: 3, Informative

iChat AV has supported simulaneous audio/video chat and just audio chat for about a year now. iChat AV 2.1 beta is just the first version to work with Windows clients now that AOL has co-opted Apple's technology for AOL IM 5.5.

--
mbbac

ICQ next? by F.+Mephit · 2004-02-05 07:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

So then the last major compatibility gap to bridge will be to get a version of ICQ that's compatible with those two (and vice versa)? Or better yet, Trillian?

Re:ICQ next? by jtwJGuevara · 2004-02-05 08:06 · Score: 1

People still use ICQ? Ever since Mirabilis was bought out by AOL, ICQ has been an overbloated piece of IM software with entirely too many useless features. It basically turned into AIM on crack.
Re:ICQ next? by TheWickedKingJeremy · 2004-02-05 08:25 · Score: 4, Funny

People still use ICQ? Ever since Mirabilis was bought out by AOL, ICQ has been an overbloated piece of IM software with entirely too many useless features. It basically turned into AIM on crack.

Yeah but, I have a really low number...

--

my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Re:ICQ next? by rf600r · 2004-02-05 08:48 · Score: 1

Yeah but, I have a really low number...

Yes. Yes you do.
Re:ICQ next? by lordholm · 2004-02-05 11:30 · Score: 1

Around 80% of the IM-using population in Sweden use ICQ. The rest (younger ppl mostly) use MSM (exception are some Mac users that have an AIM-account to use iChat, but they also have ICQ).

I do work hard on converting them all to Jabber.

--
"Civis Europaeus sum!"

NAT by phreak03 · 2004-02-05 07:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

As long as everyone is NAT'ed and firewalled, P2P based technology that requires dirrect comunication will be limited to the geeks (now at the moment though, anyone not running some form of NAT firewall on a DSL or cable line is a idiot) But the technoidiots don't know how to port forward so these technologies will not work At my university we all have our own IP's but All incomeing ports are blocked.........

--
come comment on the madness at http://slashdot.org/~phreak03/journal/

Re:NAT by carabela · 2004-02-05 08:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Have you seen Skype ?
From their website:

"Skype is the next phenomenon from the people who brought you KaZaA. Just like KaZaA, Skype uses P2P (peer-to-peer) technology to connect you to other users - not to share files this time, but to talk and chat with your friends."

Further on: "Works with all firewall, NAT and routers - nothing to configure!"

--

The more you know, the less you need. [Admin added: from me.]
Re:NAT by All+Names+Have+Been · 2004-02-05 08:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Except that this technology already works very well with most home NAT and firewall boxes. I've sucessfully used iChat AV from my home (using NAT on an old Linksys 802.11b router) to the in-laws, also behind a linksys broadband router of some sort and using NAT. Worked first time, no configuration.

This is true for most home hardware nowadays. Perhaps you should go read the specs for how iChat AV works? They are publically available.
Re:NAT by forged · 2004-02-05 08:38 · Score: 1

Skype is awesome. I've got two PCs on DSL at home: one behind a NAT router but otherwise directly connecting ont othe Internet, and another one first plugging into a VPN box to work, from there it goes out the Corporate firewall, such that both PCs are visible from the outside.
I've had my dad call from Africa, and chatted with friend in the USA (I'm in Europe myself) and everyone was baffled at how good the quality was. On a moderate to fast link (128K or higher) one can easilly achieve true full-duplex, decent quality audio. And that's with a cheap Creative mic and my PC speakers. A headset makes sound even better, but the basic quality is already so good that the improvement is hardly noticeable.
Yay for P2P thru NAT and firewalls !

iSight on a PC? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-05 07:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

So can an iSight be used with the AOL software on a Windows PC?

Re:iSight on a PC? by mrbrown1602 · 2004-02-05 08:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Nope. Its still Mac only. The new AIM client just provides support for Windows-compatible webcams.
Re:iSight on a PC? by mbbac · 2004-02-05 10:33 · Score: 1

Umm, it's just a FireWire camera. It's not a Mac only device. It works with iChat the same way a FireWire camcorder would.

--
mbbac
Re:iSight on a PC? by elohim · 2004-02-05 10:38 · Score: 2, Informative

You can use iSight with Windows just fine. "Knight explained that Apple and AOL were able to bridge the two online communities by incorporating standards-based technology in their respective software applications. Because the iSight is also a standards-based camera, Knight said that AIM users should be able to use it as their video device if they want to -- he added that Windows users would also need an external microphone or another source of audio if they were using the iSight on a Windows PC, unlike their Mac counterparts." http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/02/05/ich ataim/index.php?redirect=1075980632000

Your Telephone is Dying!!! by l0ungeb0y · 2004-02-05 07:56 · Score: 1

"Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?"

That is a rather broad statement.
The Plain Old Telephone System (POTS) network is rather all encompassing and while we see all these new ways of communication, you'd be surprised on how much we still rely on POTS today. I doubt if we'll ever see the end of POTS in our lifetime, the same thing with CB, just because we have celluler and satelite phone networks, the relatively lowtech CB is still in heavy use today.

Re:Your Telephone is Dying!!! by rf600r · 2004-02-05 08:50 · Score: 1

D'oh! Wait, I thought Apple was dying. Now you're all just confusing me.

Not a chance by NeoSkandranon · 2004-02-05 07:56 · Score: 1

Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?

I'm not still on dialup, but speaking for all those who still are (for whatever reason) : "Not a fucking chance"

--
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)

Oh great by crush · 2004-02-05 07:57 · Score: 1

more consolidation of communications in the hands of a few small companies backing their horrid non-open standards.

We should get excited about small businesses (well small compared to AOL/Microsoft) like vonage and clients based on open protocols like Jabber

As a final problem won't this mean increased amounts of data being shunted onto the internet? Do we really need videoconferencing?

Oh well, maybe it'll stop people travelling as much.

Yes, I'm a misanthrope. I want people to stay home and watch the TV and shut up.

Re:no end to analog by Theresa1 · 2004-02-05 07:57 · Score: 1

how many people really care about security though? Care about it enough to pay long distance call charges ?

--
This is a manual signature virus. Copy to your signiture file and help me spread.

Not a troll by jeffkjo1 · 2004-02-05 07:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm not trolling, I'm asking a serious question.

I use the official AOL version of AIM in Linux (for reasons I won't get into.) They haven't released an update for the linux client in nearly 2 years. When can we expect to see a new client for linux?

Re:Not a troll by omarques · 2004-02-05 08:24 · Score: 1, Funny

They made a special deal with 3DRealms to include the new linux version in the "Duke Nukem Forever" box.
So, stay tuned.
Re:Not a troll by gryphokk · 2004-02-05 10:47 · Score: 1

Care to explain exactly how this is offtopic? The topic references AIM, the poster asks about AIM, on his platform of choice.

And, I was interested to learn that AOL even had an AIM client.

Mods, carry on. On-topic, and interesting!

--
And you, madam, are very ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.
Re:Not a troll by Phroggy · 2004-02-05 13:50 · Score: 1

I use the official AOL version of AIM in Linux (for reasons I won't get into.)

Let me guess - because it's more stable and less of a pain in the ass than Gaim? Is that part of the reason? ;-)

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

Re:no end to analog by beegle · 2004-02-05 07:59 · Score: 1

What I find most annoying is the delay and spatial difference between eyes and camera with videophones.

Delay: You either have to sync audio with video, giving a half-second (or more) delay to EVERYTHING, or you have to push through a lagged video feed, so it's like watching a badly dubbed movie.

Spatial difference: I like to look people in the eye when I talk to them. Looking at the camera feels unnatural, and pretty much by definition, the camera has to be in a different location than the screen. So, since most people look at the screen, you either get the forehead shot (camera above monitor), the up-the-nose shot (camera below monitor), or occasionally, the cheek shot (camera beside monitor).

--
--

hmmm.... by Polo · 2004-02-05 07:59 · Score: 1

The performance table on the website for ichat 2.1 says there are 2resolutions:
176x144 and 352x288

When I was using my iSight with iChat, it SEEMED that the resolution was higher than this, especially at fullscreen zoom.

Has apple changed iChat 2.1 to PC resolutions or can you still do higher res like 640x480? (or am I mistaken and you could you never do 640x480?)

Re:hmmm.... by mofu · 2004-02-05 08:09 · Score: 3, Informative

From the Apple iChat "iChat AV uses patented anamorphic resizing techniques so that the video of the person you're chatting with fills the entire screen without distortion"

Re:no end to analog by jd142 · 2004-02-05 07:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

And video phones have been around (or at least technology capable of producing them) for decades. It's rare that someone wants to actually see who their talking to when they use the phone. No more answering the phone right out of the shower, for a start. Well, unless you're in to that. And certainly no phones while driving.

