Slashdot Mirror
Videophones Revisited
amitupadhyay7 writes "The NYTimes is running a story on Video Phones. ...more than 30 percent of American homes now have much faster 'pipes' coming into their homes: broadband Internet. Apple exploited this situation, for example, with its $140 iSight camera, a pocketcam that clips onto a Macintosh screen for free, high-quality Internet video calls. Now a company called Viseon has taken the next step by creating an actual video telephone called the VisiFone... in a related news Cisco is adding video to their IP phones. Telcos' response so far seems constructive."
Actually, this was predicted by Moore in the 1960's...it took them a long time to get it working.
And as for calling potential dates ....
[scrptk1d] d00d!*!~
[scrptk1d] i jUsT sNifFeD pArIs HiLtOn's WeBpHoNe Cam!
[p1mp] y0 y0 y0 post dat shit on that net!&^
[scrptk1d] w3rd!~!~!
MoFscker
Strange how they always seem to be trying to make video phones. What practical advantage does it have over ordinary audio-only phones? If anything, I'd say normal phones are easier to use!
Our density has led us to video phones. (haha)
:-)
The evolution from phones you have to crank to videophones that make it seem like the other person is right with you is just a natural process for the technology to take.
However, the old system will most likely always have to be supported, because there are far too many automated/integrated/etcerated systems implemented right now that rely on analog phone signals.
Anywho, cool stuff
I think this is one futuristic invention we can put on the shelf.
:)
Does anyone really need/want it? I have 2 or 3 friends with webcams. Very occassionaly we'll turn them on, have fun with them for an hour tops and then turn them off for a month.
It just isn't that entertaining to see the person you are talking to. It's uneccessary information and kind of defeats some of the advantages to having a phone.
I can think of a lot better uses of our bandwidth.
My opinion, I'll never use one. But that's just my opinion.
clifgriffin > blog
Employee: Um, yeah, hi, boss? I can't come in today, I really don't feel well.
Boss: Johnson! Get over here in front of the video camera so I can see you!
Employee: Uh, ok, just a second sir..., oh, and it's Thompson, sir.
Sound of much shuffling in the background...
Boss: Johnson! What's taking so long?
Employee:Nothing sir, here I am... as you can see, I am sick...
Employee has used yellow highlighter to make his face look pale, copying that commercial.
Boss: Well, Johnson, you do look rather sick... but is that a Hawaiian shirt I see under your crooked tie??
Employee: Uh... umm...
Boss: Very good Johnson, see you at nine then.
libertarianswag.com
Video phones may have a small chance in the office.
But they have zero chance at home.
Numerous attempts at home deployment all failed
because people don't want to comb their hair before
answering the phone. If they answer with the
camera off, then the callers always chides them to
turn it on. The social pain kills the system.
This will add a whole new dimension to prank calls
I own one of those cameras for My g5. It may be more expensive than regular web cameras, but it is a really high quality device. Unfortunatley it dosent work under Linux and Windows, and it is one of the few cameras that work under OSX. Its a shame that apple didn't make it easier for Web cams to work under OSX, but if you can afford it, get it. I have used it to collarberate in developing my Apple Programs with my outsourced team, seeing your developers halfway around the world makes it easier to work with them!
Screenshot of My G5 desktop!
Now I can give phone solicators the finger and they can even see it! How do I get myself off of the do-not-call list? I'm also thinking phone sex would be much more interesting now.... although I don't think the 900 numbers will have video on their ends....
I travel a lot and make sure to chat with my wife for a little while via iSight/iChat.
I find it that it helps reduce a lot of the anxiety of travel, for her/homesickness for me. Kind of strange, but 5 mins on camera can be more soothing that 1 hour on the phone.
And the quality of iSight is awesome. Unless there is rapid movement, the quality is comparable to TV.
My 2 cents.
The current big thing seems to be mobile video phones (mainly from 3, in the uk) which seem to have flopped big time. Has anyone actually found them useful at all? From what I've seen the quality of video is pretty useless.
Oh yes, she's just RACKING UP THAT KARMA with those pesky +5 FUNNY mods, that's right...
