Slashdot Mirror
Why Video Calling Is a Wasted Feature In the UK
An anonymous reader writes "Technology affects the way we live but sociocultural influences also dictate what technology we absorb into our day-to-day lives. Take video calling on the iPhone 4 for example; it was pitched as an impressive feature, but will people adopt it? According to one British writer, the UK is unlikely to start making lots of video calls because it's awkward and, well, not very British. 'It's not the way we look when we say them, but the way we say them in order to inject the most bile into a negative statement. Or, on our more enthusiastic days, finding the most wryly witty way to say something while indicating that you couldn't really care less about it. This is the reason we've taken so well to Twitter and are better at watching than creating YouTube videos, to put it in sweepingly generic Internet terms.'"
Why would I start video calling on the Johnie come lately iPhone 4.
That has been available on other devices such as the Nokia N900 for a while.
I guess the British all have great radio faces.
Well, it is. Because you're not smiling in the camera but your peers face - which hasn't a camera behind it but above/besides it. So it always seems that your peer is intentionally avoiding looking at you.
Seriously though, it is not taking off in the United States either. Skype was installed, setup and demonstrated on at least a dozen of my family's laptops this Christmas and the only person that uses it is my Sister. The reasons I have been given is that they don't want to be seen as fat, unshaven or unclean or that they would rather talk on the phone because they don't want to sound weird. Older people seem to think it is a gimmick and young people would rather text you and 5 other people than give you your full attention on a video link.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
and I completely agree with this article.
And another crappy ad exchange to a crappy site masquerading as a "news" source is worse.
There's enough of a separation between the frame of a laptop (where the camera lives) and the video you are watching, that the direction of eyesight being different is noticeable.
With a mobile device, it seems like it would look a lot more like the person was looking at you, rather than offscreen.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But apple have "invented" video calling, its an awesome new and unique feature that all the iSheep will be using.
Offtopic or not, what it the glorious melted cheese fuck is up with the new BSA advertisements on Slashdot? Debate over copyright infringement morality and legality aside, advertisements for a whistleblower hotline making a huge point that you will be paid for turning in copyright infringement is really apalling to see. I know slashdot is a place where there are a lot of eyeballs that work in company IT departments and also contain many disgruntled employees with a massive overlap on that venn diagram, but this is whoring out your audience in a huge way.
This is worse than those lame Visual Studio ads that have been on the last month that seem to think faking and/or only accepting comments to a feed that are short blurbs exclaiming how great it is is somehow going to influence whether a developer or company actually tries it.
I know i'm not the only person who is seriously considering the wisdom of continuing to subscribe and donate.
We've had this feature in Sweden for years now. It was one of these new "cool" features when we got our 3G networks.
So in the beginning some people used it for the novelty factor, but nowadays it's mostly used by friends who are bored and have nothing else to do than video chat =P.
BUT. I guess a lot of people with problems hearing still use and love this feature. And as a lot of phones have this built in and the networks support the feature, I wouldn't say it's "wasted".
It may not be used by the masses, but the most people using it really like and need the feature, and AFAIK there is no large expenses for the carriers/phone manufacturers. So it's not "wasted" as much as "only really usable by a few".
Its certainly not a guaranteed winner for everyone. I remember years ago a guy and his girlfriend in the office I worked in got a pair of Nokias that did this. At the start the novelty was fun, but a couple weeks in the conversations became stilted and, to be honest, hard work. Finally it was obvious it wasn't working and the girl said, "ok lets drop the video and I'll call you properly". From then on they were back on "normal" calls...
What do you mean it's not British?
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
I think the difference that will explain adoption is this - the degree of usability and proximity.
With Skype, you have to launch the application. Then the other person has to be running skype - if they are not a skype user they are probably not going to do so. Then you have to arrange to have a time when they will run skype, and in the end wasn't a phone call just easier? I don't use skype video calling for just this reason.
Furthermore, you can call someone with a phone in your pocket when you have to go to a laptop or desktop to make a video call. Again, the phone call (or text) is simply easier.
But by the looks of things Apple has again, taken an idea that has been around for some time and made it easy enough to use that the level of convenience is nearly the same as a phone call. By the looks of things it's just another option when you are calling someone (and on WiFi), a video option appears and you are video conferencing. There's no setup by the end user, and they can video chat on the device they always have with them.