And this doesn't even begin to address the bandwidth issues for the many, many people who are still on dialup.

AIM to kill Telephones? by girgit · 2004-02-05 08:00 · Score: 1

Reminds me of the technologies that never die/should die/should not have died discussion from yesterday.

Ten years ago I used to voice-chat with my friends in US from India using powwwow from TribalVoice. It used to work pretty well, over the low band-width and even full-duplex. Today, google can find a match but my DNS cannot find its number.

Yahoo has had voice/video chat for a long time now. My alomost-computer-illeterate Dad has learnt to use it so he can look at his granddaughter at the rate of 1 fps, low resolution. Works for him.

So what market share does AOL control? 80%?

Re:Apple release iChat for Windows, world goes bli by SiO2 · 2004-02-05 08:00 · Score: 1

I don't want to see half of the people I chat with... My poor world depends on coolgrl973 being the cute one in that picture!

Yep. You're world will come crashing down around you when you discover that coolgrl1973 is really some four-hundred-pound hairy man from Pittsburgh, who says "Yins."

Shudder.

SiO2

Analog and Natural Disasters by Ride-My-Rocket · 2004-02-05 08:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually, one of the main reasons for keeping an analog line is in case of natural disasters. I was living at 42nd St & 11th Ave in Manhattan on September 11, 2001 -- all of my friends who were in the city that day ended up at my place, since there was no reasonable way to get back to their respective boroughs. And while they were there, everybody was able to use our landline to make phone calls and let their families know they were OK; meanwhile, all of our cellphones were useful only as paperweighs, as the networks were thoroughly saturated with traffic.

Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by jkabbe · 2004-02-05 08:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

And then there was the blackout last summer where my analog phone was a paperweight but my cell phone kept on going (although the signal got pretty week as towers started going down).
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by aonaran · 2004-02-05 08:31 · Score: 1

Analog != reliable and Digital != oversaturated network. It may seem that way, but it is possible to build a digital phone network that provides power over the phone line and is just as reliable as the analog one and not so oversaturated that the system can't handle the load of everyone making a call at once. ...it's true no one has done it yet, but that's not because it isn't possible, it's because there hasn't been a demand for it. Believe it or not most people are quite happy with the analog land line.
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by CrazyTalk · 2004-02-05 08:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Interesting. I had the opposite experience on 9/11 (I don't live in NYC, btw). My landline was useless, all lines were busy, but I could use my cell phone as well as AIM (via DSL) to communicate with friends in New York.
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by Captain+Gingersnaps · 2004-02-05 09:17 · Score: 1

Actually, one of the main reasons for keeping an analog line is in case of natural disasters.

Was there a natural disaster that day?
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by theEd · 2004-02-05 09:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

Truthfully it's only analog to your local central office or nearby crossbox.

Now here's a disaster story....

Back in 1990 an F5 tornado hit a town southwest of Chicago and the "big" problem with the phones was that relatives and friends overloaded the system calling to see "are you ok?".

Better yet, a few days later an employee of the phone company was driving through the devistated town and saw a house with the front completely ripped of, like a doll house. Furniture and various personal items were all over the front yard. In the middle of the yard was a man, talking on the phone.

--
"And now you shall learn the secret of boot to the head"
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by iantri · 2004-02-05 09:51 · Score: 2, Informative

I suspect you should get a better analog phone then; Phones work (or at least should work) regardless of whether or not there is electricity or not..
Cordless phones will not (for obvious reasons). Poorly-designed phones with fancy features like Call Display/ID will not work at all.. the better designed ones will continue to do basic telephone functions.
But a simple, basic phone will always work -- they don't even plug into the wall.
Really, the only electricity needed for a phone is what's provided down the line.. (I believe) 48V to drive the bell/electronic ringer, and some small amount to power the speaker on the other end..
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by ccarr.com · 2004-02-05 09:53 · Score: 1

I was at 42nd and Sixth Ave, and I found AIM to be the most reliable means of communicating with my friends. Second was my cell phone. My POTS phone was worthless.

--
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. BB
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by unother · 2004-02-05 09:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Bollocks.

My cell phone was useful again from 2PM onward, and I had Sprint at the time (their main tower was on WTC 1, so service got kind of spotty for a while after). Worked in DUMBO (work) and the E. Vill (home).

I can only imagine the AT&T and Verizon users had even less probelms than I did.
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by Lehk228 · 2004-02-05 10:01 · Score: 1

hones work (or at least should work) regardless of whether or not there is electricity or not..

Not if the phone company loses power, and the blackout was bad enough in some areas that the power backups for the phone companies could run out( assuming they had a backup power system)

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by edwdig · 2004-02-05 10:12 · Score: 1

Here in North Jersey, the analog phones worked fine during the blackout. The cell phone networks were completely overloaded. It was near impossible to make a call from a cell phone.
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by iantri · 2004-02-05 10:13 · Score: 1

Pretty terrible phone company then; and in that case, it would be just a fluke that cell phones were working and analog phones were not..
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by ruiner13 · 2004-02-05 10:16 · Score: 1

I doubt that is the reason. There are plenty of phones that don't plug into the wall that would have worked. The phone line carries its own voltage to power the speaker and reciever (~5V i think). I've had no power before and my phones worked fine. A cell phone would be more prone as without power to recharge it, once the battery is dead, so is the phone.

--
today is spelling optional day.
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by Detritus · 2004-02-05 10:32 · Score: 2, Informative

The telephone company has huge batteries, suitable for powering submarines, that provide power to their own equipment and the subscriber's telephone. If you measure a phone line with a multimeter, you should see about -48V on the line. This is all you need to power a standard telephone. The problem is that many of the telephones being sold today will not work without an AC adaptor. The FCC should make the manufacturers put large "Will not work during a power failure!" stickers on these telephones.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by jkabbe · 2004-02-05 10:45 · Score: 1

Many of you are missing the point. My phone does not need power to operate. I have used it during power outages before many times. But if the phone company (or something in between my apartment and the phone company) doesn't have power then none of the phones will work. This is what happened in Detroit. No one in my apartment complex could get a dial tone. No one I knew could get a dial tone.

So, yes, I know that my apartment does not need power for my phone to work. And, no, my phone did not need power to work. But the power outage hit everything around here except for some of the cell towers.
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by jkabbe · 2004-02-05 10:48 · Score: 1

Well apparently SBC in northern Detroit isn't "the telephone company" then because by the time I got home (1 hour after the blackout began) my entire area had no dial tone.

It's funny how many people refuse to believe what I am saying and instead assume that I am an idiot who tried to use a phone that needs an AC adapter during the power outage.
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by radish · 2004-02-05 11:20 · Score: 1

I was in a hotel on Church St that day, and all the lines (land or otherwise) were choked - the international circuits were particularly full. However, by some fluke the hotel's net connection was fine, so I just emailed everyone. WebTV sure sucks though :)

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by Detritus · 2004-02-05 11:24 · Score: 2, Informative

You should file a formal complaint with the FCC and Michigan's Public Utility Commission. There is no excuse for a telephone system that can't keep running during a blackout.
In a way, it doesn't surprise me, although it is sad. The ex-Bell telephone companies have been dumping experienced employees and cutting corners for decades. Reliability costs money, and the telephone companies are run by bean-counters, not engineers. Like the railroads and steel companies, they are letting their core business deteriorate, investing the profits in non-regulated businesses that are more attractive.
If you want reliable, universal and affordable telephone service, you have to be willing to apply political pressure to your state government and its utility regulators. They are the ones who can force the telephone company to live up to its service obligations.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Re:Analog and Natural Disasters by ruiner13 · 2004-02-05 13:43 · Score: 1

well that's detroit for ya! man, i'm sorry you have to live there. that has to be the slummiest town i've ever visited.

--
today is spelling optional day.

Deaf People by iteratix · 2004-02-05 08:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

I see some comments here saying that video-as-phone won't be useful. I beg to differ.

I'm deaf; and along with that comes the inability to use voice phones. Video phones, either through dedicated lines or on the computer, are a Godsend to people like us. We've been waiting a long time for this.

Being able to sign to a loved one or a friend, instead of using kludgy relay systems like this or others. In fact, there's a company called Sorenson (yes of the codec fame) that has a set-top box for televisions that allows a Deaf person to connect to either (1) any other set-top box or (2) the relay service or (3) another webcam -- all for video chat purposes.

