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.'"
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
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
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
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