Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Videophones Revisited

Posted by timothy on from the no-shower-no-video dept.

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."

12 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. Ease of use by FrostedWheat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Ease of use by phillymjs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What practical advantage does it have over ordinary audio-only phones?

      Hmm.... well, theoretically, it would put a complete end to the concept of the blind date (if it's not dead already), much like teleportation would kill the concept of the alibi.

      Considering that today's youth, when observed in AOL chat rooms, won't even talk to someone else in the room without seeing a photo of them first, I think videophones are ready to be adopted en masse... they just need to be cheap enough for those same dumb kids to be able to afford.

      ~Philly

    2. Re:Ease of use by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... much like teleportation would kill the concept of the alibi.

      I see you've read some Larry Niven. And teleportation probably wouldn't kill the alibi: his assumption was that teleportation would be anonymous, and what are the odds of that happening in anything like modern society? You'd probably need a retinal scan or some other foolproof biometric I.D. just to transport yourself to the local McDonald's, and your transmat usage would no doubt be logged for use by law enforcement, your employer, your wife's divorce lawyer, your mistress, or whoever wants to know where you've been.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. density by redJag · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 :-)

  3. Personally.... by clifgriffin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Personally.... by alphaseven · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think Star Trek was pretty accurate predicting how communication would work, in that it showed people using communicators 90% of the time, but occasionally sitting down in front of a screen to do the odd conferance.

      Personally, I'd hate to be stuck sitting at the computer when talking to someone, but webcams and bandwidth are so cheap I can see videophones spreading despite not being a lot of demand out there.

  4. doomed again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:doomed again by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, pretty much it. They've been flogging these things as long as I've been alive, and when people ask me what my "sign" is I say "Sputnik."

      No one wants them.

      Oh sure, there are people who say they want them, just read a good many of the posts here, but when it comes down to it they want to be able to get out of the shower to answer that call from mom without looking like they just got out of the shower or having to explain why they won't turn the video on.

      Teenage girls with cellphones at the mall may be a different market, we'll see.

      KFG

  5. catch-22 by bkaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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!

  6. You can't walk around the house with these. by OECD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:Cisco's priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why is it that cisco is cramming this new feature onto IP phones - one that people don't really want?

    Because, sadly, "cool" trumps "necessary," when it comes to features. Cisco is just taking a page from the Microsoft playbook.

  8. But who wants it? by code_nerd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.