For those that are wondering, by "Relay" I refer to the act of me typing to a person (paid by the government) that voices my message to an person at the other end of a phone number, and types back to me what that person says. Nifty but very very slow and time-consuming.

Before you knock a new technology (ew, I don't want to see Daddy on the toilet) or say its only for business purposes, think about it.

Re:Deaf People by way2trivial · 2004-02-05 08:06 · Score: 1

Have you ever used a video phone?
good luck signing asl at a framerate of 4 fps

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Re:Deaf People by bbdd · 2004-02-05 08:25 · Score: 1

i have a deaf friend who just had this service set up at his house using his cable modem connection. in fact, he was on a dial-up previously, but had the cable modem installed just for this.

it's very nice. they are using a modified dlink videophone unit and the quality is superb. he usually uses it later in the evening when the wan traffic has died down some and his framerates are consistently very high. very usable for asl.

not to mention, it is very cool that now i can call him on my regular pots phone and he can "talk" to me through the operator.

all in all, a very cool use of technology to improve someone's life.
Re:Deaf People by iteratix · 2004-02-05 09:00 · Score: 1

I make no claim on the quality of videophones nowdays, just that the technology is what we have been waiting for. As the other replier said, people _are_ using videophones effectively, at 20-30 fps, to communicate to others via sign language.
Re:Deaf People by beegle · 2004-02-05 09:07 · Score: 1

I don't think anyone's claiming that videophones won't ever be useful for anything. They're claiming that videophones won't be useful for most people most of the time.

There'll always be specialized applications where video technology is useful. Hell, it's probably true that -every- application is useful to someone, somewhere.

The question is whether it'll achieve mainstream acceptance. The answer to that one is probably "no".

--
--
Re:Deaf People by jejones · 2004-02-05 17:59 · Score: 1

No kidding. Sometimes I wonder about captioning--the nearest analogy I can think of would be if, to accomodate me as an English speaker in Japan, I got to see movies and TV shows with subtitles...in Hungarian. ASL needs a Sequoyah.

AOL and video by hey · 2004-02-05 08:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Wasn't there a ruling that said AOL would need to allow other IM systems to connect once they got video going.
Or did they slime out of that?

Why can we just all go Jabber.

Re:AOL and video by TALlama · 2004-02-05 10:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, they were, until last August. They key here is that AOL couldn't offer this kind of stuff until "it could prove that it was no longer the dominant player in free, public IM, or unless it opened its systems to interoperate with competitors." That 'or' gets them the leeway they need, along with the newer, more business-friendly (read: Republican) FCC board. They can probably show that they're no longer the dominant player by quoting Microsoft's own Messenger numbers back at them, which probably includes every XP installation out there as a user.

--
- The Amazina Llama

Re:end of POTS? not yet.. by daeley · 2004-02-05 08:01 · Score: 2, Informative

(aim,icq,msn,yahoo)

While I'm not sure about other platforms' options, if you're on Mac OS X, Fire is an excellent multi-protocol client, covering AIM, ICQ, Jabber, MSN, Yahoo, and irc in one package.

--
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.

niche uses in the future by bigmo · 2004-02-05 08:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

Analog will certainly not go away, but it's usefulness will be kept to certain areas such as where the relative security of a switched circuit (to the extent that those actually exist any more) is imortant. Also don't forget that most people in the world don't own computers or have connections capable of audio/video conferencing.

However, for small businesses, this is a great thing. I'd just like to see a system where linux users could a/v chat with windows/mac users without the other users having to be gurus. I've tried getting some people with home offices to work with me via a/v conferencing, but most of them find it excruciatingly difficult to install a plugin to their browser, much less set up an h323 application.

I'd like to hear from anyone successfully doing this with anyone other than another geek.

Then how we get out??? by MacFury · 2004-02-05 08:02 · Score: 1, Funny

If analog phone lines are gotten rid of then how will we get out of the matrix???

http://cafeshops.com/ruechaos

When all you have is a hammer? by slykens · 2004-02-05 08:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Seems like people love to talk about convergence and eliminating the "old" system. Convergence is nice but why would I have a $600 PC everywhere in my house that I might want to use a phone? I can buy a cheapo Princess phone for $10 these days and it takes up a lot less room.

What people sometimes miss is that most of the public just wants a phone that works when it is supposed to. An example is ATT Wireless' GSM network. High speed data and seamless international roaming is nice but coverage is horrible in many areas thus all the bells and whistles are wasted on people in areas where the GSM deployment is botched. ATT is losing a lot of GSM customers to other networks like Verizon or Nextel because their networks provide better coverage. (Yes in the case of Verizon they have nice wireless data goodies too)

IMO, mobile telephones will replace regular household phones in much larger numbers than PCs replacing phones ever will. Further, specialty devices like D-Link's video "phone" that can be connected to the TV (larger display) may be more popular with non-geeks who just want a computer for word processing and browsing the intarweb.

Re:When all you have is a hammer? by koehn · 2004-02-05 08:21 · Score: 1

Actually, you bring up my dream phone:

What I really want is a cordless, rechargable, 802.11 VOIP phone that I can take with me to any place I can get 802.11 (an Ethernet jack would be nice for hardwire) and a DHCP lease. Contact a server, bind my current IP address to my phone number, and voila! Happy camper. Works in my house, but I can also take it to your house, say, if my network is down, power is out, or (heaven forbid) I'm just visiting.

I know this is probably overkill, and it cannot accomplish everything you can with your mobile phone, but as a bridge between mobile and broadband (still tons of places I can't get my mobile to work that have broadband), it's a Good Thing.
Re:When all you have is a hammer? by RAMMS+EIN · 2004-02-05 08:59 · Score: 1

Seems like people love to talk about convergence and eliminating the "old" system. Convergence is nice but why would I have a $600 PC everywhere in my house that I might want to use a phone? I can buy a cheapo Princess phone for $10 these days and it takes up a lot less room.

Actually, I would be interested to see how cheap a computer with audio chat capabilities can get. Cheap, single board computer, free operating system, some connectors for network and human interface, shouldn't be that expensive.

You could save quite some $$ by ditching the phone line. Mine costs ~30 euros/month, and while I don't use it myself, my housemates made calls for another ~30 euros last month.

IMO, mobile telephones will replace regular household phones in much larger numbers than PCs replacing phones ever will.

Speaking of convergence, I would actually replace my tower with a phone/PDA combo if I could. Today's PDA's are more powerful than my PC, and some are affordable enough. All I'm waiting for is one that has the whole feature set: affordable, usable keyboard, ability to attach monitor, keyboard, mouse, ethernet. If it can make and accept phone calls over GSM, that would be perfect.

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.

Not any time soon. by rune.w · 2004-02-05 08:02 · Score: 1

Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?

Not any time soon because, at least where I live, the phone system is still on when power goes out. Think of how useful is that in case of an emergency.

R.

Re:end of POTS? not yet.. by Rick+and+Roll · 2004-02-05 08:04 · Score: 1

i picked up a USB headset yesterday for my 11 year old sister, because a bunch of her friends have webcams and headsets. She immediately tried it out with her friends. From what I saw, the quality is still sketchy.

Was she using iSight in conjunction with iChat A/V? I doubt it.

Re:Apple release iChat for Windows, world goes bli by addaon · 2004-02-05 08:06 · Score: 1

Well that's the funniest comment on slashdot this week. +5.

--

I've had this sig for three days.

Antitrust? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-05 08:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

This may or may not have happened, but wasn't one of the stipulations in an AOL antitrust settlement that they could keep their AIM protocol closed, provided they don't implement video conferencing? I'm pretty sure it had something to do with AIM, video conferencing, and the proprietariness of their AIM protocol. But then again I could be completely wrong, and it wouldn't be he first time.

Re:no end to analog by Golias · 2004-02-05 08:07 · Score: 1

Didn't you learn ANYTHING watching the A-Team?

Dude! That is so obviously a t-shirt slogan waiting to be made. Time to buy some transfer paper for the printer...

--

Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

Jabber already has this by RicJohnson · 2004-02-05 08:09 · Score: 1

Big deal
Jabber / Xmpp has this already.
Video in IM is nothing new.
I just want a solution of VideoOverIP for IM - where I do NOT need to subscribe to the local phone company.
Where can I get this?

Re:Jabber already has this by TheRaven64 · 2004-02-05 09:12 · Score: 1

Really? I haven't been on the standards-jig mailing list for a few months, but I looked at the published JEPs last month. I didn't see anything about video conferencing, other than a stream initiation protocol. I also haven't seen any client implementations that support video conferencing. Oh, and that wasn't the correct l link for information about the jabber / XMPP spec.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Price? What price? by Onan · 2004-02-05 08:11 · Score: 2, Informative

How exactly do you propose that they "lower" the price to $99 from "free with the OS"?