That leaves the other factors remaining - will people want to receive video calls at random times? When it's as easy to video as call, will people do so? That remains to be seen. But the first, necessary, step to adoption was to make it no harder than a phone call.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It will never be used. Uk have had the video call option since 3g, must have been about 6 or so years back.
I remember trying it out with someone else, thought that would be cool.
Never made another video call again.
Its just another feature Jobs is adding years after everyone else has had it! iPhone 5 will probably have the ability to send files by blue tooth as its big feature!
note the correct wording: "couldn't really care less"
It's couldn't care less.... not could!
They are fruity....
And they don't recognize a trend coming at them like a freight train. We started using email for convenience. Now that has been replaced somewhat by texting. Now that has been replaced by an even MORE in-personal way of communicating - the most evil thing in the history of the internets - facebook. The "After school popularity contest." People don't want to have conversations with others - they certainly don't want to see someone and have the other person see them - that's what text is for. To me - this is a step backwards.
Also, it might be good to know i've already deactivated my facebook account, without any qualms - after all, I had "ignored" 80% of people on there because... well - I don't want to hear about your baby's every bowel movement because you are extremely bored....
And two - its a breeding ground for ignorance. I always posted articles that I thought were.. thought provoking - very few people commented, but WATCH OUT if someone says "I'm going to have sushi for lunch."
Maybe this whole thing is indicitive of something else, but I think it caters too much to the "me" generation... What are we calling them? Gen Z? I'll tell you right now, Gen Z doesn't want to look at people when they are talking to them, so good luck there apple - I think you just wasted money.
We also will be charged out the ass for it. And, lets face it, there's nothing worth spending 1000x the bandwidth and 1000x the cost on in making a video call over a voice only call.
But over the internet, video messaging with webcam on wired internet is quite popular, at least as popular as anywhere else. But then again, you're not on a piddly little cap and a huge expense per second of use, making my assertion that it's the ass-raping of the mobile internet that stops video calls more supported still.
As to the teeth, at least they are our GENUINE teeth, not some artificial replacement put there by an overpaid failed doctor.
And our arses fit into dentist chairs better (if you want to get all racial slur about it).
In the UK, video call's over 3G have been around since the launch of the 3G networks years ago - and no-one cares. I've seen one mobile video call made *ever* - and that was someone in a pub in London demoing this shiny new 3G thing that had just arrived. But I've not met anyone since who gave a toss about it....
At home, over wifi, small devices (eg. 7 inch netbooks) have been able to do video calls for years as well (eg. an old EeePC701 portable, cheap, and came with Skype installed and has a camera & wifi - job done).
No idea about the US - the US always seems a bit behind the UK in terms of mobile tech (in much the same way the UK is behind Japan or Korea), so maybe video calls would be a novelty over there.
The article makes it sound like a breakthrough by Apple but videocalling has been around for at least 3 years in Italy and has not taken on for a variety of reasons, the main one being that it does not solve a problem the user has.
Video skype is popular amongst families distributed over various countries mostly because it is free. I don't know, but I think international mobile videocalls are probably not free or cheap.
I had a Nokia e61 with a front facing camera for years and have not used it even once.
Dennis.
Dennis Onstenk
Ever since first 3G cameraphone was introduced. I don't think anyone really uses it out of their cellphone. I know that a local telco here in Finland attempted a pilot project with association for dead people where they handed some phones and cheap video call plans - I mean, selling phones to deaf sounds like a great idea if they can just use the sign language over video. Even THAT didn't take off.
No one really wants to look at your face at least with tiny screen of a cellphone. Cisco Telepresence-style things where one entire wall is converted to a video display is a different story...seems to be taking off quite well.
Nah - it's 'coz they might get call's from americans....
(I hope Apple have fitted a *really* wide angle lens on that puppy)
almost everyone has had front facing camera for over an year now, and like 25% networks support video calling. but still nobody uses it. we are just too comfortable with voice-only.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
3G phones with video calling have existed in the UK since 2004/2005. Ignoring the iPhone it's hard to find a phone which doesn't support Video calling.
I own a Nokia 5800 which is capable of video calling and everyone in my family is capable of making video calls, none of us do. I personally don't bother because holding the phone in front of you isn't as easy a having auto answer on my bluetooth stereo headset. For other people the cost of the calls is what's stopping them.