"That's right: Who on earth has a cable modem but not a computer?" I don't see anyone paying $600 for a video phone when they could drop $100 on a webcam and use the free video-chat features of AIM or MSN Messenger which they most likely already use. Thats what the earth scientists are doing!
Why is it that cisco is cramming this new feature onto IP phones - one that people don't really want?
clarifier: I install cisco IPT for a living so this is just my 2 cents from the field...
Customers complain about:
1) the platform running on Win2k (bugs/virus/stability)
2)lack of traditional PBX features (yeah, they're getting there, but not quite to what a G3 has)
3) lack of support for adavanced security on the wireless phones
4) lack of a true operator console
The list goes on. Not once has anyone said "These phones are crap - there's no video phone!" nope - that's not what keeps people from buying them.
So why address the one thing that people AREN'T clamoring for?
Dunno. I like IPT, I like cisco, I think the Cisco IPT platform is the best by far. But if Cisco wants to take market share away from traditional phones then they should focus on adding critical features that users want/expect.
I created this account just so I could comment on this story
iSight works under linux and can be easily configured with Coriander. I use it with Gnome Meeting under Suse Linux 9.
WinXP identifies iSight as a generic firewire camera.
It is true that only the video works under Linux and win, iSight microphone is not recognized. This is no big deal. Apple added a microphone to iSight because many mac laptops do not have an audion-in port (not having an audio-in port is a stupid decision, people have to buy expensive usb sound devices, etc.)
Most USB cameras without Mac divers from their manufacturers can be used without problems under OSX with macam,an opensource package with includes usb camera drivers for OSX.
And for those who can't understand sarcasm: Funny mods don't give karma. Read the FAQ. (It does seem a little unfair though, because after you've got 4 funny mods, you can't get any other mods, so can't get any karma...)
But wait, I'm a girl.
What practical advantage does it have over ordinary audio-only phones? If anything, I'd say normal phones are easier to use!
The trend with phones has been one of increasing portability. Speakerphones let you walk around the room, cordless phones let you walk around the house, and cell phones let you walk around... well, pretty much anywhere.
I'm not sure if the occasional benefit of seeing the other person will outweigh the need to be in one place while talking. I think I would find it frustrating.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
...tell a lie on a videophone than it is on a plain old audio-only phone.
I can't see it becoming too popular, somehow.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
I carry a videophone around with me. Europe's had mobile videophone's for what, 2 years now?
http://www.three.co.uk
It would of course be nice if the landline telcos could get their arses into gear and start implementing the same standards. Who wants to put money on the landline videophones (http://www.bt.com/videophone/) being imcompatible with the mobile ones?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I have been wondering what if people at Microsoft have this video phone function incorporated into Xbox. The subsidy for hardware, its ethernet port, powerful CPU and hard disk make this a viable add-on. If they really make it happen, then there will be Xbox webacams sitting on top of many TVs all over the world.
CT
Indeed it's already hard enough for many folks with audio only. I can't count the number of times I've had to ask conference callers to stop eating, or in a few cases that perhaps they could try to pee quieter and have waited 'til after the call to flush.
Videophones themselves have had numerous fals starts. The Bell demos are classics from the 60's (particularly memorable in the film 2001.) Then in the late 80's and early 90's home video phone models briefly became somewhat popular. Rarely successfully interoperable they seemed to sell mostly to gadget folks wanting distant grandkids and grandparents to see each other.
Then came the broadband/instant messaging explosion in the late 90's and along with it lots of webcams. Offering small blurry jerky windows the PC-tethered cams allowed a few families and travelers to wave at each other. It also sparked an entire new market of slo-mo sexual voyeurism.
Now broadband has fairly wide market penetration, the camera sensors have improved, new codecs stream well, and hardware connections have moved from serial to USB 1 to USB 2 or FireWire/IEEE 1394. We even have ubiquitous clients like AOL Instant Messenger, MS Messenger, and Yahoo! Messenger, all including video chat in their free clients.
Cellphones have also gotten into the game with still cameras now standard on many models and live cameras starting to hit the market. "MMS" is being ballyhooed as the next text-messaging. However what appears to be lagging is the new video-etiquette.
