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.'"
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 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
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".
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
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.
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
Maybe the reason it didn't work for them is, from your description, it seems that they felt compelled to use it every time in place of phone conversation instead of when it makes sense. Eat pizza at absolutely every meal, whether lunch, dinner, breakfast - and you'd get sick of it too.
Video Calls will make sense on the holidays like Christmas, Thanksgiving, Mother's Day, birthday, etcetera. They'll also make sense on other occasions perhaps when the boss wants to talk to you and be assured he has your full attention.
But a complete replacement for a phone call it is not. But then most people don't know what a phone call is either, so it's no surprise they failed at video calls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrBtSz5RReM
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 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.
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
I swear my first thought when reading this summary was "Of course, NHS dentistry!"
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.
Front facing cameras and video conferencing have been on almost every 3G capable phone since circa 2003.
It has never really taken off in the UK, it is cool to show someone something, but it costs 50p per minute, so people have never bothered.
"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
It's actually quite a bit cheaper now. I looked at the prices a few month ago, and it was only slightly more expensive to make an in-network video call than a voice call. My last two phones have both supported it, but I've never used it.
The problem with video calling rom a mobile phone is that a mobile phone is, well, mobile. You use it while walking around. Even in your own house, you don't often sit or stand still somewhere and make a call. This completely messes up video calling.
The problem with video calling in general is that you need to be awake, dressed, and looking approximately human to use it. My current laptop has a front-facing camera too, but the only time that I've used it for videoconferencing (which, unlike the iPhone version, is completely free) has been to connect remote people to someone giving a talk. Even when I had a long-distance girlfriend, we rarely used video calls, because you can leave a voice call on speaker in the background, but having a video of a person's head seems weird and makes it seem rude if you get up from the computer for a bit.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
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! ^^
How can you blame something which, essentialy, doesn't exist?
FGD 135
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
Front facing cameras and video conferencing have been on almost every 3G capable phone since circa 2003.
Yes, but it's entirely new and worthy of discussion when the sodding iPhone adds that feature.
It has never really taken off in the UK, it is cool to show someone something, but it costs 50p per minute, so people have never bothered.
While the price is probably an issue, I think the cultural and practical reasons given in the article and elsewhere in the thread- which have been mostly known for *years*- are the primary cause.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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.
Nobody wants video calling.
It's been out for years. Nobody wants it.
yeah, totally. Nokia has the video calling space sown up. What is Apple thinking? Don't they know they can't just jump into a technology space where they weren't first, and just take over with superior marketing, software and hardware, stealing large percentages of their competitors sales? oh... wait a second...
The Admin and the Engineer