Whatever the reason it isn't technical, if I select a number in my contact list my Nokia will ask if I want to make a voice or video call. This iPhone "feature" like so many others isn't new or revolutionary.
Video calling is simply redundant in Britain. Wherever you are, you can simply say: "Mr. Policeman, could you please forward a copy of this surveillance footage to Mr. So-and-so?"
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Why Video Calling Is a Wasted Feature In the UK
Is a wasted feature in most of the world, for most of the people most of the time. A grandma can want to video talk with her grandchildren, and in business settings can be also very useful, but for most of the people, most of the time, video just get in the way. My wife is now talking with her brother, that lives in other country, and they could video talk, but who wants to. She is playing MahJong while talking, and the brother is packing a suitcase (he has a headphone), so video would just be a damned nuisance.
My point is, if from the beginning of phoning, all calls had been video calls, we'd welcome the option of just-voice calls as a big liberation.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Seriously, I could've guessed this after reading this
http://www.amazon.com/Watching-English-Hidden-Rules-Behaviour/dp/0340818867
This is essentially a birdwatching guide fort the English, which the author finds horrifying, but there it is.
I can video call, so can my brother, sister and parents. We don't video call each other. My sister's year old kid, though, we all video call him and make silly noises and pull faces. He loves it. (And tries to eat the laptop, ah well!)
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
Affordable video calling is a godsend to deaf people. I've seen folks signing to their video phones. It's not ideal since one usually needs to use both hands, so the phone has to sit on a table or some such, but still.
Ericsson tried landline video phones in some Swedish cities during the early 70's. People hated them. There were some scholarly work done about the psychology behind, maybe Steve Jobs should read those.
But then again. Mobile video calls have been very popular among the Scandinavian deafs and mutes since the early 90's. So there may be a unexplored market in the US and GB, albeit small.
Oh don't worry about facebook, to me it's just a useful way to not lose any e-mail addresses & get a somewhat prompt reaction. I DO post stuff I find thought provoking there, and yes, the average reaction is less than the conversations on sushi. But hey, that may have something to do with time. A short comment on s.o.`s sushi is maybe just a way to "connect" again without having any points to argue about.
About video telephony - you might just want to read David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest". Somewhere in the first 250 pages, there's a lenghty piece about the reasons why video telephony didn't take off (the book is set in a not too distant future, probably our present, but was published in 1996). The basic argument is that video telephony is stressful because it destroys the illusion of a telephone call, i.e. the illusion on both sides of attentiveness clashing with the reality that in fact, most of the time, both sides of a telephone conversation are completely distracted by other things or simply not "presentable" enough to be shown on video.
I think the problem with phones is multitasking. I'm often talking on the phone while looking at something else, working on something else, reading, attending to my kids, heck, even going to the bathroom if I'm really feeling the urge and think I can get away with it. People will feel guiltier if their friends can see you're not giving them you're undivided attention.
With a computer, it's not QUITE as noticeable if you're also surfing while chatting (though you CAN still tell if you pay attention or if you're noisily typing away) but it's still a bit of a problem.
This video conferencing hasn't taken off in australia either, i think it's because the cost of use, why would you pay a few times more for something which doesn't really have a significant use, apart from the novelty of it.
Theres also the fact that australian telco's really charge a lot for mobile phone stuff, anything other than standard text and talk is really expensive.
Given that there are plenty of YouTube submissions from the UK I suspect the broad generalizations painted in the article are unrealistic. Also I have found some younger Brits to be culturally different in attitude(and wit!) than 30-something and older Brits.
I suspect cell phone video conference will not be widely adopted for other reasons. Mostly revolving around obvious things like convenience. Texting is convenient because you can do it more discreetly than a voice call, which explains its huge popularity with teenagers. Parents and teachers can't overhear a texting conversation, but they could overhear a video call.
I suspect video calls will mainly be used by horny teenagers so they can expose themselves to other horny teenagers.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
There's no bonus to video calling and an extra cost in effort.
Seeing their facial expressions on the phone might help with communication, but only to an extent that nobody really gives a fuck about.
The effort of having to hold the camera at your face is just a pain, not to mention you wouldn't really want strangers looking at you at all and sometimes not even friends over the phone.
Its a dumb feature, and is only cool in sci fi movies.