Re:Price? What price? by Kenja · 2004-02-05 08:15 · Score: 1

Sorry, I was talking about the "Official Apple(tm) iChat Camera!!!!". The software itself didn't seem much diferent then anything else out there.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Price? What price? by the+argonaut · 2004-02-05 08:19 · Score: 1

My guess is parent poster failed english in the 6th grade and ever since has been unable to put together a complete, understandable paragraph. He's probably referring to the iSight.

--
fuck you.
Re:Price? What price? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-05 08:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Ah, right, the iSight. (Yeah, I hate the bloody iName thing too.)

The iSight seems basically like the iPod: it's just about the most expensive offering in its niche, but it gets enough small things right that many people find it to be worthwhile.

I've purchased three of them, and I'm happier with them than any of the previous camera I'd owned, which go back through the original QuickCam.
Re:Price? What price? by Alan+Partridge · 2004-02-05 11:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

You've got it wrong - that iChat camera (iSight) is actually REALLY NICE and not that bad a deal. It really does outperform existing firewire webcams quite handily for picture and sound, the industrial design is LEAGUES better, and the price reasonable. I currently use a firewire equpped Sony camcorder for my iChat needs, but having demo'd the iSight, I may just buy one. Really impressive product IMHO.

--
That was classic intercourse!

Re:no end to analog by diablobynight · 2004-02-05 08:11 · Score: 1

Nothing like getting sea sick from watching the persons lips move than hearing their voice.( I know this isn't sea sickness). At slashdot people will get you for anything.

RANDOMGEEKYSLASHDOTTER:"No actually your an idiot sea sickness comes from,blah blah blah, I am a sea sickness expert at company I can't name cause i am actually a teenage kid in my moms basement"

Preparing to get modded off topic

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you

Long way away before the end of analog by saha · 2004-02-05 08:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't think I'm going to stop using the regular phone lines. In fact I'm going to insist that we still have it.

What makes me nervous is when our network guys talk about IP telephony and the great advantages of IP based communications. I don't deny the features that they tout are attractive. i.e. Ability to take your phone anywhere on campus, integration of email, voicemail ...etc.

But my biggest concern would be realiability. My traditional analog office phone didn't stop working when My.Doom or Slammer worms/viruses are choking our IP based networks. When there was a blackout throughout the eastern seaboard region last fall, my analog phone was still working.

As for the news that iChatAV will now talk to PCs, I did forward it to our chairman this morning. We've been interested in distance learning using iChatAV a few months back and one of the biggest concerns was that it ONLY worked on the Mac OS platform. Now that concern has been addressed and we plan to continue to explore this new tool as a cost effective way to promote distance learning/tele-teaching.

There are other professional multi-cast video products we will be evaluating as well and here are the recommendations from our university Apple rep. (note: iChatAV is for point-to-point communtications)
-Diganta

The products I am aware of are Marratech Pro[1], Pixion[2] the other solution I am aware of is a one to many with feedback - caststream[3]. You should take a look at caststream & marratech if you haven't already. Especially join a professional presentation to see capabilities.

At Apple I have been attending a number of conferences that are utilizing Marratech. This works incredibly well over the public internet and yet allows for 128bit encryption end to end for all video/audio/chat. I have been using it and am very impressed. Additionally I use and love CastStream for presentations (one to many). Joe Bishop is a good contact for information on Marratech - bishop@mac.com - he worked for Apple and now is at Marratech

-John"

[1] http://www.marratech.com/
[2] http://www.pixion.com/
[2] http://www.caststream.com/

Not any time soon by vijayiyer · 2004-02-05 08:12 · Score: 1

I know exactly zero people who have iChat AV with a camera or microphone. How is this better than using my cell phone? For now and the near future (say 2-5 years), videoconferencing will remain a novelty for the masses and perhaps a tool for the tech-savvy. It will be useless, however, for one average person to talk to another.

Re:no end to analog by Mateito · 2004-02-05 08:13 · Score: 2, Funny

Didn't you learn ANYTHING watching the A-Team? I recall almost every third episode they hacked a landline with a phone tap :)

No. I learnt everything from McGuyver. I recall that in almost every third episode he escaped from an otherwise impossible position usinging a bathroom tap.*

*along with two rubber bands, half a dozen paddle pop sticks and a pair of old bedsheets that suprisingly were never furnished with interesting stains.

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl

No. by El · 2004-02-05 08:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

If videoconferencing is so great, why is it that every time I see Netmeeting used for Application Sharing and/or video, business is still using a speakerphone for audio? Could it have something to do with the internet introducing drop out and up to 2 second delays in audio? For real-time communication, bringing up a dedicated virtual circuit really does have some advantages over using a packet-switched network, especially for audio. Now, if we actually had the infrastructure in place throughout the entire internet to reserve end-to-end bandwidth (e.g. RSVP) and ensure reliable, timely delivery, we could effectively have virtual circuits over the Internet -- with a corresponing increase in cost for the higher Quality Of Service.

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

Re:No. by HeghmoH · 2004-02-05 08:44 · Score: 1

Maybe it's just Netmeeting that sucks. Or maybe businesses have higher standards. I've been using iChat AV for about a month and it's wonderful. The audio quality calling transatlantic is superior to a reasonable cheap calling card, and it basically never drops (both ends have broadband). The delay is noticeable but not great, maybe half a second on average. The kicker is, it's actually easier to use iChat than it is to use the phone! You have to dial this long, unwieldy string of digits to make a call, but you just click the little phone icon next to the other guy's name in iChat and you're connected.

I'd be very interested to know how using iChat with AIM compares to using iChat with iChat.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:No. by TitanBL · 2004-02-05 08:51 · Score: 1

Because Netmeeting sucks; anyways I think you are missing the point. iChat and AIM are not designed for business conferencing, rather for one-on-one communication. We have found iChat coupled with Subethaedit very useful here at work(LAN), and iChat works almost as well over the Internet as it does on our LAN - very usable.
Re:No. by Batmensch · 2004-02-05 09:19 · Score: 1

I have successfully used Apple's iChat with other broadband users over the internet. The sound quality is very good, and the delays are not too bad, and the video is quite useable. This is without any kind of QOS setup. I'm just saying the infrastructure is there; it won't be too long before this sort of thing is quite useable. Can't speak about Netmeeting ;)

from the beginning-of-the-end-of-the-analog-phones by H8X55 · 2004-02-05 08:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?

Because of Audio/Video Conference with iChat and AIM? As they say in Chinatown, "Nickel preeze!". Instant Messeging and Web chats are great, for back and forth conversation, but have you ever tried to tell a joke or story? Forever long.

Face to face (or screen to screen) video conferencing is still grainy at best for most consumer grade products availble.

Cell phones are great for portabilty and catching me on the go, but if someone calls my cell when i'm in the office or at home, i always call 'em back on a land line. It sounds better, and i still don't have "unlimited" minutes on my cell plan. Too damn expensive. I have friends out in the sticks that get zero or minimal cell reception out in BFE.

Increased VoIP saturation might help bring down POTS, but you've still got reliabilty issues. My land line goes down once or twice every three to five years, usually as a result of some type of natural disaster, but my power goes off every couple months. No power, no DSL modem, no router, no VoIP phone. What if you need to call the power company or 911?

Nope, sorry folks, POTS is here to stay, maybe not forever, but it's not going anywhere in the next ten years.

Phones will stay by mixmaster · 2004-02-05 08:18 · Score: 1

Can't imagine the phone dissapearing.
Not hearing the "Ring Ring" when someone calls and the "dud.... dud..." when calling someone.

No the phone will stay!

Re:no end to analog by Mateito · 2004-02-05 08:19 · Score: 1

And this doesn't even begin to address the bandwidth issues for the many, many people who are still on dialup

Don't you get it? Once you install this software, you don't need dialup. You use your computer to make phone calls so you don't need your phone line any more.

Oh.. wait...

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl

Cell phones are less reliable than analog by El · 2004-02-05 08:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Immediately after the Loma Prieta earthquake, you couldn't make a cell call anywhere near San Francisco. Why? Because the wireless companies equipment was programmed to give up after 30 seconds if it didn't get a dial tone, while the phones where so overloaded that it was taking over a minute to get a dial tone on a land line. In a simular fashion, VoIP simply has a lot more potential points of failure than POTS.