It used to be tourists busily video documenting their vacations that got on everyone's nerves. Then it was instant messaging folks who often annoying with trying to strike up light chat when one was deep in thought or a meeting, or vice versa. Or being offended at others who were accessible but not immediately available.
then came the invasion of cheap digital cameras. It's thankfully dying down now but for a few years one couldn't turn around at a party or conference without a flash going off in one's eyes and knowledge that like it or not, welcome or not, your stunned countenance was going to show up on a photo album or web page somewhere.
Of course today's universal complaint is cellphone users. Yakking away in previously quiet places, blithely wandering from road lane to road lane, standing in aisles oblivious to folks trying to pass. Obtrusively sharing their no-longer-private lives with everyone around whether we care to hear them or not.
So how will we stay out of the picture? It's bad enough with stills being taken, overtly and surreptiously, with phonecams. Now they're gonna be making mini-movies. Instead of having to take a series of shots phonecam wielders will be able to pan a room and document everyone without any opportunity for thanks-but-no.
"Why won't you turn your cam on?" "Are you really where you say you are?" "Johnson, starting next week we want you to sit in front of these lights and put some powder on that shine, you'll be taking video calls. Oh, and go shopping, tests show our clients respond well to blue shirts." "What do you mean you left your cam on the whole time we were ... ?!!!"
Plus audio conference calls and endless PowerPoint presentations are bad enough, now we'll have to see every schmoo who dreampt of being a TV newsman share their talents at every opportunity. Indeed no longer will sending out a report be enough, we'll have to "present" them too. Today's video conference rooms will bloom into tomorow's full in-office studios.
Of course there are upsides too. Now we'll be able to see our loved ones when we miss them. Also walk folks through things remotely "Let me see it - yep, that's it." And the idea of s
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Therefore, anyone posting a story linking to the NYT should always remember to post the URL to the NYT random login generator.
http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html
So far, the FCC and Congress haven't done much to regulate the VoIP and other technologies which will make VideoPhones ubiquitous in the coming years. (yeah, it's coming, whether we're all ready or not...)
I'd really rather NOT have them regulate this new area in the same manner which they regulate traditional telephony. However, I'm not in favor of the complete hands-off approach either. I'm hoping to see some sanity here - we certainly need a Universal Access Fee structure for Internet connections - if we want internet connections to be as common as telephones (and I think we can all agree that this is a Good Thing for the country), then we need to do a bit of subsizing.
Think of it this way: we plan to use Internet connectivity to Vote, use VideoPhone, standard Internet Telephony, and a host other things which we pretty much are going to designate as ESSENTIAL to living in the U.S. in a decade or two. Thus, we're going to have to subsize certain minimum connectivity offerings for those not able to afford the whole thing. Look in the front of your Telephone Book to see what I mean for current telephone service.
If we're lucky and a bit vigilant over the legislation being proposed, we can get the Right Thing done: basic Universal Service for everyone, while replacing the horrid mis-mash of telephony regulations with something much simpler and easier to deal with. If we're not, well, guess what - VideoPhone is going to be regulated even worse the regular telephony.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
I did a video chat with my mother and she could forget she was using a computer. She hates computers, but seeing my face put her at ease.
My friend did a conference with his daughter on her second birthday while he had to be out of the country. The phone alone would have provided a much-diminished experience for the two of them.
I regularly video chat with friends and family back in the states, where regular phone calls are expensive. iChat and iSight provide a better experience than a normal telephone plus the added benefit of a clear picture fullscreen on a 17 inch monitor.
I work with people whose English is not great and my Japanese is not great, so having another dimension to a conversation can save a great deal of time and prevent misunderstandings.
Apple's combination is so far ahead of what everyone else is doing it's hard to conveigh the difference to anyone who has only experienced video chat over netmeeting with a quickcam.
I read a story that this is finally good enough for deaf people to use for sign language.
What may be a gimmicky toy for you and a waste of bandwidth may be a necessity for someone else.
Cheers,
Jim
-- My Weblog.
Funny. Here in Brazil I can have a video phone installed, though it's targetted more at people who need video conference.