A video call means you've got to stop whatever else you're doing and give your whole attention to the call, look at the person calling etc. I can see my dad loving this for chats to his distant and much loved granddaughters, I can see lovers enjoying being able to look into their loved ones eyes. Hey, just analyse when people video skype each other rather than audio skype and ask what the affordances are there.
For most of the time voice calls are about communicating a message, or negotiating a communication, rather than enjoying the other person's presence. If the call is about communicating a message then sometimes its more efficient to do it on a voice only call which can be made while I am walking to the shops, at my desk sorting out some paperwork, carrying out other such small jobs where I don't want to be occupied with holding a camera so it points at my face.
I am not sure these are specifically British concerns? interested to hear what other folks might think from other countries....
Now we can buy them one!
Seriously, I think that this implementation of video calling has some major advantages over others:
1. You have the device with you all the time and it is ready to go with no preamble.
Other solutions (like Skype) require special equipment (a computer with video capabilities) and tie you down while you use them.
2. Having the second camera to show people what you see is actually pretty neat.
3. As with all things Apple, I suspect they have found the magic combination of physical hardware and targeted software that will make using their video phone a delight.
Bruce A. Knack
Silicon Surfers
I've seen at least a couple of deaf-mutes using video calls on the bus. I was quite happy to see technology used for something useful.
"unlikely to start making lots of video calls"
If you come from the flash based broadcast/IM with web cam experience, this is just what you want.
What is holding back to video networking beyond Apple's wifi/Apple to Apple like limits/lock down and your average telco's bandwidth rustbelt upgrade cycle?
Should a mobile device have flash support for any website to stream to/from, cam support for yahoo, msn, skype, voip, open ip and encryption support eg zfone?
ie a real computer made small with a dumb packet pipe to the outside world via any software developer, open or closed.
I dont think the problem is the "video calls" aspect, it seems to be the dream of a walled cash stream for 'upgraded' video functionality.
Telcos missed VOIP and data control, they are not going to let video streams escape a good profit taking.
When your telco has a per month lock in video call plan expect to see a talking points like flood of pundits, authors, celebs, presenters, photogenic nerds ect. screaming about the new, innovative must have video chat 'apps'.
Until then its a media holding patten to prevent talk of any video functionality gap.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
...most women won't use any sort of video chat unless they've done their hair and put their makeup on first.
"Take video calling on the iPhone 4 for example"
Videocalls where supposed to be the killer app for 3G phones. As someone already said, this was in 2002/2003. This was not accepted because of the same reason because SMS are popular. SMS are cheap, fast and more impersonal.
If it weren't data plans and social networking, UMTS still it would be serving voice and sms.
Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
sociocultural influences ... pitched ... inject the most bile ... wryly witty ... to put it in sweepingly generic Internet terms.'"
what's the word, pedantic? overly british? snob?
I thought the same living in my tech bubble in San Diego before the economy broke. It's easy too look down on things when you and everybody you know don't use it but after moving home while I catch up on bills I'm suddenly finding myself emerged in regular peoples lives. So I set up an account, mostly still ignoring it. There's a lot of senseless crap to it, that's true, but it is pretty customizable and all the device and other cross-integration does make it pretty convenient, even a little useful.
;-)
But when I realized I could casually hook up with old friends and acquaintances I began to understand it. There's nothing particularly 'me generation' about it because it augments rather then supplants real conversion. The landscape is actually richer for it, it provides small peaks at what might be going on, chat still works well for one-on-one or even many, but depending on the level of intimacy involved texts, phone-calls, drinks, dinner and all the rest still apply, just like they always did.
I don't mind seeing that a buddy of mine is off on a road-trip. He doesn't have to tell me every tiny detail of his life, but if I'm bored or it's a timothy day on Slashdot it's nice to have something with things/people I care about to poke in on. Or share a little something I might not have.
Sure there are kids who think it's some kind of friend manufacturing machine, but there were always people like that. And you know what, some of your friends send stupid shit, but you probably already knew that about them, don't blame facebook!
And just because you think X is super interesting, depending on the diversity of your group you might be a little let down. I put up a remix recently I'd done in a day, turned out great, but my friends and family don't even really understand what it is, I get one or two hits and no comments. But if I wanted praise I should have picked my audience.
People are always talking about technology X as being the next social downfall, but I'm just not seeing that apply realistically with facebook. It's not a perfect platform, but it's helping people bridge a little distance. Families staying a little closer. Old friends picking up on each others lives. It's casual communication at it's finest, but it can be whatever you decide to make of it.