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

ich trage nicht hosen by mac+os+ken · 2004-02-05 08:22 · Score: 5, Funny

Every since this fancy schmancy video iChat came out I've had to wear a shirt when talking to my buddies who absolutely insist on video chat. Now that the AIM/Windows masses will come up to speed in the next few months I'll have to wear a shirt continuously. At least I can still have the freed of a Sportscenter broadcaster and not wear pants.

--
.deviatefromtheabsolute.

Re:ich trage nicht hosen by RedWolves2 · 2004-02-05 08:54 · Score: 1

Plus it's convenient for when you surf pron.
Re:ich trage nicht hosen by rajpaul · 2004-02-05 09:16 · Score: 2, Funny

Who says you have to wear a shirt? If they don't like it, they'll stop insisting on Video. :-)

If they do like it, well, I'll let you take it from there.

Re:end of POTS? not yet.. by liquidsin · 2004-02-05 08:27 · Score: 3, Funny

The quality's not sketchy, it's just misconfigured. Go ahead and send me the AIM screen names of these 11 y/o girls with webcams and I'll try to help them fix it...

--
do not read this line twice.

ahhh, get with the times! by Thud457 · 2004-02-05 08:31 · Score: 1

In the olden days, telephones were routinely used as weapons in murder mysteries. Try doing that with your cellphone.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:no end to analog by MoneyT · 2004-02-05 08:32 · Score: 1

But you can't be angsty and geeky and goth without having a room in a dank dark basement

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984

Re:One Way Video? by dulinor · 2004-02-05 08:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Wow, that's just flat-out untrue.

If both iChat users are using iChat AV (the software, not the iChat delivered with Jaguar) you can do one-way video chat if the other machine is missing a camera. I do this all the time (ok, just to test and go "hey this is cool" but it does work)

No idea if AOL will support that on PC, but it is a feature of the iChat AV network.

Re:end of POTS? not yet.. by diablobynight · 2004-02-05 08:36 · Score: 1

well VOIP is 52Kbps standard, for decent quality, and that's with Ciscos VOIP technology, so lets see, real time encoding and decoding of voice, plus video at probably 300 Kbps real time encoding and Decoding, most people nither have the system nor the broadband connection to support this well.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you

Missing Users by rf600r · 2004-02-05 08:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Too bad that a majority of my friends who use AIM won't show up as online in iChat. Fire up any other AIM client and there they are. I have seen many others who have this same problem, yet have uncovered no solution. :-/

Re:Missing Users by mbbac · 2004-02-05 10:36 · Score: 1

Users that aren't connecting to the AIM network with an official client (AOL Instant Messenger or iChat AV) won't be seen by people using iChat AV.

--
mbbac
Re:Missing Users by holt · 2004-02-06 08:18 · Score: 1

That isn't true, because many of my friends using Trillian show up perfectly well in my iChat AV buddy list.

Re:Apple release iChat for Windows, world goes bli by djdavetrouble · 2004-02-05 08:39 · Score: 1

He says:
I don't want to see half of the people I chat with... My poor world depends on coolgrl973 being the cute one in that picture!

Don't you know that half of the 'cutegrl's on IM's are fat old bald guys that live in queens? I thought that this was a well known fact already.

--
music lover since 1969

Re:no end to analog by Jim+McCoy · 2004-02-05 08:39 · Score: 1

Ha ha ho ho... thanks, that was the best laugh I have had today.

For starters your packets are never going to be sent different ways around the world, they will all follow the same path until something disrupts that path and forces it to choose a new route. Packetized voice offers no security advantages over analog landline connections. None whatsoever.

Now quantum security is real security.

Except for that annoying fact that it breaks down once you hit the first exchange/router or non-optical component. If everyone you talk to is within your line of sight or is on the other end of an uninterrupted strand of fiber you get real security, for everything else you are SOL.

Anyone tried Mac to PC yet? by Pzykotic · 2004-02-05 08:41 · Score: 1

I'm interested to hear how it works. I hope it looks as good as iChat to iChat, because that's friggin awesome encoding and smoothness. Hope AIM recognized that and integrated the goodness :-)

So yeah, post experiences going iChat to PC AIM.

Re:Anyone tried Mac to PC yet? by reactivo · 2004-02-05 11:30 · Score: 1

I've tried without any success.

I've been waiting for this for a long time and now that is there doesn't work :(

Economic Reason for Losing POTS by WolfPup · 2004-02-05 08:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't think that the analog phone system will go away anytime soon since there really needs to be an economic reason for the system to go away. Once the system no longer is profitable for the phone companies (since maintenance and upgrades are expensive) they will stop supporting it, unless the government steps in and subsidizes it enough for them to keep providing the service.

If another technology comes about that supplants the analog phone base then the utility companies will probably switch to that technology. The POTS is still compelling because you can pretty much attach a cheap ($5 dollar phone) to a land line and pay for a cheap service. There are other advantages as others have pointed out that the other technologies have not overcome such as availability during a power outage, emergency services, and almost instant availability.

Until the level of service can match most POTS at this point and be profitable at about the same level, no other technology will probably supplant it.

--

-- Wolfpup

"A man whose circumstances went beyond his control." -- Styx

(2) pgp voice ... ? by Heisenbug · 2004-02-05 08:44 · Score: 1

Re: insecure IP voice -- you mean, not anytime soon, as long as no one deploys the pgp voice technology that's been available for years? VOIP is already the only really secure way to have voice conversations, it's just not secure and convenient in the same package yet.

Wifi phones already exist by forged · 2004-02-05 08:45 · Score: 1

Look here, 5th row from the top:

"Future of Phones. An in-depth overview of IP Telephony and WiFi phones, and how this technology will revolutionize the office and our lives."

end of the analog phone system by Mr.+Slippery · 2004-02-05 08:47 · Score: 1

Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?

About as near as we are to flying cars in every driveway and robot butlers in every house.

The amazing thing about the modern phone system is its backwards compatibility. You might have some voice-over-IP scheme on your end, and be talking to someone on a system that's little better than a tin can with a string.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood

Re:no end to analog by diablobynight · 2004-02-05 08:49 · Score: 2, Funny

Also it's hard to look at Scully porn right down the hallway from your parents bedroom

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you

iChat will become bigger than ever. by EvilStein · 2004-02-05 08:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why?

Dude, it was on Dr. Phil not too long ago. Millions of Oprah watching Dr. Phil fanatics will go "Oh, WOW!" and order themselves an iMac. I have a relative that called me and asked me about it after seeing Dr. Phil talk to that "Dr. Phil Family" using an iSight.

Product placement really is an amazing thing.

well duh... by josepha48 · 2004-02-05 08:52 · Score: 1

.. what do you think cell phones are today? analog? No digital.. the next thing that will start to gain popularity is the ability to do picture phone.. look at the little beamer device.. soon the beamer device will become better as more people have dsl / satellite / or cable.... give it 5 years and we'll all be able to use our picture phones.. quesiton is will we...

--

Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?

No. by eyeareque · 2004-02-05 08:54 · Score: 1

"Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?"

No.

Nearing the end, as in 15 years away, Yes :)

Re:no end to analog by Misinformed · 2004-02-05 08:55 · Score: 1

For starters your packets are never going to be sent different ways around the world, they will all follow the same path until something disrupts that path and forces it to choose a new route.

Except this disruption happens constantly. Packets are not secure, but they are more secure.

--
-- Slashdot: Racism against Indians OK. China bad, USA good. Blue pill in water supply.

Tried it, not terribly impressed... by Radon+Knight · 2004-02-05 08:57 · Score: 1

I just tried out an iChat -> AIM video chat and wasn't too impressed. Although I didn't have my iSight hooked up to my Mac, my friend had a video camera hooked up to a PC and was able to initiate a one-way video chat to me. Video was pretty good from my end (I could resize it to full-screen), but it seems like AIM users are going to be stuck with a postage-stamp sized video window. Even Yahoo! Messenger provides larger video than AIM.

Can anyone verify that Windows AIM users are limited to a *very* small video window?

Yeah, well by appleLaserWriter · 2004-02-05 08:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Nothing can stop my TCP/IP over Carrier Pigeons!

Re:Yeah, well by cmstremi · 2004-02-05 09:00 · Score: 3, Funny

Nothing can stop my TCP/IP over Carrier Pigeons!

'cept a hungry kitty cat.
Re:Yeah, well by pyros · 2004-02-05 10:54 · Score: 1

Nothing can stop my TCP/IP over Carrier Pigeons!
'cept a hungry kitty cat.

actually, I think car fumes is a more likely culprit
Re:Yeah, well by ablair · 2004-02-06 05:52 · Score: 1

'cept for the extinction of Carrier Pigeons.

Re:end of POTS? not yet.. by HeghmoH · 2004-02-05 08:59 · Score: 2, Informative

iChat does better than phone quality audio with 30kbps. It does pretty reasonable video quality (obviously not broadcast quality or anything, but still very nice) with a 400MHz G4 and an extra 100kbps on top of that.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!

H.323 Video conferencing consumes bandwidth by Dareth · 2004-02-05 09:00 · Score: 1

Point to Point connections can be fine... but it isn't very hard to saturate a T1 with as few as 5 remote locations. Even with big pipes... video conference is "real-time", anything that interferes with packet transmission will affect your framerate. 30fps is pretty good quality.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling

end of analog? by Thrakkerzog · 2004-02-05 09:03 · Score: 1

"Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?"

Me and my pitiful 31.2kbps connection say no.

The phone lines suck here, and cable/dsl are not available.

DeadAIM and AIM 5.5 release incompatible? by g-doo · 2004-02-05 09:03 · Score: 1

I'm having problems with DeadAIM and AIM 5.5. I believe I have DeadAIM 4.0 or 4.1. Is anyone else seeing these problems?

Re:DeadAIM and AIM 5.5 release incompatible? by g-doo · 2004-02-05 09:24 · Score: 1

Actually, forget DeadAIM. I'm just wondering if AIM 5.5 will have message logging.

Re:Apple release iChat for Windows, world goes bli by 74nova · 2004-02-05 09:03 · Score: 1

unless parent is a cute girl who poses as fathairyguy400lb and likes 400lb fat hairy guys...

on another note... silicone dioxide, yes? thats from quite a few years back in chemistry... what does one do with it?

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy

Anyone see a key point in this? by Loco3KGT · 2004-02-05 09:03 · Score: 1

Mac iChat users can communicate with Windows AIM users.

I bet AOL doesn't bother implementing video/voice for a looong time on the Mac client because Apple is paying them not to so that we will pay for .Mac. All the more reason to hope GAIM gets this stuff going and going fast.

--
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.

Re:Anyone see a key point in this? by EvanTaylor · 2004-02-05 11:51 · Score: 1

I guess you dont use your aim nick in ichat? Because .mac is not required for ichat.

--
Sleep is for the weak.

end of the phone system? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-05 09:04 · Score: 1, Funny

Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?

Yes. It's going to be just like Back to the Future 2 or Demolition Man, any day now. Ubiquitous video phones and flying cars should be here in 10 years or less. Toilet paper will be obsoleted by clamshells in 5 years or less.

gaim implementation by renci · 2004-02-05 09:06 · Score: 1

im sure it should not be to diffucult for the gaim developers to implement the audio video functionality. there exists already in the GnomeMeeting application (for G.N.O.M.E), fully functional video conferencing technology. it is simply a matter of "plugging it in". or as our wise friend Morpheus would say, a matter of time.

What's the best way to do this on linux? by WhiteWolf666 · 2004-02-05 09:09 · Score: 1

AIM on Wine?

Gnomemeeting (IMHO) sucks....

Maybe I just don't understand how to use it, but at the highest (of whatever settings I can find) settings are nowhere near what I want.

It is designed with dialup in mind, and I think that the multimegabit connections of today can do better than that.

So----Whats the best way to do this on linux? Easy, cheap video conferencing---

Someone must have a solution....

--
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell

The Quality Divide by digitalgimpus · 2004-02-05 09:14 · Score: 1

With Apple's great camera, and software.

And AOL allowing any crummy cheap webcam.

Tis a shame.

But perhaps it will encourage others to make higher quality webcams, and people to buy higher quality webcams.

Could be a good thing. But stinks to be a Mac user connecting to an old QuickCam from the mid-late 90's.

Re:The Quality Divide by HeghmoH · 2004-02-05 10:44 · Score: 1

Consider the alternative.

At the moment, I connect to certain members of my family using Yahoo! Messenger and its webcam feature. What a pile of crap. The program crashes on exit every time, crashes in the middle half the time, sucks CPU, and all you get in exchange is a postage stamp at 0.5fps.

If I can access my windows-using family using iChat, I say bring it on! At least I can use something that doesn't suck.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:The Quality Divide by Selecter · 2004-02-05 11:50 · Score: 1

This will be very useful for video with my GF who lives just far enough away for me that we cant get together during the work week very well. I was hoping for a cross platform video client I could put on her PC and have it work with my G5 here.
Next thing to do....buy me a iSight....get a cam for her....broadband on her end....then.....lights camera action!
Oooooh, jiggle that for me agin, baby....

iChat, then by conan_albrecht · 2004-02-05 09:15 · Score: 1

iChat works extremely well. I've used it to videoconference back to my family from all sorts of places. I've used other solutions, but the iChat thing is really pretty neat.

Firewalls get in the way sometimes, but you just have to make sure the *receiving* computer can be seen externally. This means that sometimes I have to call my wife, and sometimes she has to call me. We usually hook up via cell phone first and then initiate the iChat. My kids love the program.

The telepone is here to stay by pbjones · 2004-02-05 09:16 · Score: 1

with less than 10% of people using broardband, and the hi initial cost of computers and the simple GUI attached to every telephone, and telephones are VIRUS free, and similar software being available for years, it'll make no difference to the current telecom industry. G3 mobile phones are years ahead of this, with video and picture messages etc.

--
There was an unknown error in the submission.

Re:no end to analog by eatenn · 2004-02-05 09:18 · Score: 1

Video phones won't be very useful outside of business transactions.

My girlfriend lives on the other side of the country, and we use h323 WITH video conferencing daily. It's been a very important part of making our long distance relationship work. I get to remember how pretty she is, and she gets to make sure I'm haven't got fat.

--
"But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers

End of What? by Lord+Kano · 2004-02-05 09:21 · Score: 1

Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?

In short, hell no.

There are far too many Baby Boomers still out there for that, and they'll probably be with us for another 30 years or so. They simply don't like change "If analog telephones were good enough for me and my parents, they're good enough for my children".

I can honestly say that I can see this technology changing the pricing structure for analog telephony. Either prices will drop, just to compete or they'll charge a premium for the extra work involved with maintaining analog equipment.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Re:no end to analog by Lord+Kano · 2004-02-05 09:25 · Score: 1

although that can be a bad thing (like when you're talking to someone and you realize they're using the bathroom)

Sorry 'bout that. I consider it an efficient use of time. It'll take me 20-30 minutes to poop. If I have a 15 minute telephone conversation while I'm pooping I can kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

I can finish the whole process in 30 minutes instead of taking 45 minutes to do both things separately.

It's all about judicious use of time man.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Re:Apple release iChat for Windows, world goes bli by bmwm3nut · 2004-02-05 09:29 · Score: 1

Yep. You're world will come crashing down around you when you discover that coolgrl1973 is really some four-hundred-pound hairy man from Pittsburgh, who says "Yins."

I believe that the proper spelling is "youns." At least that's how they spelled it in the paper when they would quote people. I'm so glad I moved away from there. :)

Re:One Way Video? by fupeg · 2004-02-05 09:32 · Score: 1

This is not how it works for me. I have two Macs (a G5 and an iBook) both running Panther and thus iChatAV. One has a camera, the other is a laptop with a built-in microphone but no camera. I can do audio between the two, but cannot do one-way video.

NITPICK - POTS != analog by wowbagger · 2004-02-05 09:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Plain Old Telephone System is not analog, save the "last mile" to your house. As soon as you hit the line card, you are a 8 kSample/sec 8 bit/sample digital data stream.

What you MEANT to say was, "How long until the end of the circuit-switched network is replaced by a packet-switched network."

And when you start throwing Quality-Of-Service guarantees, bandwidth guarantees, and everything else to make a packet-switched network have the level of performance and reliability that the circuit-switched network has, guess what - you've just created a circuit-switched network!

--
www.eFax.com are spammers

Re:NITPICK - POTS != analog by calstraycat · 2004-02-05 19:55 · Score: 1

There is a big difference between implementing VoIP in the enterprise versus implementing it over the internet. Yes, VoIP works well in a closed environment within a corporation where you have complete control of the network. Implementing it on the internet is a far more difficult task.

Regardless, I think the original post was stating a truism from an efficiency point of view rather than a technological one. The disadvantage of circuit switch networks, at least the one that packet-switching is supposed to address, is that circuit-switched lines nail up a circuit and the bandwidth is committed even during intervals when no voice/data are transmitted. Packet-switching is supposedly more efficient since the circuit isn't nailed-up. Packets are transmitted "as-needed. However in practice, packet-switching is just as inefficient because once you add up the overhead and implement QoS, the bandwidth efficiency is often less than fifty percent.

All of this really doesn't matter in the public network. The phone companies have billions of dollars worth of paid-for, circuit-switched equipment. The migration to packet-switching in the public network is going to take a long, long time. Cisco has been trying to get them to budge for many years, but the truth is that the existing network is very good and far more reliable than anything Cisco or anybody else is offering.

POTS is the Darwin-cousin of the Combustion Engine by killyourblender · 2004-02-05 09:38 · Score: 1

Here's my insight on this...

In comparison to the typical gasoline engine, we have had technology to make existing gas-guzzlers obsolete for many years. If we built solar-powered or hybrid electric cars with similar intense fervor during the 70's and 80's (a time when muscle cars were popular and global warming was just a myth) we all might be driving energy efficient cars.

Unfortunately, there is a socio-economic system built around the oil/gas/auto industry that supports hundreds of millions of global citizens. I don't know the numbers, but the number of people with jobs related to the "Industry", not to mention family members they support, is really high. The shock to the system as it is would be damaging.

And yes, the thought of such makes me sick.

Why am I saying this? Because POTS is much the same way. Maybe not so much with the jobs, but just the fact that there exists systems upon systems in a strange diseased equilibrium.

In the big picture, unless you're in a sealed contained network (like the folks at Symantec or McAfee who do virus testing), you're more than likely plugged into Ma Bell's copper somewhere. Even cell phones hit carriers between antennas because for long distances, more copper = clearer connections.

Mac's and Penguins and WinTelBorg machines are talking, but they are talking through copper. This copper has to be maintained somehow. I have ADSL at home, but SBC still requires me to have a land line. The cost of the DSL makes up for half of my bill; the other half is for the phone line.

Absurd, isn't it? Call up Comcast and ask them for their rates and packages... you can't get Cable Internet without getting Cable first.

What you're seeing is the people owning Level 1 wires reaping the profits and hearing complaints from those who work with the entire OSI model.

The solution? I don't know yet... maybe mental telepathy will prevail in twenty years. Perhaps prior to that, Bluetooth-style technology will ravage the lands. I know I plan on getting a ham license someday and building packet-radio...

--
"Would you rather be right, or happy?"

Re:end of POTS? not yet.. by diablobynight · 2004-02-05 09:40 · Score: 1

well that's pretty much the full upload speed with a standard DSL connection 256 kbps, granted, it is only half but remember, there is wrapping around that 130kbps, plus, you may actually want to use your internet connection for more than just your chat session, like I usually do work or other stuff at home while IMing or talking on my phone.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you

Bluetooth headsets. by thecombatwombat · 2004-02-05 09:41 · Score: 1

Software Update just added support for bluetooth headsets today too. *shrug* do whatever you want with that but it's kind of convenient.

Not until infrastructure expands by djeaux · 2004-02-05 09:46 · Score: 1

Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?

Nope.

I know probably most /. readers are in urban or suburban settings where they can take broadband access or cellular phone service for granted.

I live in a small town. Both cable and DSL access are available in the city limits. But a person living outside the city limits is stuck with 56K dial-up access (or an expensive satellite rig that's probably still 56K on the uptake). And if the person lives 10-12 miles out of town, it is highly probable that his cellphone won't "show a tower."

OTOH, POTS provides those rural residents with solid, reliable voice communications.

Why? Because POTS has about a 100 year jump on VOIP or cellular in terms of infrastructure. Those lines may only provide 56K dial-up access, but they are perfectly fine for analog voice...

--
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)

Re:One Way Video? by ckd · 2004-02-05 09:49 · Score: 1

This is not how it works for me. I have two Macs (a G5 and an iBook) both running Panther and thus iChatAV. One has a camera, the other is a laptop with a built-in microphone but no camera. I can do audio between the two, but cannot do one-way video.

I've done almost the same thing (G4 desktop with iSight to G4 laptop, one way video) and it worked fine.

Re:no end to analog by Jesselovesscripts · 2004-02-05 09:53 · Score: 1

I dunno about that. there's room for it. for instance, you see no emotion or expression over the phone. What about people you haven't seen in ages, or don't have a way to see... it's the next step in the continuing evolution of communication. no one thought IM would catch on, or text messaging. but i'm glad you think that video and audio don't mess well together, cause i'll never have to see your stupid face on the other end of an IM

AIM Windows Beta v5.5 download problems by reactivo · 2004-02-05 10:14 · Score: 1

Apparently theres no more beta version available for download.

http://www.aim.com/get_aim/win/win_beta.adp?aolp =

Re:end of POTS? not yet.. by mbbac · 2004-02-05 10:15 · Score: 1

Dude, your sister wasn't using iChat. The voice quality is superior to cellular phones. And that was with a friend that was on dialup. I'd expect AOL IM to have the same high quality since they're using Apple's solution.

--

mbbac

Nope by theraccoon · 2004-02-05 10:26 · Score: 1

Anyone else think we're nearing the end of the analog phone system?

Obviously, the Cmdr has never dealt with computers and the General Public. Did anyone read the NY Times article posted on slashdot today? If people have that many problems sending email... well, I think anything beyond dialing a telephone is much too much...

Re:One Way Video? by HeghmoH · 2004-02-05 10:30 · Score: 1

Is today soon enough? It works. Try harder. Read the help. Cameras are totally optional.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!

Re:iChat AV is Amazing!!!! by gryphokk · 2004-02-05 10:32 · Score: 1

Karma-whoring by pasting a clickable link:

This video also reveals the eye-contact problem.

You can never actually look each other eye-to-eye, since you must look away from the monitor to look at the camera to be perceived by the other guy as looking at him as he viewing his monitor, but he looks at his camera so you can see him as he....but you're...then he....

AAAAHHHRRRGGGG!

So, when will we get a camera invisibly embedded into the monitor?

--
And you, madam, are very ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.

Re:no end to analog by Alan+Partridge · 2004-02-05 10:47 · Score: 1

I hope I'm wrong about this but, in my experience, long distance relationships simply do not work.

So good luck.

--
That was classic intercourse!

Great.....but what about H.323 by C.+Mattix · 2004-02-05 10:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does anyone know of a H.323 solution that works on Mac? We use Polycom hardware to communicate for a variety of reasons. The only bad thing is that they are windows only.

Apple an AOL again by boomerny · 2004-02-05 10:54 · Score: 1

Apple and AOL seem to be collaborating alot lately, I wonder if this will have any effect on who Pixar chooses to distribute their films after the Disney deal is done? Also, where does this leave MSN Messenger users, out of the loop? Not that it affects me(I have iChat), just wondering.

webcam between win and mac is old news by bkaddy · 2004-02-05 10:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Earth scientists have used squidcam to communicate between windows and mac for some time now, although it isn't based on an existing instant messaging service. Squidcam also allows for multiple connections at once, something iChatAV/AIM cannot. Read this review on web-cams.

Re:It's *me* time! by lightningrod220 · 2004-02-05 11:13 · Score: 1

I'm suprised how we've gone from AIM chats all the way to use of personal pooping time. Can anyone say "off topic"? Next conversation topic: Do you prefer oval-shaped toilets, or the smaller round ones? Personally, I like the longer oval ones - it means more roaming room.

I think we're a little out of touch... by Kosgrove · 2004-02-05 11:15 · Score: 1

Most of the world cannot afford a computer. (2/3 of the world can't even read.) Hell, there's a good percentage of the poor in America who can't afford a computer (let alone a broadband connection), and you think they're going to get rid of the POTS and everyone's going to use the Internet? Not too likely, and if it does happen, we're just widening the digital divide.

And besides that, as the parent poster has noted, internet technology has a way to go before it compares to the POTS, cost aside.

Re:One Way Video? by dulinor · 2004-02-05 11:17 · Score: 1

Specifically - highlight the person you want to send audio/video to then select "invite to one-way video (or audio) chat" from the Buddies menu.

Much better frame rate than you might think. by zerocircle · 2004-02-05 11:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Have you ever used a video phone?

good luck signing asl at a framerate of 4 fps

Have you ever used iChat AV?

I tried it for the first time a couple of nights ago. FireWired my Sony Digital-8 video camera to my TiBook 667 running Panther. iChat recognized the camera with no configuration and immediately offered a video-chat button for a friend in my AIM buddy list -- he has a Power Mac G4 and an iSight.