(8-DCS)
Sure, there may be some uses for videophones (videoconferenceing, etc.) but in general is there really a huge demand? I personally would not want to use videophones on a regular basis because I am usually multi-tasking when I speak to someone on the phone... at home I am often cooking, doing laundry, writing emails to other folks, etc. At work I use my phone call time to do code reviews, read emails, etc. If people could see me and see what I was doing, I would likely have to single-task in order to tnot be perceived as rude, if you see what I mean. Not having video is for me a convenient feature of telephony.
...when every last cordless phone and mobile phone is thrown away in favor of the corded models.
I'm serious here--telecommunications has been moving in the direction of un-tethering the caller for over a decade, to the point now when people are chucking their landlines en masse in favor of mobile-only phone service. Videophones, whatever their advantage, lack even the limited mobility of a corded phone in the home -- you have to stay sitting in front of the camera and microphone the whole time.
It means I'd have to put a shirt on when telecommuting. One of the benefits of working from home is being able to walk around all day in your underwear.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Video phones would not be used soley for checking out somebody's face. Imagine it like a large caller ID, but with more features. I'm sure video of a person on the other end will be used frequently, but how about: -seeing your order on the screen if you order a few pizzas -putting your signature on something in seconds -having an instant "driving directions" to whoever you're talking to -maybe have a voice analysis system, detects lies? My point is that the downfall of video phones could be the word "video". Lots of PCs have web cams, but they don't call them video machines. I see interactivity and better info access being the selling point; and if it has a camera, cool. -shook
Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...
I think you have some issues. Get therapy.
Most sci-fi television shows these days have no videophones. Why? All the reasons stated above. Farscape, all the Treks (most of the time), SG1, none of them have videophones. They're just too damn inconvenient when people are trying to kill you and you need to shoot at sheyangs.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
the porn industry would be all over this.
I mean you would think there would be at least, one or two webcam sites with sound...
I remember, a very long time age(pre-internet) AT&T was selling video phone. $1000 bucks a PIECE. So you would have to by 2. I can't imagine why that didn't take off.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While I agree with David Pogue that configuring a firewall/router to let in Videophone traffic is not for the average grandma, perhaps he should have thought long and hard about advising people to expose themselves to the Net like this. Of course, a person should have a firewall on all their computers, but COME ON... "open all ports"? WTF?
Check out the DVC-1000, or its wireless sibling DVC-1100.
I think Best Buy has the "wired" version for roughly $200, and Newegg has it for a bit less.
Hmm, Mardi Gras is so cool. I've always wondered what the girls were offered to flash ...
I will meta mod this negative as unfair.
SG1 has the videophones on the maufs for communication from SGC and the mission team. They usually are interrupted by people shooting at them.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
Now I'm going to have to actually put on clothes BEFORE I leave the house.
Or not...
After all, who hasn't seen me in a fairly serious state of undress in one of my all too frequent drunken stupors?
People knock on my door at their own peril, as the delivery people, magazine sellers, jehovas witnesses, et al have all discovered. To my credit though, I am usually wearing a bathrobe...
I just don't always remember to tie it.
Imagine the fun you can have with prank calls! Costumes, tampered video feeds...the fun will NEVER cease!!!
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
This is why this videophone thing is being driven by the legions of one handed typists who want to see each other wank off, because they don't know that the [i]"16 year-old bisexual lesbian blond schoolgirl"[/i] they wank off too every day on the web's actually a 40 year old bloke.
So don't post things that are funny. ;)
I work for a company that sells H.323 MCUs in the Chinese market. For those who do not know, that is one of those "corporate video conferencing solutions" mentioned in the article. Actually they are getting popular with the rise of broadband here, Many people use OICQ or MSN to video conference with a little web cam here.
I don't really how this is news. Leadtek has had a phone that sounds exactly like this for years. Polycom, Tandberg, and Sony make much better solutions (that would require about the same amout of configuration, as in, set a static IP).
This article was more trying to say that such things existed, and may some day be able to be used by non computer savvy, but the technologies that Viseon is putting out do not sound that amazing.
H.263, for example, is considered old hat now, with H.263+, H.264, and MPEG4 being used for transmission.
I'm boring enough that that isn't a problem. :-)