My advice is to not add anybody and everyone. Just the people *you* want to hear from. It's a lot nicer that way. And don't feel obliged to do anything with it. If I don't have anything to say so be it.
The one down-side is I'm realizing I'm going to have to start taking a trips and visit old friends more often. That means actually taking vacations. Soon hell will be freezing over and then we'll all be in for it.
Quack, quack.
Although I've had video calls in my phone for the last 3-years I've used it only a few times. Those few times have been on special occasions and the video certainly wasn't of my ugly mug. Still the few times actually made having video calls worth while.
The problem as I see it is that on a video call, you can't hold your phone to your ear.
That then means that you have to have it on loudspeaker (not acceptable when anyone else is around), or you have to have a headset plugged in.
Frankly, paying extra, making sure you look OK, and putting on a headset for a call is just not worth it.
We're just conditioned to hold a phone to our head when we ring someone, and I think that is part of why video calling isn't taking off.
Bandwidth is a big problem too - and most of the networks in the UK are cutting back on their unlimited data deals because they can't cope with the traffic.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I had video calling on my last phone, here in Korea most phones support the capability.
Basically, it's not very useful for any actual communication but it can be fun. It's definitely a novelty the first couple of times you use it and occasionally fun after that (usually when drinking). I would say that most people use the front facing camera to take self photos, it's certainly a lot more convenient then trying to position a camera with only a rear facing camera.
Yay me! ^^
British Dentists?
We've been here before, when 3G first came out in 2003 Video Calling was supposed to be the big selling point, but it never caught on (possibly because it was much more expensive than voice calling, possibly because people didn't actually want to see each other on the phone!)
Of course all the Apple hipsters will probably want to video call all their friends straight away to show off their new Iphone 4s, but will video calling actually last this time?
Here's one of the original Three video calling adverts.
http://www.visit4info.com/advert/3-Mobile-Video-Calling-Hutchison-3G-Network/8771
Video calling has been around for a long time, at least 10 years or so. It has never taken off before. Perhaps that will change now that the iPhone has it.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
blah blah, videophones. It's pretty obvious why no-one does video calls. Who wants to look at pictures of the other guys earhole?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I've been loving skype chat. It lets my mum see my baby daughter and talk to her, even though we are on opposite sides of the globe.
Yeah, but they charge money, so we tend not to bother until we have a toothache.
Yeah, but Americans would be too fat to get in the chair.
Yadda Yadda. Yawn.
Yeah, but Americans would be too fat to get in the chair.
Don't be silly. Are you *seriously* suggesting that the average American's weight means they can't get dental care?
That's what their dentists have elephant-sized chairs and reinforced flooring for!
Anyway, we couldn't get a photograph of this American's artificially-whitened teeth because the glare overloaded the camera every time she opened her mouth, but trust me, they're lovely!
Skype alone, has more than 10 million users. That is small compared to world-wide voice users, but 10 million is not a number that can be dismissed. My wife uses Skype with voice and video and spends about an hour per day talking to family and friends.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
this has been covered. move along.
Without meaning to upset anyone, the article and a lot of the posts in this thread show an incredible lack of imagination.
FaceTime is one of the biggest selling points of the iPhone 4 for me. The feature isn't ready for me yet, but I've no doubt it will be before too long. I want to see my children when I'm away from home. I want to show them the stuff that I see (well, some of it). Right now, I have an iPhone; my wife doesn't and needless to say my little boys don't either, but when the feature is opened up to a desktop client I'll use it a lot. Hell, this is the kind of functionality that would convince me to buy the next generation iPad.
I don't think that anyone is claiming that video calls will overtake or replace voice calls - picture messages haven't overtaken or replaced text messages, but they're a great addition to communication. A picture paints a thousand words or something...
And no, Apple haven't invented video calling, but it does look like a simple implementation and they've made it clear that they will build on what they have right now. If they can keep it to existing data contracts without incurring the traditional 50p/min+ charges, it will be the most successful implementation of the technology so far. My last phone had video calling, but network and handset compatibility issues prevented me from even trying out the technology with the limited pool of people I knew who also had the feature.
