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."

Comments

Moore

[andy666]

Actually, this was predicted by Moore in the 1960's...it took them a long time to get it working.

Re:Moore

[John Murray]

The bell system had working video phone technology in the mid 1950s, began field trails in the 1960s, and by late 1960s and through 1970s they tried to find market for it. But it never really got beyond the trail phase. Even the users who used the system during the trails (for free or at a greatly reduced cost), rarely deiced to continue using them. Mainly because of the very high cost of the service.

The high cost came from the fact that it required a completely separate network to move the video signals, a separate 4 wire subscriber loop with special equalizes added to allow for video transmission, a dedicated video switch at the central office, a dedicated video PBX switch for business customers, and a lot of bandwidth on trunks for interoffice and long distance calls. The plan for long distance calls was a very advanced for the time(late 1960s), the analog picturephone signal would be digitized with a 6.3megabits/sec bitrate, and sent over the long distance network. That's quite a bit of bandwidth to have to give to one subscriber, and probably would be a very expensive call. One attempt to try the service more viable to business customers, was to use the picturephone to interact with a computer system, input was done via touch tone dial pad, and out put would be displayed on the screen.

There is special issue of the Bell Laboratories Record, from may/june of 1969 that is dedicated to the picturephone, and all technology, research, and network designs are detailed.

Oh great

[blowdart]

As if my weekly calls with my mother aren't hard enough with "Are you eating right". Now I'll get "Haven't you washed and ironed that shirt. Why haven't you put those books away."

And as for calling potential dates ....

I can see it now...

[segment]

[scrptk1d] d00d!*!~
[scrptk1d] i jUsT sNifFeD pArIs HiLtOn's WeBpHoNe Cam!
[p1mp] y0 y0 y0 post dat shit on that net!&^
[scrptk1d] w3rd!~!~!

Ease of use

[FrostedWheat]

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!

Re:Ease of use

[Dionysus]

There is something about actually seeing the person you are talking with.

When I lived in the Bayarea, and my parents were in Norway, videoconferencing made it much easier for my mother.

And video phones shouldn't be that hard to implement, would it? Just send a request over the line, to see if the receiver support some std protocol, and if not use voice only, otherwise, turn on camera if allowed...

Re:Ease of use

[phillymjs]

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

Re:Ease of use

[ScrewMaster]

... 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.

Personally....

[clifgriffin]

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.

Re:Personally....

[ch-chuck]

Yep - the 'videophone' is an 'invention' that comes up and dies away with astounding regularity. I have a 1927 silent film about the future where a character makes a pay phone call on one. Tele-video actually had a lot of research in the 20's thru 40's and came to fruition with the common TV system in the early 50's (all the experience and research in WWII radar helped tremendously). The videophone was the future of Telephony in the 1964 worlds fair exhibit by ATT, and about every half generation since someone has had the same brilliant idea followed by the same lack of consumer excitement and demand.

doomed again

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

iSight

[1337 Apple Zealot]

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!

Awesome

[Mork29]

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 use an iSight every day while traveling 80%

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

catch-22

[bkaddy]

"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!

Cisco's priorities

[mick88]

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.

A new etiquitte

[maggard]

We've all heard the jokes about working from home in the nude, and then wearing a shirt or using hand puppets or inserting fake backgrounds into video calls to the office. However the reality is that most folks really don't appreciate having to look presentable on what is essentially an audio call.

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

Maybe for you, but not for everyone

[wirefarm]

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