Talked for an hour with a constant two-way frame rate of 15fps over a cable modem / sub-optimal AirPort signal. Plenty good for visual conversation.

The iChat interface is great, too.

Re:aol is way behind... by JonathanF · 2004-02-05 11:22 · Score: 1

It's because iChat AV is considered a pretty good audio/video IM app, and one of its (relatively) few drawbacks was that the advanced functions weren't compatible outside of iChat.

Re:Apple release iChat for Windows, world goes bli by SiO2 · 2004-02-05 12:01 · Score: 1

on another note... silicone dioxide, yes? thats from quite a few years back in chemistry... what does one do with it?

Silicon Dioxide is quartz crystal. Quartz is my last name. It runs analog watches among other things.

FYI.

SiO2

Re:Apple release iChat for Windows, world goes bli by MacGod · 2004-02-05 12:05 · Score: 1

Oh come on, I bet you'd really like to see the lower half, you dirty thing you...

Probably not so much if/when the lower half turns out to be fat and hairy. And have a penis

--
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein

Re:no end to analog by rblancarte · 2004-02-05 12:08 · Score: 1

I don't know about more secure, but very well entrenched. When you realized that nearly 98% of American homes have POTs lines, you realize that we are really not that close to them being done.

Trust me, there are many better things out there, but I think it will be a while before they become set in such a way that they are useable in everyday life.

I would say this - while you and I see the fuction of devices such as these, you are still looking at a cost prohibitive situation. The phone is so entrenched because of two reasons:
1- ease of use
2- cheap (regardless of the monopolies)
Until a device for things like voice chat etc over the internet become really cheap and widely distibuted, POTs and other old technology will be around a while (just see that list of things technologies that just won't die posted yesterday).

--
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.

Retransmitting TV Shows via iChat and AIM by WiseWeasel · 2004-02-05 12:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is excellent news. I've been retransmitting live TV shows off my satellite TV subscription trough iChat with all my (no extended cable or satellite having) Mac friends using an analogue video to DV bridge box since iChat became available. Now, I will finally be able to share shows with my Windows using buddies as well. Quality has been surprisingly good, with shows perfectly watchable over my 256kbit upstream cable connection, and the recipient's similar cable connection. Now, even those poor souls who don't get Comedy Central can just get their Daily Show fix from their video chat buddies. Much more useful than actual 2-way videoconferencing.

--
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)

Re:Retransmitting TV Shows via iChat and AIM by ohasten · 2004-02-06 06:04 · Score: 1

I like that. That shows the power of these wonderful devices we have. I've thought of that and am looking for a video encoder now.

As far as this tech replacing the phone, they won't allow that.

--
"You can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs"

I honestly think by ShadowRage · 2004-02-05 12:20 · Score: 1

all 3 technologies will never be replaced by each other..
cell phones offer mobility and are good for emergencies when you're stranded

voip offers some mobility (have the same number no matter where you go, but can be unreliable, but is good for low priced long distance calls and casual calling)

POTS (analog) is tried and true, and reliable in most situations. makes good for a good landline, can be used when the power goes out (in most cases, unless the lines got completely cut, or if you use a handset, hence why I keep a "tethered" phone around)

liek I've said before, technologies really never die, we just find other things to use..
but in the end.. older technology can be your best friend.

Re:end of POTS? not yet.. by repetty · 2004-02-05 12:40 · Score: 1

"i picked up a USB headset yesterday for my 11 year old sister, because a bunch of her friends have webcams and headsets. She immediately tried it out with her friends. From what I saw, the quality is still sketchy."

iChat AV video quality is quite good. I don't know what software/protocols/hardware your sister and her friends were using but I can tell you that it was the wrong stuff.

I videoconference with my dad a couple times a week and it's great. We have FireWire-based iSight cameras, though, which are better than 99% of the USB cameras on the market. The old saw that "you get what you pay for" is still in effect for hardware, at least.

Don't write it off. It's here, now, and works.

Now, on the Windows side I cannot comment. I also can't comment on interoperability but I'm waiting anxiously to hear other people's stories.

--Richard

iSight... by atheken · 2004-02-05 12:51 · Score: 1

does iSight work with AOL 5.whatever? (on PC)

Re:end of POTS? not yet.. by Clith · 2004-02-05 12:51 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, Fire doesn't support proxies, nor does it support audio/video chats. Ah well.

--
[ReidNews]

Re:aol is way behind... by g-doo · 2004-02-05 13:35 · Score: 1

This is an important story because AIM is a leading IM client (along with ICQ). Now webcam capability has been brought to many more people. AIM still lacks IM message logging and offline messages though.

And to that I say..... by Ride-My-Rocket · 2004-02-05 13:35 · Score: 1

Double bollocks. I had / have Sprint, and I couldn't get reception. Neither could a roomful of people on their respective cell phones. Maybe you got lucky. We didn't.

Yes by billybob · 2004-02-05 14:37 · Score: 1

I'm glad you pointed out that it was september 11 of 2001. Why, if you hadn't said that, I would have had no idea what you were referring to. I would have thought it was just any old september 11.

--
Joseph?

Now Windows users can see how the other half lives by ptimmons · 2004-02-05 15:07 · Score: 1

How does it feel to see one of the beautiful people?

Power by IllogicalStudent · 2004-02-05 15:11 · Score: 1

They won't get rid of analog phone lines for a while yet. You need electricity for computers and cable modems and routers to work. Not so for most land-line phones. As last August showed us (well, those of us in the Eastern US and Ontario), land-line analog phones that work sans-electricity are VERY useful indeed.

--
But Maaa! Everyone else has a .sig !

Re:Power by cranos · 2004-02-05 16:43 · Score: 1

Just to let you know that Phones do indeed need electricity to work. They just don't rely on the Power Grid that everything else does.

...geeks who live near CO's by bill_mcgonigle · 2004-02-05 17:54 · Score: 1

P2P based technology that requires dirrect comunication will be limited to the geeks ...who live near CO's, to boot. I was reading recently that 9 out of 10 home internet users are on dial-up. With $30 DSL, cost isn't the issue anymore, availability is. DSL still maxes out at 5 miles, and who knows if FRED will get traction.

We may very well soon be in a society where urban folk have AV telecommunications and more suburban folk are voice-only.

I'm going to have to break down and get satellite, despite a big fiber box a mile away, 'cause that's how DSL works...

Has anybody tried iChat AV over satellite? Push-to-talk would be just fine as long as the software doens't crap out over latency timeouts.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

innovation (Re:NITPICK - POTS != analog by gummint · 2004-02-06 02:55 · Score: 1

How long does it take to add text and imaging to POTS? How long does it take to add sound and images to Internet-based instant messaging? Which technology supports faster innovation in configuring sensory modes?

That's a big difference. That's the big difference. See "Sense in Communication" at www.galbithink.org.

Does AIM 5.5 install WildTangent by ohasten · 2004-02-06 06:15 · Score: 1

I did a "necessary" 98 update on my girlfriends machine and upon reboot, it hung with the flashing cursor in the upper left hand corner.

Restarted in safe mode. Removed some new Sound/Video devices that I had never seen before. What seemed to be "software" devices. Rebooted, no luck. Set video to VGA. Rebooted ok.

Changed video, rebooted. 24 hours later I go to her machine to update AIM to 5.5 (hadn't been used since I last got it running). Previously working AIM crashes. Downloaded 5.5. Installed it. It now crashes.

Everything now crashes soon after launch. I start looking around and see a WildTangent control panel. Start looking around and find that this program, was installed without my knowledge and it is phoning home.

Any body have any information about WildTangent. Not how to remove it but history, when it was installed, where there alleged agreement came in when it was installed on my computer.

Thanks

--
"You can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs"

Apple got screwed - AOL not offering 5.5 beta by gsfprez · 2004-02-06 06:22 · Score: 1

I just went to aim.com - to betas for Windows and got this message..

"AIM 5.5 Beta for Windows
There is no Beta version currently available. Please check back soon"

apparently, Apple just got the hose job from AOL. They shouldn't have announced this until they saw that AOL had their shit together.

--
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

Re:Apple got screwed - AOL not offering 5.5 beta by gsfprez · 2004-02-06 06:55 · Score: 1

holy shit.

So, if you go to aim.com - you see that the latest version is 5.2

If you go to the download section, you see that its 5.5.

dude, what the fsck is wrong with AOL that they can't make a webpage with decent information?

--
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

Slashdot Mirror

Audio/Video Conference with iChat and AIM

273 of 353 comments (clear)