I've had a phone with a web browser for about five years. I've only started browsing the web on my phone since I got an iPhone 3G. Just look at the quality of web experience you get on an iPhone or any one of the Android phones - it's all about the implementation and it looks like Apple may get it right again with FaceTime.
And if the idea of spending 'FaceTime' with you kids doesn't excite you, think about the first time you manage to persuade your missus to flash you some 'BoobTime'... Can't wait.
Dont you remember toothing?
meep
There new low data cap are the real killer there!
It's not the teeth.
What an unattractive lot. The average Briton of Anglo/European extraction is a creature of unfortunate appearance. There is nothing quite like walking down a street in Warwick, Birmingham or Manchester, in producing a disappointment for the eyes. Just short of being actually ugly, the bulk of our folk are merely unpleasant. This too, is probably because extremes are un-British.
One out of a thousand is a real swan - if you go for the pale-skin thing.
London is where it is at for beauty. We have the world's finest imports, casually, at nearly every turn. The beautiful people that England - in particular- has attracted through the virtue of colonial heritage? They are what turns the head, on a West London street. Hello, Leona Lewis!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
How can people's memories be so short? Video calling was all the rage 3 years ago with Sprint Vision phones and many others with front-facing cameras. Guess what, it was a massive failure, for many reasons. For one, people talk on the phone while doing other things, they don't want to have to hold a phone in front of their face 9stupid reality TV speaker-phone calls aside). For two, no one wants to see you answer the phone in your boxers on Sunday morning.
Wrapping their protective arms around tradition in this unpleasant era of overly-rapid change. Milton and Keats don't carry quite the same punch on YouTube, I'm afraid.
My last two Nokias (E-series) and my Sony-Ericsson (K600) from the last half decade have all had video calling. Why this is suddenly new and exciting when Apple finally catches up with the rest of the phone manufacturers with a crippled version of this feature continues to baffle me. ...almost as much as to why US carriers continue to not support it.
But the Jamaicans have sent all their ugly girls to Tottenham!
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame. "
Why does that sound familiar? It seems that everyone here has fallen into the same habit except this time they are knocking Apple for including a feature rather than excluding one. There are two assumptions that are being made here that need some examination.
How many here have relatives that they like to see more often? Grandchildren? Anybody here deaf or need to sign with others? Remember Apple doesn't design products for geeks; they design them for consumers. I wouldn't say everyone but there are lots who would use it.
Video conferencing has been around for a while. They are present on 3G networks now. But the real question is why no one uses it today. Not counting those that exist on cell phones, video conferencing requires equipment and setup. Dedicated equipment costs money. Computer to computer requires setup which can be complex and cumbersome. Now taking a feature and making it mind-numbingly easy is just the thing Apple is good at. From the demo, it appears that to enter in and out of video conferencing is one button if you're making a call.
Apple isn't an innovator because they invent technology; they are considered innovators because they bring that technology to the masses. The idea of digital portable music preceded Apple by many years. Having owned a Diamond Rio PMP, I can say that while it was functional to use, it wasn't easy to use. The iPod didn't have many more features than the Rio, but iTunes replaced the four different software programs I required to use the Rio, and everything was nicely integrating. Every primary function like getting music onto my computer and onto my MP3 player was reduced to as few steps as possible. That's innovation to the average consumer.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
ya know.. as a canadian, i love many things about the brits: the music, the literature, the history.. it is all rich - but what i've never understood is this seemingly ingrained tendency to always want to put people down in clever ways - WTF!?!?
Cor, there 'int a few!
But Keisha White, I regard as fair compensation. She might actually have me supporting the Spurs!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Nobody wants video calling.
It's been out for years. Nobody wants it.
PS. And there's one interesting twist related to what you said. Name of the new iPhone wasn't really thought out, when it comes to one of the most dynamically growing markets
One that hath name thou can not otter
...it’s just that you’re so ugly that you’re ashamed. ;)
I mean who wants to look at that b-e-a-utiful teethwork? Or the wonderful curvature of those two-ton cheeks?
Now of course you can also attack my country, but then I’d have to show you this: http://navid.radiantempire.com/pix/Lustiges/deutschland_fick_ja.jpg :D
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Hm, as long as that's mostly England and not Britain...(?)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Since the World Cup in the 90's, the distance between these has ever grown!
Some good lookin' Scottish girls!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Would there be some cause and effect relation between that and the World Cup? O_o
One that hath name thou can not otter
Now that has been replaced by an even MORE in-personal way of communicating
You mean "impersonal"?
Maybe this whole thing is indicitive of something else, but I think it caters too much to the "me" generation... What are we calling them? Gen Z? I'll tell you right now, Gen Z doesn't want to look at people when they are talking to them, so good luck there apple - I think you just wasted money.
I'm not going to argue with your anti-Facebook stuff, but here's the thing: it's probably not too much of a waste for Apple even if it's not heavily used. The front-facing camera isn't too expensive, and it allows for other possibilities beyond video chat. For example, it would make it easier to take a picture of yourself and post it on Facebook. (perfect for the "me" generation!)
Down the road, it could lead to even more interesting stuff. Like, I don't know... eye tracking. I suspect eye tracking will eventually become a common part of UI, where the computer will know what you're looking at and therefore be better able to read your intention. Nothing like that will exist in this iPhone, but these things happen in increments. Pretty much all of Apple's stuff already has a camera pointed at the user, so it's not unreasonable to think that Apple might be experimenting with these sorts of things.
It seems to me that its all an issue of how much privacy you want at the moment. Texting is currently popular with teenagers precisely because it is so discrete. It isn't convenient, nor fast, nor cheap. Its just quiet. You can have a conversation with your GF/BF in front of your parents and they are clueless.
A voice call is a bit more public. Everyone around can hear what you are saying, and often what they are saying. It is, however, faster and cheaper.
A video call is the most intimate of all. Its not just what you are saying, but what you are doing and how you are dressed. It is just as fast as a video call (once you get both sides to figure out how to do it) but it is more expensive. It is also something you definitely don't do at the dinner table.
There are of course times when video calls are nice, but it has to be a mutual agreement for a focused and usually lengthy conversation in a private setting.
Nobody wants to get dressed up to answer the phone.
Eureka, Sheriff Carter, shower, video call. Nuff said!
This might be a good feature if say the porn aspects are hyped a bit. But seriously, didn't Bell try out video phones back in the 1960's and they learned a few things. First was not everybody wanted to be seen, second was they'd have had to build a completely different switching network for the video signals. Hideously expensive.
We've pretty much abolished the latter fact. Just did a job interview using a Tandberg system. Really nice. Clear sound, video, etc. As I noted to the interviewer it was a shame that there wasn't a tactile feedback unit we could shake hands.
This article is utter garbage. Poorly thought out, poorly written. Timothy, by letting this tripe through you have proven once again that you are far and away the WORST gatekeeper on Slashdot.
Just used it twice, to find someone in a crowded concert where music made hearing impossible.
And that was four years ago!
It's very easy to make a video call: you find the contact in the address book, and instead of pressing Menu--Call or Menu--Message, you press Menu--Video Call. Still no one uses it.
Why would you when you don't know if the other end supports it?
For iOS it will only show up when the other party is in a position to receive the call (has an iPhone 4 and is connected to WiFi).
And yes that is a large enough difference to drive adoption, because you know when you press the button it will work instead of telling you, yet again, what an idiot you are for pressing a menu on your phone instead of just using it for voice.
Other people have noted that Apple rarely innovates more than they refine, and that is true to a point - they figured out why people don't make video calls today and fixed that reason. And open sourced the protocol so that when adoption starts going up, other companies will have to follow suit and it will all be compatible with the standard Apple formed - not the carriers - AND gives no control over the thing to carriers to charge you more.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If video calling is so unpopular, why the hue and cry for a front facing camera on the iPad?
It seems like someone wants to be able to do this, if it's easy enough.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why do Apple keep saying they innovate? Why do fambois like you insist that they merely do a "new style" of "innovation"?
They don't innovate. They market.
EXACTLY like Microsoft did in the 90's and 2000's.
Now, if it only was made in a standards compatible way...
In what way?
Facetime is an open standard, and any application can use the front facing camera video feed if they want - there should be a Skype video caller before too long.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is a standard for videocalling through mobile phones (with hundreds of millions phones already in the wild supporting it) - it's part of UMTS 3G
For whatever reason, carriers are not allowing Apple to do that (or else Facetime would be allowed on 3G and not just WiFi). I'm assuming that the UTMS 3G standard was not up to the level of quality that Apple wanted out of video calls, or of operation.
When the standards are poor, new ones are made - it's not just Apple that does that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley